L O N D O N O R IE N T A L S E R IE S • V O L U M E 7

THE
gandhari
DHARMAPADA
E D IT E D
W IT H AN IN T R O D U C T IO N AND COM M EN TARY
BY

JO H N B R O U G H
P r o fe ss o r o f S a n s k r it in th e U n iv er sity o f 'L ondon

LO N D O N
O X FO R D U N IV E R S IT Y PR ESS
NEW YORK TORONTO
1962
Oxford Umierstty Press, Amen House, London C C 4
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MSLBOVRNB WELLINGTON
COMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE CICCA
CAPETOWN SALISBURY NAIROBI IBU5\N ACCRA
KUALA LUMPUR H(?NC KONC

© John Brough 1962

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITA IN

AT THE U M V E R S IT Y PR ESS OXFORD
BY VIVIAN flID LER
PRINTER. TO T R E U N IVETtSITy
And now they thinke o f new ingredients:
And one Soule thinkes one, and another way
Another thinkes, and ’tis an even lay.

Wee see in Authors, too stiffe to recant,

A hundred controversies o f an Ant;
And yet one watches, starves, freeses, and sweats,
To know but Catechismes and Alphabets
O f unconceming things, matters o f fact.

J O H N D O N N E : T h e S e c o n d A n n iv ersa ry
 CONTEN TS
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS vm

PREFACE

IN T R O D U C T IO N 1

PART I THE MANUSCRIPT; AND THE TEXT

I Discovery of the manuscript and publication 2

n Extant parts and their arrangement 8
Division, and missing parts
Estimated length of the complete text
Hi General relationships -uvth Pak Dhammapada and Udanavm ga 23

Possibility of a ‘primitive Dhetmapada'

Canonical status
iv. Other Dharmapada texts 34
Dharmatrata and the Udanavarga
Buddhas arm an

v Affiliation of the G3ndharl text 41

A Muh-sarvastivadin criticism
vi The Gandhar! language 48
E\idence from Chinese transcriptions

PART II PALAEOGRAPHICAL AND GRAMM ATICAL 55

(f ») hha (§ 3), gha, ga (§ 4) i a . ia (§ 5)1 Ja (§ 6). ' (§1 6 «, b), (S 7h fa
($8) fa (§ q), Jd 10) >gga n ) , tfca ($ ia')> ia, ¡a (§ 13), anustara and. w-cocyunctS
(j 14), tnnt {§ x5)• k}a (§ 16), tsa (§ 17), sta, tha, {ha, fha (§ iS ) . tra, dra, tia , dta
« 19)
Vo\sels 20-27) 79
j/f, m/o a t) , 0 for a (§ 22), patataliwtiori, f, t for a (§ zza) and conversely (§ 13),
'ocfllic weakening (§ 24) and labialization (§§ 23, 26), contraction of syllables (§ 27)
Consonants (§§ 28-64) 84.
Intenocahc unaspirated ($| 30ff), k, g (§ 31), e, j (§32), /, d (§33), p, b (§ 34),
10-M o- I I 35), m!v (§ 36) y (5 37). hly (1 38), hh!*\\i (§ 30)
Aspirated (55 4 o f f) v kh.gh ($41) th,d]t(§ 42), 43* ). rid <$ 436), fc?i (§ 44)
rt, n (§ 45), nasal plus stop (§f 46-48), interchange o f aspirated and unaspirated (§ 49),
tibiUnt» (§
Consonant clusten ($$ 51 fT), hf (f 51), m t m > t i , tt> (5 53) tp (| 54), n>, iv (§ 5s),
i r > l <5 SM* ir (§ 57). r t> t (f 58), f y > i (§ 59), {{, it (§ 6t ,).h y > i (§ 6 1),j r , dv ($ $*),
«At > U (5 63), nwttth««« (1 64)
 CONTENTS
Compound-juncture and encKsis (§§ 65-73) 106
ut- (§ 65); variation between open and close juncture (§ 66); enclitic particles (§§ 67,
68); pum r (§ 69); ca (§ 70); viva (§ 71); proclitic na (§ 72); ¿jnrca'iia-compounds (§ 73)

Inflexion (§§ 74-80) i *3

-a stems (§ 75); -e for -0, -aip (§§ 76, 77); -in stems (§ 78); optatives (§ 79); absolu-
tives (§ 80)

TE X T
1. Brahmaija 119 xiii. Yamaka 151
11. Bhiksu 126 xiv. Pandita iJ 5
ill. Trsna 132 xv. Bahuéruta 15S
IV. Papa [Lost] xvi. Prakir^aka (?) 160
v. Arhant [Lost] xvii. Krodha 163
vi. Marga 133 xviii. Puspa
v ii. Apramada *35 xix. Sahasra 167
vni. Citta 139 xx. álla (?) 170
ix. Bala [Lost] xxi. Kftya (?) 172
X. Jara 141 xxii. Nlga, or Asva (?) *7 4

xi. Sukha 145 x xiii-xxvi. [Lost]

X ii . Sthavira 148

COM M ENTARY 177

CONCORDANCES 283

i. Manuscript lines to verses

11. Pali Dhammapada
in.

INDICES

I. Text
ir. Other words cited
h i. Pali gathSs

PLATES at end
 BIBLIOGRAPHY AN D ABBREVIATION S
I DHARMAPADA
z S O ld en b u r g np eaca p iiT eib R an aawkTKa o GyaaificKOfi p yK o n n c a, nansicatiBOß
Dnct>Heaauu kharo?thi St Petersburg, 1897
2 E S en « t C dm ptesrenduadePAcadem iedesInscnpUons, jv* sène, tome x x v ,p p 251 ff
3 E S ex art Proceedings of the X lt h International Congress o f Orientalists, Pana, 1897,
voi i, pp 1 -7
4 E S en AKT L e manuscrit kharosthi du Dhammapada les fragments D utreuil de Rhins
Journal Asiattque, neuvieme sene, tome xu, pp 193-308, 5 plates (Additional note,
ib id , pp 545-48) Pans, 1898 [Transliterated text o f the P a m parts o f the manuscript,
Pali parallels, and notes]
5 H Luders Bemerkungen zu dem Kharosthi Manuskript des Dhammapada Nachrichten
der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu GStUngett, 1899, tv>PP 474~94
6 R O t t o F r a n k e Zum Manuskript Dutreuil de Rhins Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
landtschen Gesellschaft, Band 60, 1906, p p 4 77-5 H
7 J ules B lo c h Le dialecte des fragments Dutreuil de Rhins Journal Astatique, dixieme
sène, tome xix, pp 331-37 Paris, 1912 [Being based on Sem rt’s transcription, this
discussion is now inadequate in many respects ]
8 S t e v K o n o w Bemerkungen über die Kharosthi-Handschnft des Dhammapada Fest-
Schrift Ernst Wtndtsch sum siebzigsten Geburtstag dargtbracht, Leipzig, 1914, pp 85—97
9 B eniWadhab Barua and S a ilen d r am th M itra Prakrit Dhammapada, based upon M
Senart 3 Kharo^hi manuscript, with text, translation and notes U niversity of Calcutta,
1921
10 Sten K o s o w T he Oldenburg folio o f the Kharosthi Dhammapada Acta Orientalta,
voi xix i, 1943, pp 7-20
ir H W B a il e y T he Khotan Dharmapada Bulletin of the School o f Oriental and African
Stuftet, voi xt, 1945 pp 488-512 [A. new reading and glossary of A , B , C , and 0 , con­
fined to the parts accessible in published facsimiles ]

11 G Ä N D H Ä R I SO U R CE S (other than the Dharmapada)

12 Aiokan Inscriptions (Kharosthi versions Shahbazgarhi and Manaehra) Corpus Inscrip*
tsonum Indicarum, volume 1, new edition ed E Hultzsch T h e Inscriptions o f Asoka,
Oxford, 1925 [With facsimiles]
13 Idem Les inscriptions d’Asoka, ttaduites et comnventees, pax Jules Bloch, P a ia , 1950
[With parallel texts and linguistic introduction]
14 Post-AiokanInscriptions C orp usInscriptionum lndicanim ,volum eu,parti Kharoshthl
Inscriptions, with the exception of those of Aéofca with one dap and 36 plates, ed Sten
Konow Gq\wictwm öl Inda, Calcutta, 1929
15 Niya Documents Rharostfil Inscriptions [i e documents] discovered by Sir Aurel Stein
at the N ip , Endete, and Lou lan Sites, transcribed and edited by A M Boyer, E J
Rapson, E Senart, and P S N oble, w ith complete Index Vetbocum Oxford, 1920,
192?, 1929
(Palacographical) T h e Khato^M Alphabet of Chinese Turkestan E J Rapson, m pre­
ceding, ^ol 111, pp 295-322
 B IB L IO G R A P H Y A N D A B B R E V IA T IO N S

(Grammar) T h e Language o f the Kharosthi Documents from Chinese Turkestan:

T . Burrow. Cambridge, 1937.
(Translation) A Translation o f the Kharosthi Documents from Chinese Turkestan: T .
Burrow. (James G . Forlong Fund, vol. xx). T he Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1940.
III. P A L I D H A M M A P A D A
16. Dhammapadam : E x tribus codidbus Hauniensibus patice edidit, latine vertit, excerptis ex
commentario palico notisque illustravit V . Fausbell. [Copenhagen,] 1855. [Edith
princeps.) Second edition (text and Latin translation only), London, igoo.
17. Dhammapada. Pali T ex t Society’s edition, London, 1914.
18. Dhammapadafthakathi. T he Commentary on the Dhammapada, ed. H. C. Norman.
[4 volumes.] Pali T ex t Society, London, 1906-14.
19. T he Dhammapada : Acoliection o f verses, being one of the canonical books of the Buddhists.
Translated from Pâli by F . M ax Müller. (Sacred Books o f the East, volume x, part r.)
Oxford, 1881.
20. T he Dhammapada, or ‘ Scriptural Texts’ : a book of Buddhist precepts and maxims,
translated from Pali on the basis o f Burmese manuscripts, by James Gray. Second
edition, Calcutta, 1887.
21. T he Dhammapada, with introductory essays, Pâli text, English translation and notes, by
S. Radhakrishnan. Oxford, 1950.
22. Dines Andersen. A Pali Reader: part II, A Pâli Glossary, including the words o f . . . the
Dhammapada. Copenhagen, 1904-5, 1907.
[And numerous other editions (in essentials, little more than reprints of the vulgate
established by Fausboll’s excellent editio princeps) and translations.]
IV . U D Ä N A V A R G A
23. Chapters i-iii, v-xxL L'Udànavarga sanskrit: texte sanscrit en transcription, avec traduc­
tion et annotations . . . Tome premier (Chapitres I à X X I), ed. N . P. Chakravarti.
(Mission Pelliot en Asie Centrale . . . tome IV.) Paris, 1930. [No more published.]
24. Chapter iv. L ’Âpramâda-varga: étude sur les recensions des Dbannapadas, par Sylvain
LévL (Documente de l’Asie centrale— Mission Pelliot.) Journal Asiatique, dixième
série, tome xx, pp. 203-94. Paris, 19x2. [Sanskrit text, compared with Tibetan transla­
tion and Chinese versions.]
25. Chapter xxix. D ie Turfan-Recensionen des Dhammapada, von R. Pischel: Sitzungs­
berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phü.-hist. Classe, 1908,
pp. 968-85. [Contains also a few verses from other chapters.]
26. Chapters Tgji, i , 2, and xxix-xxxii. Documents sanscrits de la seconde collection M . A.
Stein: C H vil, o o ia , Fragments de l’Udânavarga de Dharmatrâta, par L . de la Vallée
Poussin. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 19 12 ,1, pp. 355-77. [Contains also parts
o f chapters i, H, xii, xiii, xxi, which were utilized by Chakravarti: see above, no 23.]
27. (Tibetan.) Udänavarga: eine Sammlung buddhistischer Sprüche in tibetischer Sprache,
nach dem Kanjur und Tanjur hcrausgegeben von Hermann Beckh. Berlin, 1911.
28. Udänavarga: a collection o f verses from the Buddhist canon, compiled by Dharmatrâta,
being the northern Buddhist version o f Dhammapada. Translated from the T ibetan. . .
by W . Woodville Rockhill. (Triibner’s Oriental Series.) London, 1892.
29. (Kuchean.) Tocharische Sprachreste : Sprache B, herausgegeben von E . Sieg und W.
Siegling. Heft i : Die UdänäIank3ra»Fragmcnte. [Contains a few of the Sanskrit verses
in footnotes, from the (unpublished) edition by H. Lüders.] Heft 2: Fragmente 71-633.
Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Werner Thomas. Göttingen, 1949,1953.
 b ib l io g r a p h y a n d a b b r e v ia t io n s

V OTHER W ORKS
30 H W Bailey Gändhan Bulletin of the Sckool o f Oriental and African Studies, xt, 1946,
PP 7 64-97
$1 Andre Bateau Les Sectes bouddhiques du Peut Véhiculé [Publications de l'Ëcole
française d Extreme-Orient, volume xxxvui ) Saigon, 1955
3z T Burfow T h e Dialectical Position o f the N iya P raknt Bulletin o f the School o f Oriental
Studies, v i 11, 1936, pp 4 1 9 —35
33 S Konow Note on the Ancient North-Western Prakrit Bulletin o f ths School o f Oriental
Studies, viti 1936, pp 603-12
34 S Konow Notes on the Central Asian K larosjh i Documenta Acta Ortentaha, xix, 1943,
PP 65-78
35 E Larnotte Histoire du Bouddhisme mdien (volume i] des origines a l « e Saka (Biblio­
thèque du Muséon, vol 43) Louvain, 1958
36 H Luders Beobachtungen über die Sprache des buddhistischen Urkanons aus dem
Nachlass herausgegebenvonErnst Waldschmidt {Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie
der Wissenschaften su B trhn) Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1954
37 T W Rhys Davids The Gosmga Kharosthi M S Journal o f the Ro^al Asiatic Society,
1899 pp 426-8
38 F W Thomas Some words found in Central Asian Documents Bulletin of the School of
Oriental Studies, vm 1936, pp 789-94
39 L delà Vallee Poussin Essai d identification Aesgâthâs et des udanas en prose de 1 Udana-
varga de Dharmatrata Journal Asiatique, dmerne série, tome xix, 1912, pp 311-30
40 E Waldschnudt Bruchstücke buddhistischer Sutras ¿us dem zentralasiatiscften. SansUnt-
Kanon 1 (Königlich Preussische Turfan Expeditionen Kleinere Sanskrit*Tcxte,
Heft IV ) Leipzig 1932

Where no further indication is given in the context, the names o f authors, refer to the folkwnng
works
Barua and Mitra Bibliography, no 9
Beckh Ibid no 27
Burrav, Ibvd no 15
Chakravarti Ibid no 23
Desgodins Dictionnaire thibetsm-Iattn franfais par les mssionnJires cathobijues
du Thibet [Desgodins and others] Hongkong 1899
ïausJMtt ^AVdOgtapViy, no 16
Franke Ibid no 6
Geiger Pali Literatur und Sprache, von Wilhelm Geiger Abschnitt II Gramma­
tik des Pali (Grundriss der mdo arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde,
1 7) Strassburg 1916
Jaschke A Tibetan-English Dictionary by H A Jaschke London 1881
[Reprinted 1934 ]
Levi Bibliography, no 24
Luders U M Ta ^
Lude», BSU Ibid no 36
Fischel (page reference) Ibid no 25
Pischel (§ reference) Grammatik, der Prakiit Sprachen, von R Pischel (Grundriss der
mdo arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, i 8) Strassburg, 1900
 B IB L IO G R A P H Y A N D A B B R E V IA T IO N S
Radhakrishnan Bibliography, no. 21.
Rockhill Ibid. no. 28.
Senart Ibid. no. 4.
Sheth Paia-sadda-mahannavo. A comprehensive Prairit-Hindi Dictionary. . . by
Hargovind Das T . Sheth. Calcutta, 1928.

AM g. Ardha-magadhi.
Ang. Anguttara-nikaya.
AO Acta Orientalia.
Ap. Apabhramsa.
AvS. Avadana-&taka.
BH SG , BH SD Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, by Franklin Edgertcm.
New Haven, 1953.
BS Buddhist Sanskrit.
BSOAS, B SO S Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (earlier volumes,
Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies).
B SU Bibliography, no. 36.
C II Corpus Inscripiiooum Indicarum (Bibliography, nos. 12,14).
C PD Critical Pali Dictionary, vol. I. Copenhagen, 1924-48.
D. Dlgha-nikaya.
Dhp. Dhammapada. (The abbreviation is reserved for the Pali text.)
DhpA. Commentary on the Pali Dhammapada (Bibliography, no. 18).
Divy. Divyavadana.
GSR B. Karlgren, Grammata Serica Recensa. Stockholm, 1957.
IHQ Indian Historical Quarterly.
It., Id v. Itivuttaka.
JAs. Journal Asiatique.
JaL jataka.
JatM. Jataka-mala.
JPTS Journal o f the Pali T est Society.
JRAS Journal o f the Royal Asiatic Society.
Khot. Indian loan-words in Khotanese te.Tts.
Lv. Lalitavistara.
M, (Asokan reference) Mansehra version of the Aiokan edicts.
M. (Pali reference) Mauhima-nikSya.
MBh. Maha-bharata (references to the ‘Critical Edition’, Poona).
M i l ’. Maba-ksrmBvjbhanga, ed. S. Ldvi. Paris, 1932.
M v. Mahavastu.
M vy. Mahavyutpatti.
NAW G Nachrichten der Akademie der Wiesenschaften in Gottingen.
Netti. Nettipakarana.
Niya Bibliography, no. 15.
P. Pali.
P. (with Ud5navarga reference) Verse number in Pischel’s edition of Chapter
xxix (Bibliography, no. 25).
PTS Pali Text Society.
P T SD The Pali Text Society’s Pali-Engtish Dictionary.
XU B IB L IO G R A P H Y A N D A B B R E V IA T IO N S

R Verse number in Rockhill s translation o f the Udànavarga (Bibliography,

no 28)
RE Aéokan Rock Edict
RV Rgveda
S Sanskrit
Sam Samyutta-nikäya
Saur éaurasenl
SBAW Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften
Sh Shahbzzgarhi version o f the Aéokan edicts
Sn Sutta mpata
SnA Commentary on the Sutta-mpâta (Paramatthajotikä, ed H Sm ith, P T S)
T Verse number in Beckh’s edition o f the Tibetan translation o f the Udâna-
varga (Bibliography, no 27)
Thert Thengâtha
T hg Theragatha
T tb - T ib Diet Dge bées chos kyi grags pas brtsams pahi brda dag mm tshig gsal ba [A
Tibetan-Tibetan dictionary, by Chos grags, with the addition o f Chinese
renderings ] Peking, 1957
Toch Spr B Bibliography, no 29
TPS Transactions of the Philological Society
Udana (The Pali text is a te d without abbreviation o f title, to avoid confusion with
U v)
Uv Udanavarga
Vin Pali Vinaya
ZD M G Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
 P R E FA C E
h e collection o f Pali ethical verses entitled Dhammapada is one o f the

most widely known of earl}' Buddhist texts. If, in contrast, the Dhama-
pada in the Gândhârï Prakrit has won scant attention, this is not
altogether due to the adventitious authority of the Pali canon which over­
shadowed this small remnant from the literature of another sect. There has
indeed been a constantly increasing awareness of the importance of compara­
tive studies o f the Theravada texts with those o f other schools. But the dislo­
cated portions of the Gândhârï Dharmapada hitherto published did not
provide sufficient evidence to disclose the structure of the text as a whole; and
further worlc was undoubtedly inhibited by the knowledge that, in addition
to the ‘Ms. Dutreuil de Rhins’ published by Senart in 1898, another part of
the same manuscript remained unpublished in Leningrad.
Th e opportunity of studying and editing this unpublished material was
therefore most welcome ; and I wish to thank the Academy of Sciences o f the
U S S R for the co-operative spirit in which they permitted me the use of
photographs of the part of the manuscript in their custodianship in Lenin­
grad. In this matter I have an especial debt of gratitude to my colleague
Professor D . S. Rice, who himself photographed the manuscript, and made
for me enlargements of admirable quality.
It seemed then opportune to consider an edition which should unite in one
volume the new materials and the parts of the text previously published.
I am grateful to the authorities of the Bibliothèque Nationale who readily
supplied impeccable photographs of the whole of the Paris portion of the
manuscript, including the fragments not contained in Senart’s facsimiles.
While the work was in progress I learnt, through the kindness of Dr. D.
Schlingloif, that the Institut fiir Orientforschung of the Deutsche Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin possesses a set of photographs of the manu­
script. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of examining these,
especially since it had by then become clear that parts of the original manu­
script were still missing, and it was therefore important to ensure that no
available materials might be overlooked. In fact, however, the Berlin photo­
graphs gave no additional information. They contain the same leaves which
I had already obtained from Leningrad, together with reproductions from
the facsimiles published by Senart in the Journal Asiatique.
Even with the new material, the Gândhârï text is still incomplete. It is
probable that about three-eighths of the original have been lost and there is
good reason to believe that this missing part was separated from the French
XIV PREFACE

and Russian portions at the time when the manuscript was discovered in
1892 (see Introduction, pp 14-23) It may be lost beyond hope of recovery,
and even if it is still m existence, no evidence has come to light to give even
a fiist hint to suggest where it might be sought If anyone who sees this book
should perchance know of a manuscript of similar appearance to the plates
printed here, he can perform a service to the cause of Buddhist scholarship
by giving this information either to myself or to any university department
concerned with Indian or Buddlust studies
All of the manuscript that is known for certain to be extant is included in
the present edition, giving us roughly 350 verses Most of these are complete,
or nearly so, although a small number are fragmentary This is approximately
five-sixths of the extent of the Pali Dhammapada In spite of this quite modest
length, however, the text is of importance in many different ways, and its
mere existence is of great significance for the study of early Buddhist litera­
ture It is now possible to discern the general structure of the whole, and a
large enough portion is available to make a more profitable comparison with
the Pah Dhamntapada and the Sanskrit Udanavarga We can see that the
scriptures of the various schools preserved much of an earlier inheritance of
scriptural verses, even although there is no means of determining how much
could justifiably be ascribed to a period of ‘primitive* Buddhism, if this term
is understood to mean, for example, the lifetime of the founder and his near
contemporaries And on the other hand, these three texts show, simply on
inspection that no single one of them has a claim superior to the others to
represent this section of a ‘primitive’ Buddhist canon It has long been
understood that the surviving early Buddhist literature is to a large extent
secondary, and often composite The Dhamapadas demonstrate this with
great clarity In order to arrive at a better understanding of the prehistory
of Buddhist literature (a necessary preliminary to further investigation of the
development of the religion in its earliest period) we must first try to excavate
the earlier matter embedded m our tracts For this purpose, ‘Arbeiten mit
ciem Pahkanon allevn smd unfruchtbar und zwecklos’ 1 It is hardly possible
to say this too emphatically
I must immediately add that I have not attempted here to discuss— still less,
to answer—all the many interesting questions which arise in this connexion
As its title indicates» the present book, is in. the first place at\ edition of the
Prakrit text, where my principal concern has been to establish the reading of
the text, the arrangement of the various parts, and the location of the frag­
ments The work of editing, however, could not have been done without
constant reference to the other versions, and this comparison naturally
* Fnednch Weller Du Oberlitferung dts alieren buddhtsttschen Schnfttutflt Asia Major, v
1928-30 p 182
 PREFACE xv

brought into prominence many problems of exegesis. In the nature of the

case, it would have been unprofitable to try to confine the discussion strictly
to the Prakrit text. Since any decision here was necessarily arbitrary, it
seemed best not to exclude from the Commentary a certain number o f prob­
lems concerning the other versions, where these problems arose directly from
verses under consideration.
Similarly, some topics of more general import which are suggested by the
same comparison have been discussed in outline in the latter half of Part I of
the Introduction. I f readers find my conclusions here inconclusive, or if
they regret that certain aspects of the subject have not been more adequately
explored, I can only share their regrets. But it was scarcely possible to do
more without much additional research; and to delay publication for this
reason would have unfairly denied to others access to the text itself. Neverthe­
less, it will be obvious thatthereremainmanyproblemsworthyoffurtherstudy.
Since for the edition it was necessary to examine in some detail the parallel
versions, which have also been freely used in the Commentary, it seemed
essential to give the reader as direct access as possible to these parallels.
Accordingly, beside the transcription of the Prakrit text, these testimonia are
given in the right-hand column. Wherever a Pali version1 had been found,
this has been printed in full, while corresponding verses from the Udana­
varga (and occasionally from other Sanskrit texts) are noted only by a refer­
ence after the Pali verse. (For details, see p. 118.) Where a Pali parallel had
not been traced, the appropriate Udanavarga verse, if known, has been given
instead, in Sanskrit if possible, but in Tibetan in the relatively few places
where the desired Sanskrit verse was not accessible in print. Regrettably,
we are chastened by a hard residue of Prakrit verses for which neither San­
skrit nor Pali has as yet disclosed parallels.
This manner of presentation has been chosen for two main reasons: first,
that another Middle Indian version set beside the Gandhari presents a more
vivid linguistic picture; and second, that the Udanavarga, only partially
published in Sanskrit, still awaits a new edition which will make full use of ail
the manuscript materials preserved in Berlin and Paris.2
But to forestall even the slightest chance of misunderstanding here, I wish
1 A single reference does not imply that the which the verse was traced. Readers who wish
verse in question appears only in the one place to locate other occurrences of any verse will
and nowhere else in the Pali canon. For parts usually be able to do so with the aid of the
o f the manuscript previously published, ad- Pdli Tipifabam concordance of the Pali Text
ditional locations for many verses are given in Society (in progress).
the articles by R. O. Franke and T . W. Rhys 2 While the present volume was in the press,
Davids (see Bibliography, nos. 6 and 37). In I learnt from Dr. Franz Bernhard that he is
editing the new material, it seemed enough in preparing a new edition of the Udanavarga.
most cases to give only a single reference for This edition will be awaited with great interest
each verse, to the Pali Dhammapada where by all those who are concerned with the history
relevant, and otherwise to the first passage in of early Buddhist literature.
b
xv! PREFACE

to say explicitly and as distinctly as possible the adoption of this method of

setting out was a pragmatic decision without theoretical implications In
particular, it did not anse from a preconceived theory of the manner in which
the three texts are related, it does not prejudge the answer to the problem of
their relationship, and it must not lead anyone to assume that there is a
special degree of kmdship between our text and the Pali, still less that the Pali
represents a norm from which other versions have deviated Perhaps this last
warning is superfluous, since any such theory has long been obsolete, hut
I am not sure that it is entirely extinct
The analysis of the interrelationships between the tenets of the early schools
is of great importance for the furtherance of Buddhist studies, and many
distinguished contributions have already been published But the workers
are still few in relation to the magnitude of the subject, and it would be pre­
mature to leap to conclusions In respect of this more general problem, the
chance survival of the Gándhán manuscript offers us a particularly favourable
range of materials, yet a comparison of these has shown m numerous ways
that the problems of relationship are much more intricate and subtle than
might have been expected It seemed best to set forth the data without undue
delay fot others will certainly see clues which I have missed, and in due
course the tangled skein may be unravelled
Already, however, it seems most improbable that any answer in terms of
simple generalizations could account adequately for the facts There are, for
example, many textual agreements between the Prakrit and the Udanazarga,
and some of these are sufficiently striking to suggest the hypothesis that these
two stand closer to each other than either does to the Pah But this affinity
appears to reside m the text of individual verses rather than in the two
collections as wholes (See also p 2g) Even if m the future it should be
possible to prove m more general terms that the more significant degree of
tela.tedn.ess holds bttvsten these two, there are several ways in which this
might have come about, among which the following possibilities are most
likely to be considered (x) the schools to which the two texts belonged have
shared a period of common development after the Pah tradition had separated
off, or (2) all three schools have developed separately since approximately the
same period, but the two which show ‘relatedness’ have been close enough
geographically to permit reciprocal infl.uen.ces between their respective
canonical texts, or (3) all three schools have developed separately without any
such reciprocal influence, but the Pali version has suffered a significantly
greater incidence of corruption Many textual critics would doubtless have a
predilection for(i), while others may feel, on the basis of general information,
that the probabilities are rather in favour of some combination of (2) and (3)
But such questions cannot be answered in such a fashion
 PREFACE xvii

In a few of the instances where complete parallel verses had not been found,
it has been possible to insert in the Pali column verses or portions of verses
containing identical or closely similar phrases; and these may serve to illu­
strate the patchwork method of .construction characteristic of much of this
gnomic verse. In cultural conditions where the cliche, and particularly the
religious cliché, was not so much tolerated as venerated, and where many
existing verses could with the greatest of ease be broken into usable quarters,
it is understandable that a considerable treasure-house of versified tags was
ready to hand for any monk zealous to compose. Now and then a monk
might be a poet, and here and there among the Dharmapada verses we have
the good fortune to inherit some fragments of excellent poetry. But we should
not expect to find very much. Poetry is not an easy art, and good poets are
always rare. T o build from other men’s bricks and sanctified clichés is
tolerably simple; and many a monk entirely devoid of poetic ability was
readily persuaded that his verses were no worse than those of his neigh­
bour.
Th e resulting vast accumulations of insipid mediocrity which piety pre­
serves are by no means peculiar to Buddhism. It is even probable that
religions in general have an inherent tendency to conserve indiscriminately
the dreary and the insufferable, which, because of the virtuous intentions of
their authors, are accorded no less reverence than great religious art and
literature. Buddhism has its own share o f great art; but we do no service to
Buddhism or to its genuine art if we magnify the literary worth o f a text
beyond its deserts. Distinguished scholars (not themselves Buddhists) have
indeed written with liberal hyperbole of the ‘profound moral value’ of the Pali
Dhatnmapada, and have rated it among the masterpieces of Indian literature.
Here I politely dissent. Those who write in this way can hardly have made any
serious comparison with great literature; nor could anyone with a sense of
literary values describe the whole collection in terms scarcely merited by its
best parts, if he had himself lived day and night close enough to these verses
for long enough to arrive at an assessment of his own disencumbered of
hearsay.
This much is said only because of the reckless manner in which praise
has been awarded, and to react by indiscriminate censure would be unjust-.
A reasonable critic will readily admit that there are many attractive things
here, and that the average standard of the collections is indeed much higher
than it might well have been. To confirm this it is only necessary to attempt
to read the unrelieved doggerel of the Dharma-samuccaya,1 which is the
more instructive in that its author has frequently adapted and paraphrased
1 Dharma-samuccaya, compendium de ¡a loi: smrty-upasthSnasCtra, chapters i-v, ed. Lin
Rcciteil des stances extraites du Saddharnta- Li-kouang, Paris, 1946.
XVU1 PREFACE

typical Dharmapada themes Such a contrast does much to light up the bright
ments of the older collections
There is naturally an element of personal taste involved m a literary
judgement, and I should not attempt to convince by argument those whose
views on literature are quite different from my own An analysis of the
literary merits of the verses is not one of the purposes o f this book Yet the
question is not irrelevant for further study and it is mentioned here to invite
the reader to consider for himself how many verses, trivial in content and
poetic worth, were mechanically constructed from familiar cliches or frag­
ments of other verses It may be found that those which were certainly or
very probably so engendered are by no means insignificant in number
Nevertheless, a view of the parallel versions shows at once the comparative
rarity of instances where verses have been dismembered and rebuilt We
cannot therefore doubt that this general agreement between the three main
versions shows that the majority of obvious patchwork verses must have
congealed at a very early period Since borrowing between schools, though
it may have happened, is unlikely to have been extensive, the conclusion is
almost certain that a fair number of these confections were already accepted
as in some sense canonical before the period of the earliest schisms
As a basis for further studies, the first requirement is a well-founded text,
and although many diverse problems are discussed in this book, the edition
of the Kharosthi manuscript has throughout been considered as central
For this purpose I have with gratitude made the fullest possible use of the
writings of my predecessors I am particularly indebted to the work of Senart,
Luders, 0 Franke, Sten Konow, and H W Bailey, who had already contri­
buted so much to the reading of the manuscript, to the placing of the frag­
ments, and the identification of parallel verses 1 In all these respects a major
part of the work bad already been done with regard to the previously pub­
lished portions of the text, except that a new reading was still needed for the
fragments which, although transcribed by Senart, had never been published
in facsimile
The new photographs have made it possible to re-read these fragments,
and thus to make good lacunae which, taken together, represented a not in­
considerable fraction of the text In addition, the clarity of the photography
made it possible to correct earlier readings here and there, to extend the text
in numerous small ways, and in a few instances to identify verses previously
illegible Many of the fragments now accessible for the first time are too small
to give any sort of reading by themselves, and these provided me with a jig
* The more wvitVy known book by Barua discovered (see below pp 6-7) had already
and Mitra on the other hand was found to be been discovered before and was available u*
virtually worthless to a new editor of the text earlier publications by other scholars
Almost all the usable information which they
 PREFACE xis

saw-puzzle which I have tried my best to solve. Some of these tiny pieces,
when located, were able to add new information, or to confirm a conjecture,
while others did no more than supply missing portions to letters which were
already perfectly legible without such help. Only a few pieces have yielded
nothing, and have resisted all attempts to place them. There was of course
no means of forecasting the value of a given fragment; but at least no further
time need be spent on those which have been safely restored to their homes.
In the preparation of this book, m y debt to Professor Sir Harold Bailey
has been manifold. I have already mentioned his contributions to the study
o f the Dharmapada manuscript; and from his published writings I have
derived much of the relevant information in connexion with many of the
points discussed. But I wish also to thank him for the interest he has shown
in the present work, and for the fact that he read each section as it was com­
pleted in typescript. I have had the opportunity of talking with him about
many of the problems of the work, and am most grateful to him for additional
information, including the identification of Pali equivalents for a number of
the new verses, and for his encouragement throughout. I hope that in the
final form of the book I have— at least on matters of substance— not expressed
many views with which he would disagree; but naturally I accept full re­
sponsibility for all opinions put forward and for any rash or erroneous
statements.
I wish also to thank other friends and colleagues who have discussed
various relevant problems with me. I am especially grateful to Professor W.
Simon, who has always most generously given his time to find for me relevant
Tibetan and Chinese information whenever I have sought his assistance, and
to consider and discuss any questions I have asked.
M y final typed copy of the text was checked for accuracy by Mr. J. C.
Wright, who also assisted me in several verifications, and read a proof of the
whole book. I am most grateful to him for bringing to light, both in my
own typing and in the proofs, errors which had escaped m y own eyes, and
also for his helpful comments on various points of subject-matter.
The publication of this work has been made possible only by the fact that
the authorities of the School of Oriental and African Studies undertook to
meet the whole cost of its production. M y debt of gratitude in this respect
is increased by their ready agreement to include the collotype plates of the
manuscript. I wish to express my thanks for this very generous support.
I am grateful to the officers of the Oxford University Press and to the Printer
to the University of Oxford for the help they have given while the work was
passing through the press.
XX PREFACE

AD D ITION AL NOTES
T o page 49 A short inscription can now be cited as direct evidence o f the use of Gandhlri
in China see my article, A Kharosth inscription from China, B SO A S xxw , 1961, pp 5x7-30

T o page 74 tsa In case the brief reference to the palatalized value of the conjunct
ts in Khotanese should be misleading, I should add that this remark was not meant to raise any
doubt» u i this cowwuon, and that, t h a value u accepted for Khotanese, where the non-palata-
lized [ts] is written by means of the conjunct tc *
With regard to the Kharosthi conjunct charactcr, the point to be emphasized is that the dis-
cuision is limited to the tran sa ctio n of the graphic elements, and that Konow’s argument
from the phonthc value deduced for is m Khotanese gives no support to the theory that the
Kharosthi sign consists of t and { At the most, Khotanese usage might suggest the possibility
thit a comparable phonetic value developed in Gindhar! T he argument would have been more
relevant if the Khotanese written sign could be shown to have developed from a BrShmi t
compounded vjith but even then, this type of argument could carry little weight against the
evidence of the graphic development o f the Kharosthi sign
The statement that this Kharosjhi compound sign is in certain instances ‘replaced by J
surmounted by a horizontal’» appears to be based on an assumption that praiaja (S ptaiamsS)
might he written Cot *pudatia But r.a such t a appe«* to b&ve bfttfl recorded, and, so far as
T know, there are no examples at all o f an interchange between ts and J T he spelling praiaja
(on which see further p 62) cannot support Konow’s inference that the group in question 'must
have been more like ti thaa ts’ W e cannot issvime a Jwwrt that the development o f -ms- m
tamara and praiamxS would be identical, and the assimilation o f the second sibilant in iaiarta
(S sasana) suggests on the contrary a divergent development, through a form 'ptaiamSa

T o page 07 the spelling amdhatma for S abludharnta, quoted as a loan-word m Khotancse.can

also be cited from a Sanskrit manuscript avtdkarma ca sStre ca vtnaiya ca (Bernard Pauli,
Fragments sansknts de haute Aste, J As ccxlv, 1957, p 295, emended on p 39S to abhtdharmal
ca) It is at present impossible to say to what extent such features o f GflndhSri phonology may
have come into Khotanese texts through Sanskrit manuscripts still retaining a proportion of
Prakntic spellings In any given case it seems equally possible that an accepted Central Asian
form, whtch had come directly from Gandhir! at tin earlier period, might have been reflected
'oacK into a Sanskrit manuscript "by a copyist

T o co m m en tar y , pp 177 ff.

Introductory verse, sardhawLthSrtn Although translation* fcuchas'fm nd’ ot ‘ companion’ «eem
unsatisfactory in these typical contexts, I do not o f course mean to assert that the term should
never be so translated T he objection here is not so much that the English words may carry mis­
leading overtones (although this may well be the case), but that they conceal a more relevant
aspect o f the relationship in question
The fact that sdrdhamcara, with a very similar etymological sense, is also represented in the
inscriptions may be relevant in connexion with the pair of verses (Dhp Sn 45-46, U v.
xn 13,14 , Sec) beginning
tact labetha mpaham sahOyam «KUftmcaranv sSdhtiviHiJn dklranl
* See H W Bailey, 2 DM G 92 (n f 17), transcriptions
1938, pp 588-9, -where thu is confirmed by the 2 Konow, Saka studies, pp n - 1 2
distribution of ts and tc m relation to Chinese
 PREFACE xxi

I t seems probable that the word sadhttvihari here has been evoked by the preceding word; and
if it is original in the verse, it may have been intended as an approximate slesa suggesting sar-
dhavihari. But the latter would itself come quite appropriately as a third term after sahdyam&nd
saddhimcaram, while sadhuviliari is not altogether convincing. It seems at least a possibility
that the verse originally had a word equivalent to sardkavikdri. In such a context, clearly, this
could not mean ‘pupil’, and ‘companion’ would be entirely appropriate. There would indeed
be nothing extravagant in the suggestion that it could have meant ‘teacher’ here, the relationship
of ‘living together’ being reciprocal. A subsequent tendency of usage to apply the term more
frequently to the pupil would supply a motive for its replacement in this verse by sadhwihari.
T h e secondpada has been altered still more in the Uddnavarga-. lokecaramsadlmhinityameva.
(Chakravarti, pp. 171-2; the verses are not extant in the old manuscript.)
T he standard usage is clear in Divyavadana 18, 299, 489, where both the antevdsinah and the
sardhamviharinah of a single senior monk are mentioned together; and in Avadana-sataka ii.
139-40, where converts [vineyah) of an elderly monk are called sdrdhamviharinah a few lines
later. (Although the term is applied to them after they had themselves become Arhants, the
speakers were unaware o f this fact.) In such places, where the word is used in its established
technical sense, it would seem better to avoid the rendering ‘companion’.

1 5 . W ith the second half o f the verse we may compare MBh. v. 36, 14:

yatoyato nvuartate tatas talo vimucyate

tiivartanad dhi sarvato tui vetli duhkham anv api.

T his is in itself quite straightforward, and offers no difficulties of interpretation; but equally, it
gives no positive assistance towards a solution of the problems in the Buddhist verse.
It may be remarked that the passage in the Mahabharata from which the above stanza is
quoted contains a fair number of themes closely similar to those typical of the Dharmapada
verses.

3 1 . A variant form of the first half o f this verse appears as the second half of MBh. xii. 208, 8:

lasmat samahitam buddhya mano bhiitesu dharayet:

napadhyayen na sprliaycn nabaddham cintayed asat.

It may not be possible to discriminate sharply between the meaning of apa-dhyai~ and ava~
dhyai- (and ava- is quoted as the reading o f a few manuscripts here). The sense given by
the commentary quoted in the critical edition, napadhyayet, dustena manasd bhiitaninapaSyei,
appears to have been suggested by the preceding line; but although this is reasonable enough
in itself, an alternative interpretation similar to that proposed for the Buddhist verse seems
possible, taking asat as the object of all three verbs: ‘One should not despise evil, nor desire it,
nor unrestrainedly [according to the commentaries, unprofitably] think o f it.’
Although the immediate context in the Mahabharata gives no assistance for the third pada of
the Prakrit, the confirmation o f the meaning conjectured for avijapu is a definite gain. There is
the further point that the latter is readily understandable as an adjective, but not as an optative;
and from this it follows that avaja'i is also an adjective, although as a written form it could
equally be the direct equivalent of apadhyayet. It is probable, therefore, that the half-verse
in the Mahabharata is a Sanskrit rendering from Middle Indian, where the translator, by in­
terpreting the first word as an optative, found himself committed to a syntactical structure
which could not accommodate the following adjective. The substitution of sprhayet can thus be
seen as a simple and uncomplicated process, whereas the contrary transposition (from a Sanskrit
nu PREFACE

original with an optative to a Prakrit with a word equivalent to m ja p ü ) would be much leas
straightforward, and there would be no obvious motive for the change W e may further remark
that the Udanaiarga differs not infrequently in words and phrases from the corresponding
verses in the other Buddhist texts, and that many o£ these differeivces are similar in. natute and
extent to those seen here between the GSndhari line and the Sanskrit Granted that this does
not pro\ e a case beyond all possible doubt, and that some o f these differences may result from
corruption, including rephrasing m places where a word or two had been forgotten, although the
cApg/» of the verse as a whole was remembered, nevertheless, as the successive revisions m the
Udanavarga show, this type o f paraphrasing is especially characteristic o f revisers who aim at a
good standard of Sanskrit

111 dupa, dipa c f also Rästropäla pmprccha 49 12, where the two metaphors sit comfortably
Bide by side
itrtham ta samdarlaya uhyato me
dtpam kxntsoapi mamaadhabdre

117 For the comparison o f moral or spiritual wealth with the wealth o f a merchant, c f alto
Divy 555 lantg tva lahdhofabhah, Dhp 123 värujo va bhayam nutggam appasatiho mahaddhaw
Although in these, as in Arya Sara’s verse (quoted anonymously in Vallabhadeva's SubhafttaiaU,
3036, with the inferior variant hiialavtbhavam), the term used is vamk, a frtsthaj is no less con­
cerned with wealth, and there is nothing inherently inappropriate in. the reading (reftktta
[See also Ivo FiSer, The problem o f the ¡etthi tn Buddhist Jätakas, Archiv Orientälni xxii, >954,
pp 238-66 This article, however, is based almost entirely on Pall sources, end requires supple-
meatatwtu Although the. tMnvs. «antfe and itejtfim ate tKrt. synonyms, they ate not as sharply
opposed as FiSer appears to suggest (ib id , p 244) For the present, we may observe that
irtsthi in Uv iv 10 is translated in Tibetan by tskon dpoft, vamk is regularly tshorlpa, and sär-
thaiflJw, chief of a group of canyafe, is <fed ¿pon, the last being given b y Desgodins and the
Tib-Tit) Dictionary as synonymous with uhoti dpon (In MahSkarmcivtbhanga, ed L iv i, for
der dpon p 192, line 12, and dad dpon p 194, line 2, read ded dport) In Jät iv 1 Mittavmdika
is the son of aiftth j, whilein the corresponding story m A v § 1 195, 199, and D tvy 586, 593,
Maitrakanyaka'g father is called both larthataha and vamk ]
In a brief note, Luders1 argued that the verse wag so much better with frefthi that this must be
nght, and 1! no other evidence were available we might well incline to agtcc But his further
remirk, ‘Dazu kommt, daß settha eigentlich gar kein richtiges Beiwort für dhana »st’, expresses
an opinion not s h m d hy the ancient authors o f ethical verses T o the three examples already
quoted (seep 2l2)w em ayad d M B h xn $6,18 ruttam opt rajendrasatyam m i paramdhcnam,
and U v x j { » Sn 182) Sroddha ht wtlom purusasya ¡reslham T h e designation of a moral
attribute as a man’s ‘best wealth' is in fact fairly frequent, and a standard list o f se>en such
virtues is well known M vy §7®» C VD s v c f also verse 2 6 0 On further con­
sideration, therefore, the Pali form o f the present verse, with dhanam setthaa, appears to have a
better dajro to be the older
T lte important point remains, however, that the Praknt Utht can hardly be dissociated from
the Uv. reading, and if, as suggested, the Praknt form was at first intended as a neuter, this
agreement may be cited as direct evidence for a Gandh&l element (not necessarily the present
recension) m the direct ancestry of the Udanavarga

1Beobachtungen Ober die Sprache des buddhistische» Urkemons, § 231

1 2 0 . A close parallel in M Bh. xii. 58. 14 upholds the Pali and Sanskrit reading settheicm,
irestJtatdrp:
utthanenamrtam laidham utthanenanna hatah
ulthanena mahendrena ¿raislhyam praplain dtxnha ca.
T h e interpretation o f the Prakrit samidhi remains conjectural, and o f the two possibilities
suggested in the commentary, the second (S. samilim) seems intrinsically easier and rather more
natural. T h e M Bh. verse, however, is cited in its own context in a manner which suggests that
it may have been a familiar saying (brhaspalir abhdsaia, and Slokdms cdtra vibodha n f); and the
interpretation as samithe may be thought to win some support from the explicit mention in die
second pada here o f the battle with the asuras. T he first pada could in the same way betaken to
favour the sense o f samrddhim (which naturally still remains difficult to justify metrically).

1 23. For the problem o f the ‘house o f reeds’ , Professor Bailey has kindly given me the relevant
information from Khotanese and Agnean translations of the phrase, which have respectively
damanu ¡¡gaytfing)’0,1 and kancasi xcastt oh'.2 In both o f these the ‘reeds’ o f the original 3re
represented by an adjectival form, and it can therefore hardly be doubted that both translators
understood the sense to be ‘a house consisting o f reeds’.
T his is o f course not decisive for the sense intended by the author of the verse; and in favour
o f the alternative suggested {‘home of the reeds’), we may add that in this way the simile would
seem much more to the point. A comparison between the army o f Death and a hut built of
reeds does not seem immediately apt; but the growing reeds at the water's edge, standing up­
right and closely packed, could very readily have suggested to the author an ‘arm)*’ which he
could use for such a simile. T h e normal behaviour o f the elephant in nature is reflected by
epithets such as S . dnmari ‘enemy o f trees’, and Tibetan hiam bu hjoms 'destroyer o f reeds’
(T ib .-T ib . D ie t s.v., explained as glari po die).
In the Chinese translation o f the Dirghogama, the verse appears to havebeen understood in
this way, andWaldschmidt1 gives the rendering V ic der Elcfant, dcr d n Schilfdickicht zenritt’.
T h is may perhaps have been influenced by the Indian versions, since the Taisho edition4 docs
not have ‘rced-thickct’, but rather ‘flowcr-thicket’, ^ ¿1* . B y this expression the trans­
lator doubtless intended to convcy the sense o f 'flowers growing doscly together in a compact
mass’ (although later Chinese readers may have thought o f another sense hardly appropriate
in the Buddhist verse). But whatever the reason may have been for ihc replacement o f reeds bv
flowers, the relevant point is that there is no mention o f a house. Admittedly, the translation
mav owe more to the translator’s general idea o f what was appropriate in the context than to a
X*iv PREFACE
The verse beingafamous one, stillfuither translation» could doubtless be collected, and those
quoted iaisc new problems of their own There is howe'er, no unanirncus tradition o f interpre­
tation here, and the possibility that nadagarcm meant ‘reedy pond in the original verse cannot be
definitely excluded

164 A variant form of the vers« quoted from Manu occurs m MBh xii 269, to, 'vhere the
last phrase is given as wtatralabhesv anadrtah
Ti> m m ple* of verss? oCtha Dharmapads type which are held in common by
the Buddhistand Brahmimcal traditions, wemay add here Sn 450, Sam 1 189(8* Uv vm 11,
Chakravarti p 9:)
l«6ftdstrflm uttmarn aha savxa
dhammem bhane tutdhavwain tarn duttyam
piyatn bhane nappiyam tarn tatiyam
¡occam bhane xahkam iam catutthart
MBh \ 36 12
avyaltrtam vyakrUSc chreya ahuh
satyam wdtd vyahrfmn tad ¿vttiyan
ptiyam vaded vyaiirtan tut trtiyam
dhamyam taded vyalirtam tac catitrtham

T heU v version, which is otherwise close to the Pali, agrees with the MBh m t aiet Obviously,
no conclusions can. be drawn from this agreement

233-4 C( also (for the simile in the Pali) MBh n 55 1 (Bombay edition)

yasya nasti ntja prajnS kevalam tu bahuirutak

na la ¡anatt lastrurtham dani suparasdn iva

The Dharmapada, however is more optimistic than this about the benefits of education, and
chapter xv appears to assume that a jiwn -who » learned is for this reason a wise man In 2 54,
the Prakrit seems to say in b, learning grows by means of wisdom’ , but although this may be
true, such a reading destroys the structure of the poetic figure in the \erse The Pah version
must therefore be preferred, on rhetorical grounds ‘learning increases wisdom* I f vadhadt
can have the transitive sense of S vardhati (very nre except in Vedicl, the Prakrit may be under­
stood as ‘learning makes (a man) grow in wisdom1 If the verb is intransitive (S vardhate),
fuda might be taken as instrumental or ablative, giving the alternative, ‘because of learning,
(a man) grows m wisdom , ot (dwidmg proiia y « y and because ot teaming, wisdom increases’
There seems to he no strong reason for choosing one of these interpretations rather than another,
And although the argument from rhetoric is convincing for the earlier form of the verse, vve have
jio guarantee that the Prakrit version had not been altered at the expense of the alankara

150 \J% TMt so sW r« ns firstp<?da with tlus verse, but diverges in the remaining three In
Pischfl’s edition o f the chaptcr (p 980 where the vene is numbered 30) it is printed \sc\dbhr
[e}ta sahasfta Unfortunately the accompanying photograph stops just >hort of the v e n t w
It is therefore aft the more vexatious that the editor has used square brackets not
only to mark words or letters which be has supplied where the manuscript was broken, but also
to indicate his own emendations m places where »he manuscript was perfectly clear and un­
broken Examples of the latter ean be seen in C2in the photograph,^»«, printed e n p 977,verse
6, as > [<J], snd i 1, iobhmdnah, pmvtedenp 978, verse 12, zs iobham2>i[£lh
 PREFACE XXV

T his double emplojTnent thus deprives us o f relevant information, and we cannot tell from
the published text -whether the manuscript was broken— in which case the scribe might as likely
as not have written eva — or whether the scribe did in fact write sadbhir ava. I f the latter, the
agreement of such an unusual spelling (or error, i f we prefer to call it so) with sabhir ava in
the Kharosthi manuscript would not be easy to accept as an accidental coincidence.
For the present, all we can do is to note the point, and lay it aside for future reference. In
itself, such a thing appears to be of very minor significance. But especially in these early manu­
scripts, peculiarities of spelling may later be found to have a significance which was not at first
obvious, and editors must be begged not to obliterate such evidence by emendation.

2 6 2 . T he relationship between the forms druprava'i and ¿tippabbajjam would be more easily
understood if the word could be taken as an adjective. By itself, the Prakrit verse could be
interpreted in this way: ‘A house (gharatn) is difficult to leave (duspravrajatn), difficult to enjoy,
difficult to dwell in’. I f the structure of the original verse had been similar to this, the Paii
form, equivalent to duspravrajyam in the U v., would merely be an example o f the occasional
tendency o f compounds -with sit- and dus- to appear with, -ya instead o f the regular -a (Panini
iii. 3.126-30). In Sanskrit, examples are infrequent, and are mostly epic: dusprapyadurbhedya-,
for dusprapa-, durbheda-. (Wackemagel-Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik, n. 1, pp. 176,
193; 11. 2, p. 801.) The agreement between the Pali ghara and Uv. grhah, however, raises
difficulties.

2 7 5 . Cf. also MBh. i. 74. 2:

y a h samutpatitam krodham nigrhndti kayam yatha

sa yantety ucyate sadbhir na y o rasntisii lambate.

2 7 7 , 2 7 9 . A number o f similar expressions and the same general purport may be seen in
M Bh. xii. 57, 29, and 33:
ahrodhano 'thavyasani mrdudaiido jiiendnyah
raja bhavati bhutanam visvasyo htmdi'an iva.
puira iva pitur gehe visaye yasya manavah
nirbkayd vicarhyanti sa raja rajasattaaah.

3 2 9 . The suggestion that the original verse might have had -paiita - seems to be in accord with
the sense required. But it should be added that such a reading would be metrically faulty, at
least by classical standards, and would for this reason be especially liable to provoke alteration.
T he possibility at least remains open that the current reading -patitam is a substitute which has
indeed cured the metre, but at the expense of making the grammar somewhat awkward.
 INTRODUCTION
is now more than sixty years since the first publication by Senart and

I
T
Oldenburg o f portions o f this Prakrit recension o f a Dharmapada. Since
then the importance of this early manuscript has been widely recognized.
Its contents are of great interest for the history of the older period of Buddhist
literature, and in its form it provides invaluable material both for linguistic
history and for palaeography. Its evidence has been frequently cited in all
these branches o f study, and important contributions have been made by many
individual scholars towards the elucidation of its problems. But these contri­
butions have been widely dispersed in learned journals, and it has been ex­
tremely difficult for anyone to obtain a clear view either of the structure of the
text or of its language, unless he were prepared to consult a number of publi­
cations, for the most part accessible only in large libraries, I t is hardly an
exaggeration to say that, prior to the edition by H. W. Bailey in 1945, the pic­
ture must inevitably have been more or less distorted, except for those who
had for themselves done much of the preliminary research which would have
been required for an edition. In 1945, however, only the facsimiles published
by Senart and Oldenburg were available, and Bailey’s edition was therefore
confined to these portions of the text. It is most gratifying that it has now
become possible for the first time to publish an edition and facsimiles of all
those parts of the text which are known to be extant.
This ancient birch-bark manuscript enjoys the distinction of uniqueness in
several different respects. I t has generally been accepted to be the oldest
manuscript now extant of any Indian text. It is the only literary text known
which is written in the KharosthI script, in the north-western dialect of the
Gandhara region, the only Buddhist text (apart from a few minute fragments
quoted in inscriptions and among the Niya documents) in this language—
indeed, the only Buddhist text from the earlier period which has survived in
any Indian language other than Pali and Sanskrit. It may well be the only re­
mainder of a much more extensive Buddhist literature, possibly a complete
canon, belonging to one of the numerous schools of the Lesser Vehicle whose
names have come down to us. But it seems unlikely that it will be possible to
identify the school, unless in the future some further portion of the same canon
should be discovered which might perhaps contain some clue to its owners.
Our regrettably unique text is thus in many respects tantalizing. There is still
enough to show the extent to which our understanding of the development of
early Buddhist literature might have been affected if only further texts of this
and of other lost canons had survived in the original language.
2 IN T R O D U C T I O N

I D IS C O V E R ? A N D P U B L I C A T I O N

Details of the discov cry of the manuscript remain obscure It seems certain
that parts of it were acquired in Khotan in 1892 by MM Dutreuil de Rhins
and Grcnard, but it was not until five years later, m Pans, that Grenard
(according to Senart), in the process of sorting the papers of the Dutreuil de
Rhrns e-^edition, came upon these pieces again, and showed them to Sylvain
Lévi and Senart By a coincidence it was also early in 1897 that another set of
pieces of the same manuscript reached S T Oldenburg in St Petersburg,
having been acquired by N Th Petrov skn, Russian Consul-General in
Kashgar1
The manuscript was reported by Grenard to have been discovered at the
Kohman Mazar, 21 kilometres from Khotan, in the valley of the Kara-kash
mer, and he identified the place with the ancient Goémga-vihâra2 But the
Trench tra\ cllers had not been in a position to make the discovery themselv es
Senart raised the question as to whether Tindigene a qui les scruples des
musulmans avaient forcé nos missionnaires de confier l’exploration de la
grotte* might not hav e held back part of the manuscript remains which he had
found This question was of course prompted by the knowledge of M Petrov-
part o? tht wawiscnpt, and, as \\t shall ste, there ate tndted good 1
grounds for suspecting that more than this portion was held back A cjnic
might in an} case have doubted the sincerity of religious scruples which for­
bade the infidels access to the place, and did not hesitate to plunder it on be­
half of the same infidels From the evidence available, we can hardly avoid the
conclusion that the scruples in question were financial rather than religious
Tins of course means that we can hav e no confidence whatsoe\ er in the report
that the manuscript was found at the Goimga-vihara3 If the discoverer felt
sure tliat the place contained nothing further \ endible, he had no motive for
not telling the truth If he hoped to return another da} and search for further
ttungs to sell to foreigners, he had ever) reason for naming the wrong place
Whatever the real circumstanccs of the discover} and acquisition might
ha\e been, both portions of tins almost incredible document la> unnoticed
until, at almost the same time, carlj m 1897, each part came under thecjes of
a scholar vsho was able to recognize its extraordinary importance
Senart made his first announcement m Ma},4 and shortly afterwards learnt
1 f l ji *«rrU nu to ‘Vnirt acent h Khotan mm utcnpt miRto b t thought to hav« Urn f«?
1 s« »ho M A Stem Ancient Khotan c t n t u n n H e « a * »Ik> ab le to iju rtlio n people
IT1 in fJ to t u who *ull rtm tm btnd the %uit »f
• T\.r*< Jen»* m were already eiprettcil by Dutreuil de Khrns «ntl Grenard but he «»»
* ' 1'* r t *n innl the e»»e »1 ith %a« »aid unable to obtain *ny infotm tion corv«a'W'C
t-'W tSet.n i »-»t<«hitin<tlfwn »Uho^chcon the m&nuicnpi t/lnom l b j olon p 18S)
t t I** K> J mlrl V w ar) and reported 4 Crrmftti tenJut de VtleetdJmtt det
I it ti/f« »»t nn pUcr in ea\* »1 n t tl c fivw IV*»ine t xx> pp 351 fF
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 3

that fragments of a similar KharosthI manuscript had been sent to St. Peters­
burg b y M . Petrovskii. Meanwhile, Oldenburg prepared a transcription and
facsimile o f one leaf1 which was published by the Oriental Faculty o f the
University of St. Petersburg for presentation to the Eleventh International
Congress o f Orientalists, held in Paris in September 1897.2 Senart likewise
gave a report to the same congress on the Dutreuil de Rhins fragments.3
I t was immediately clear that the two sets o f pieces formed parts o f the
same manuscript. Senart, it would appear, had seen all the Russian material,
perhaps in facsimile, and had discussed with Oldenburg the possibility of a
joint publication. N o very good reason was afterwards given for the failure of
this plan. From a few remarks made by Senart it would seem that the two
scholars had some disagreement, possibly quite minor, on the manner in
which the material should be presented in print. Th ey agreed therefore each
to publish the part of the manuscript which was lodged in his own country.
Whatever the disagreement may have been, it was obviously an amicable one.
Oldenburg courteously placed the Russian material at Senart’s disposal;
while Senartretum edthe courtesy by confining his use of that material within
very narrow limits, in order not to anticipate the publication intended by his
Russian colleague.
In 1898 Senart published the French material in the Journal Asiatique,4
together w ith facsimiles of the main leaves,5 but not of the smaller fragments.
H e did, however, include a transcription of all the fragments of any size which
he had been able to read, and was able to locate a large number of these in
their correct position in the main manuscript. He had been able to verify that
the beginning of the leaf which he called B, containing a number of verse-
beginnings, fitted the end of one of the Russian pieces, and he was able to
include in his edition the ends of the verses in question, taken from the
Russian manuscript.
It appears that even at that time Oldenburg was not in very good health,
and doubtless was much burdened by other duties. Whatever the reason, the
Russian portions of the manuscript remained unpublished, and even the
fragment of thirty lines presented to the Congress of Orientalists was so
limited in circulation that it remained virtually unknown. Even scholars who
were most interested in the material and discussed Senart’s publication in
great detail seemed for the most part to have been scarcely aware of the
existence of Oldenburg’s folio (although it was mentioned by Senart in his
1 Subsequently designated by the letter O : 3 Proceedings of the X lth International Con-
plates I and II in the present edition. gress of Orientalists, Paris, 1897, i, pp. 1-7.
2 IIpe^[BapnTeAiHaa 3airfiraa o SyAsificicoii * For bibliographical details of this, and of
pyKorracn HanacaHHoli roic&MeHaMH kharosthl. other publications mentioned in the following
(Publicationsdela Faculte des Lettres orientales paragraphs, see Bibliography.
en l’honneur du X I Congres dcs Orientalistes a s A, B, and C : plates V -X and X IX -X X in
Paris.) the present edition.
4 IN T R O D U C T IO N

introduction). It was not until Sten Konow published1 a new reading and
discussion of Oldenburg’s facsimile that these lines became generally acces­
sible, and even then it remained difficult for an individual to obtain a sight
of the facsimile itself For the majority, the ‘Prakrit Dhammapada’ and the
'manuscript Dutreuil de Rhins’ were in practice synonyms, and almost every­
thing written on the subject has been based on Senart’s edition, supplemented
to a greater or lesser degree by the critical improvements suggested by two or
three subsequent scholars
This edition by Senart was a most remarkable and admirable achievement
It might indeed seem almost superfluous to say so; but in later years, when
further study had made it possible for others to publish corrections to Senart’s
work in a number of important articles, there also appeared in print a quantity
of indifferent writing on the subject, and many careless statements were
made2It must not be thought that the need for subsequent correction implies
that Senart’s work had anything m common with these latex aberrations It is
the more necessary to say this, smce the most generally available edition, that
of Barua and Mitra, sometimes refers to Senart m a tone which is contemp­
tuously patronizing, and corrects his errors in a manner appropriate to a
1 Acta Onentaha, xix I, 1943 that the assumption is a wild guess It was not
* A single example will suffice In the intro» necessaryeventoexaminethefacsuniles Merely
dvsetwn to her translation of the Pali Dhamma­ on the {acts given, there was only one chance m
pada (Minor Anthologies of the Pah Canon, i, three that the chapter was the earliest among
1931, p xviu), Mrs Rhys Davids stated that m the Paris leaves, and only 1 chance in 18 that
the Prakrit text the Magga-vagga was the first the v erse was the first in the chapter T h e exist­
chapter, and that the first verse in that chapter ence of the unpublished material in Leningrad
was that beginning uju'0 namu so magu (verse 9 7 was well known and there could in any case be
in the present edition) On this insubstantial no certainty at the time that the beginning of the'
foundation further arguments were based Now manuscript had been preserved at all There
tt w»$ impossible at that tune to know that the was, at the best, only 1 chance in 2 that the
\erse in question was the :8 thinchaptervi the Pans leaves contained the earliest extant chap­
evidence was not available Dut the following ter, and a quite incalculable chance that the
facta were available to e\er>one T he chapter is earliest extant chapter might be the original
eontuned in leaf A of Sena«'# edition, and this first chapter Simply on inspection, therefore,
leaf comes at the beginning of Barua and Mitra’s the probabilities combine into something quite
edition simply because it was called A , and for formidable, and it was a bold gambler indeed
no other reason Senart had however, made it who, in the face o f such odds, could risk the
cleat that there Y i s no evidence by which he wager that the verse in question was the first
could decide the order of the leaves and that verse in the book ( I f the facsimiles had been
he had (quite properly in the circumstances) used, it was even at that tune theoretically pos­
arbitrarily named them A , B and C simply for sible to determine the position o f the verse
convenience o f reference From the chapter, within the chapter, since traces of the tails of
13 verses survive, of which A* contains 9 and A* four consecutive characters at the top o f A* At
contain* 4 T he latter piece also marks the end exactly the end of A 4, and Anyone acquainted
of the chapter, and Rives the total of 30 verses with the use o f tracing-paper could have seen
for the chapter It follows that A4 pteeedes A 1, this fact But since, so far as 1 am aware, no one
and that 17 verses have been lost Barua and else either had seen it before FiUiozat, w ho fitted
Mitra assumed that the missing verses were the pieces together tinder the same glass, it
10-26, and as a result, Mrs Rhys Davids found would be unfair to reproach Barua and Mitra or
her verse marked as 1 in their edition No M b Rhys Davids for failing to make the obser­
tpecuUst knowledge is needed in order to see vation )
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 5

schoolmaster reproving a careless pupil.1 Such an attitude is altogether un­

justified. Ifw e a re to do justice to the achievement we must remember that in
1897 only a very small corpus of KharosthI writing was available for com­
parison, and that the manuscript presented an entirely new style of writing,
differing considerably from the known epigraphical forms. Within the space of
a few months Senart had not only deciphered the text, but had also identified
Pali parallels for the great majority of the verses, and had fitted into place the
greater number of significant fragments. Only one who has himself attempted
a similar task is in a position to know how many errors may remain in the text
in the fifth month of the work which the sixth will remove, how many un­
placed fragments may suddenly find a secure home in the seventh. Recogniz­
ing the great importance of the manuscript, Senart unselfishly published it as
soon as possible, and thus gave to others the opportunity of using the material,
and of making corrections.
T w o major contributions, by H. Luders in 1899, and by R. 0 . Franke in
1906,2 between them did almost everything that remained to be done, on the
basis o f Senart’s edition and facsimiles, in respect of the readjustment of frag­
ments and the identification of parallels. New readings were also proposed; and
although progress was in general slower in the matter of palaeographic inter­
pretation, numerous gains were made here also.
T h e most noteworthy single advance was made by Sten IConow who, in a
short article,3 showed that the manuscript maintained a clear and consistent
distinction between n and n4 (both indiscriminately transcribed by Senart
as 11); and that t and d, although of closely similar shape, could regularly be
distinguished. Senart, having missed the distributional pattern of these two,
gave in his transcription i or d in accordance with the Sanskrit or Pali equi- .
valent word. But the dialect of the manuscript, as Konow demonstrated, had
a different but nevertheless regular distribution of the sounds.
Once these distinctions had been pointed out, they could hardly be disre­
garded. While some of the discriminations made earlier (as, for example,
between st and th, or vk and bh) had affected many individual words, Konow’s
discoveries completely altered the appearance of the dialect.5Since the addition
' T h e re is no reason to suppose that this w as hensible practice, had been repaginated, the
intended. W ritin g in a foreign language, the references to pages do n ot correspond w ith the
authors m ay have been entirely unaware o f im - page num bers in the Journal Asialiquc. T h e
plications w h ich th e ir form o f statement w ou ld correct num bers can be restored b y the addition
con vey to aji English reader. o f 192.
' See Bibliography. T h e notice b y T . \V. 3 Festschrift Ernst Tl'indtsch, 1914*
Rh ys D avids (JR A S 1899) brought together * T h e distinction had earlier been noted in
num erous additional references from P ali texts some specific instances b y Buhler (K onow , loc,
for m any o f the verses identified b y Senart. T h is cit., p . S7).
article and some other early discussions w ere s F or example, the w ord corresponding to
based on offprints o f Senart’s edition; and since pandito had been transcribed b y Senart as
these offprints, in accordance w ith a m ost repre* par.ito, from w hich it would seem that thedialcct
6 IN T R O D U C T IO N

of these points to other advances in the understanding of the script after the
date of Senart’s edition now left scarcely a single verse unaffected, it became
highly dangerous to quote anything at all from this text as linguistic evidence,
unless it could be verified in the published plates. A new edition of the text
would have been most desirable, but understandably enough, Konow, who
might well have undertaken it, thought it best to wait until the Russian por­
tions of the manuscript had been published. Nevertheless, by 1920 enough
was known about the Kharosthi of the manuscript to make possible a new?
edition of the French material which could have been much more reliable in
points of transcription than Senart’s. Unfortunately the editors who repub­
lished the text in 1921 were not interested in such details.
This book, by Bemmadhab Barua and SaOendranath Mitra, was entitled
Prakrtt Dhammapada, based upon M . Smart's Kharosthi manuscript, with text,
translation, and notes. It contained a reprinting of the text of Senart’s edition,
with the French annotations done into English, followed by a second section
headed ‘The Kharosthi Manuscript of the Dhammapada, with improved
readings and readjustments’. This section covers the two leaves A and C, and
it would appear that the section improving and readjusting B was never pub­
lished. It would naturally not be supposed that the editors of a unique manu­
script would wilfully neglect to consult published facsimiles. But whatever
study Barua and Mitra might have devoted to the facsimiles, their edition was
to the end entirely dominated by Senart’s original transcription. In some
places the facsimiles were certainly ignored, alterations inconsistent with the
manuscript were proposed, and tentative suggestions were made which a
glance at the manuscript would have either confirmed or disproved.1 To a
considerable extent, therefore, this new edition was ‘based upon M. Senart’s
•greed with Pali m preserving an mter\ocalic this chapter’ the end o f the chapter is again
•f-, and that the retroflex group •«<?• had re. clearly marked Between C*8 and 9 (pp. 198-
atilted in * dental *nn- The latter point was 200) an extra verse is inserted, and it is sped*
used as an argument in discussing the dialectal fically said that its omission is not the senbe’s
position of the language o f the manuscript (J fault, but Senart’s in the manuscript the t^ °
Plod,. L t Dtalrcle Jet fragments Dulreuil <U \erse-beginrungs are consecutive, and there is
ilhins, JA» xix, 1912. p j ) j ) In fact, an earlier no room for the conjectutcd additional yetse-
intenoealic w-was regularly represented in the A>6 ‘ufi/Ae’, with the footnote, ‘T h e reading in
Juliet by-<f-, and the group -n<J- by-n -, and the M Seoart’s edition is tittf/ia' in the manuscript
*ord m question could now be seen to be also, the final syllable is -{ha. In C 'i, » («-he»*
written fonklo Senarthas kuioh), the reading kufato is adopted
' T he following 1limitations are selected at with the note, ‘The mistake is perhaps due to
random (except that they hai, e been limited to the aenbe’ w liether or not i t « as a mistake, the
pouit* where Senart’a facsimile «as very clear, scribe certainly wroteAu/ato C'l9;ii<0.thefiflal
and called for no particular stilt m jialaeo- vow el being noted as a conjecture of the editors.
graphy) On p t86, after C r4 j, ‘we cannot say the reading is correct, but conjecture was ufl*
\t th m v m more »crscS tin the chapter] aftrr necesiary, the %ow eUitroke being plainly >isibl*
thi»‘ the end of the chapter is clearly marked in the manuscript C ’ io vttatt (for nkadi). the
Aftrr C ’44<p ajS. ‘Although the eolophcn is sjllable ka » clear, and shows no resemblance
mining from the extant M S , we «re confident at all (o la.
that this terse formed a f.ttmg conclusion to
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 7

Kharosthï manuscript’ only in the indirect sense that it was based upon
M . Senart’s transcription of the manuscript.
These remarks must not be understood to mean that the book was without
value. O n the contrary, it has for many years served as a useful compendium
o f Senart’s text for the majority who have been able to consult the original in
the Journal Asiatique only in libraries. In addition, it brought together a great
deal o f parallel material from the Mahàbhârata, from RockhilTs translation
of the Udanavarga, and elsewhere. M uch of this, it is true, had already been
identified by Liiders, Franke, de la Vallée Poussin, and others; but it was
useful to have it assembled in one volume. And, apart from the question of
transcription, the text as readjusted was a considerable improvement upon
Senart’s. M any verses left unidentified by Senart were provided with Pali
parallels, and many misplaced fragments were put in their correct positions.1
It still remains difficult to understand the attitude of editors who were con­
tent in 1921 to reproduce the transcription o f 1898. I t could hardly be sup­
posed that they were entirely unaware of advances in this field, and indeed
Konow’s fundamental article of 1914 was included in the ‘list of important
texts and articles consulted’. Whether or not it was in fact consulted, the
editors made no use or mention of its results, nor o f any other matters of
palaeography; nor was the reader given the slightest hint that the transcrip­
tion being reprinted was already known to be inadequate and misleading in
almost every verse.
Meanwhile those scholars chiefly interested in the manuscript preferred
to postpone the preparation of an edition based upon a rereading of the

1 A lth ough alm ost all o f these parallels had
b een identified, and almost all the readjustm ents
already proposed, either b y L iid ers or b y Franke,
B arua and M itra m ust b e given the cred it fo r
having m ade th e same discoveries indepen-
dently, as their P reface shows : ‘I t w ill be seen
that the plan o f th e chapters appearing in
P art II o f this instalm ent was w orked out in d e-
pendently o f th e v ery valuable suggestions o f
R . O tto Franke in his article Zum Manusknpt
Dutreiiil de RJiins contributed to the Z D M G
(60), 1906, and o f Sylvain L é ri in his S tu d y o f
the Recensions o f the Dhamm apada (J. A . S ep-
tem ber-O ctober, 1912). W e have the satisfaction
to note th a t'o u r readjustments and identifies-
tionscoincide in num erous instances with theirs.’
A lthough the beginning o f this statement seems
a little vague, there can be no doubt concerning
the sense o f the final sentence. O n p. ii o f the
Introduction.w cread, ‘A ta nopportunem om ent
w e chanccd upon tw o incom plete couplets in
his [Senart’s] arrangement, num bered as line 1
in his plate A* and as line 17 , or the last line, in
his plate A 3. T h e se lines, considered by him as
tw o separate verses, appeared to us to be bu t
in tegral parts o f one single verse.’ Sim ilarly, on
p . 187 : ‘ It w as indeed b y accident that w e after
repeated searches chanccd upon tw o verses in
the Sam yutta, corresponding to this verse and
the next one.' (T h e reference is to C vi and 2.)
T h e first o f these discoveries was made by
Liiders in 1899, the second b y Franke in 1906.
Sin ce both o f the relevant articles are mentioned
in their bibliography, it would be rather difîi-
cult to understand these claim s unless w c assume
that Barua and M itra did not read the articles
u ntil the main part o f their book was already in
print. T h e striking agreement throughout with
the w ork o f their predecessors, in readjustments
and identifications, m ay therefore be taken to
result m erely from the com mon subjcct-mattcr.
A ndthefactthatasecond ind cp end cntinvestiga-
tion was abic to add hardly anything sienificant
in these tw o respects is indeed 2 confirmation
o f the thoroughness o f the work o f LOders and
Franke.
8 IN T R O D U C T I O N

manuscript itself until the material in Leningrad should be a\ailable There

was now also another reason for waiting a little longer, since the pen-written
Kharosthi documents discovered by Sir Aurel Stem m three expeditions to
Chinese Turkestan were now being published,1 and it was desirable to com­
pare this wnting with the script of the Dharmapada manuscript The evidence
of the manuscript was used by Rapson in a detailed essay on the KharosthI
script of Chinese Turkestan,1 by Burrow in his grammar of the language of
the same documents,3 and by Konow in his edition of the post-A^okan
KharosthI inscriptions4
Nevertheless, many earlier misconceptions persistently reappeared m
print, and as late as 1943 Konou remarked5 that his article of 1914 did not
seem to ha\ e been noticed by many scholars In spite of all that had been done
by Konow and others to advance understanding, the scattered materials re*
mained for the most part unknown 'false readings still had currency, and no
clear idea of the dialect was attained ’6 In fact, the text had for many years
bccn\muaU> unusable, except by those who had made a special study of the
Kharosthi script and who were in a position to verify readings from the fac­
similes in the light of the many contributions to the subject published since
1898 Tor the majority who were interested m the text, it was not until the
publication of a new edition by H W Bailey7 in 1945 that it became at all
easj to obtain a good picture of the language, freed from the original errors of
transcription

II E X T A N T P A R T S A N D T H E IR A R R A N G E M E N T

The present cdiUan \%based ow photographs of the following pieces of the

manuscript, the originals of the first three being in Leningrad and the re­
mainder in Pans
0 » the leaf published with facsimile b> Oldenburg for the International Con­
gress in 1897 Written on one side onl> Plates I and II
M, an lrrcgularlj broken piece, also written on one side only, exccpt for
z \ erses written on the rc\ ersc in a different hand (\ erses 343-4) This is
the leaf which, as Scnart obsened fits the beginning of the Pans leaf B
Under the same glass there are prcsen ed a number of detached fragments
fame, unfortunately, upside-down) a few of wluch belong to the same
’ KAjwijH Iramfttmu *Ji«rd by Do>«r * ThrhhofanDharmapada B SO A Sxt 194s
lU p w . Wrutt «nd SoM f 19:0-9 pp 485-5,1 At that time it was not possible to
1 ^ o f o n tny material be> ond the p m lourty pub
¡^ngvagt e/ tkt hharotfhl Deamrntt luhcd facsimile* and the edition v .u ih tttfott
/ w Oa</w T w in » » I9J7 of necessity restrict»! to those portione o f the
InJxantm it part t i n i i t from the French material Senart«
_ plate» of t) e mam b n e i A D and C but not
* 1. V. ^ * i T1 ’ WJ P «4 the filaments and from the Russiin Olden
It W I!* j t tl O A S u I W J* ^ \>uic 1 fw similt o f the I n f O
 IN T R O D U C T IO N g

piece. M ost of the separate fragments, however, many with-writing on both

sides, come from a remote part of the text, two being from the end of
leaf N , while the remainder are from the beginning of N , and serve to
connect the latter with the end o f the Paris leaf C. Every verse between C
and N is in fact represented, though there are lacunae in individual verses
Plates III, I V and X V II, X V III.
N , the largest single piece remaining intact, very well preserved, and written
on both sides. Plates X I to X V I.
A , written on one side, was broken when it came into Senart’s hands, and
appeared in his facsimiles in four separate pieces, numbered A 1 to A 4.
Liiders showed in 1899 that the end of A 3 fitted the beginning of A 2. All
four pieces have now been fitted together, and it can be seen from the new
photograph that they are in fact consecutive, in the order A 4, A 3, A 2, A 1.
Plates V II, V III.
B, irregularly broken at the beginning, and fitting the end of the Leningrad
leaf M . Written on one side only. Plates V , VI.
C , written on both sides. Merely for purposes of reference, and fully aware
that the choice was arbitrary, Senart allotted the terms recto and verso to
the two sides. It is now possible to determine that the side named verso
was written first, and the names should therefore properly be inter­
changed. T h e recto side shown in plates IX and X is thus Senart’s Cvo,
and the verso in plates X I X and X X is C ro. (The reference-numbers given
in the printed text after the verses have of course been retained in the form
hitherto in use.)
Fragments, plates X X I to X X IV . Only two of these have writing on both
sides (450 and 500, the two sides in each case being shown in adjacent posi­
tions, in plates X X II and X X IV respectively). Since all of the fragments
which belong to C come from that part of the manuscript which was
written on both sides, it should be added that the absence of writing on
the other side in most of these fragments is only the result of the material
of the manuscript, which, on being broken, easily separates into the
layers o f which it was constituted; and the other side is in many cases not
lost, but preserved separately. This can be seen very clearly in a piece such
as 490-«, plate X X III, which fits into the blank spaces in the lower half of
plate IX, while the writing on the other side is in position in the main
leaf, in the upper half o f plate XX.
These new photographs have not only supplied large portions of the text
hitherto unpublished, but have also made it incomparably easier to read those
parts published in the earlier facsimiles. No one who has seen the 1897
facsimile of 0 can fail to admire the great skill with which this scarcely legible
document had already been interpreted; and the new photograph, beautifully
10 IN T R O D U C T IO N

clear throughout, has made it possible to suggest on!/ quite minor alterations
to the readings giyen by Koncnv and Bailey
The main leaves of the Paris section are now remarkably different from the
facsimiles originally published by Senart Not only have the four parts of
leaf A been fitted together, but the majority of the fragments of B and C have
been fitted into placc, and the new plates therefore show many portions of the
text which were missing in the earlier facsimiles For this careful restoration
of the manuscript we are indebted to Professor J. Filhozat1 Since the pieces
restored to their original positions account for most of the fragments to which
Senart's edition had given separate numbers, it is no longer necessary to
retain these numbers, and it will be found that any reference to these frag-
ment-numbers in the earlier literature can be easily traced in the present
edition, either through the reference number of the verse m the main leaf, or
through the index

In.addition to greatly extending our knowledge of the text, the new material
from. Leningrad has provided an interesting piece of evidence which makes it
possible to place all the main portions of the manuscript in their correct
order, and also to determine with a high degree of probability the extent of
the parts of the work which are still missing While there is no means of telling
whether these missing parts ate still in existence, it seems very probable that
they had not been lost when the manuscript was discovered in modern times
The evidence in question is an uddana^tnt (223), which gives the titles and
order of the first thirteen chapters of the book
I Tam t bhtkhu tasina t pavu
araha magma ya cpramadu
cttaji baht adhavajara t
svktna them yama ena treilasa

Although the number gi\en in such an udd&na does not by itself prove that
the group of chapters listed in the \erse was the initial group m the text,
nevertheless, the introductory verse and the blank portion of the leaf preced­
ing the #raAm<ww«ehapter, the number of verses m that chapter, and the
disposition of the rest of the text, all combine to show with certainty that this
group of thirteen is indeed the first section of the book In any case, the
assumption of a lost group of chapters preceding this group would imply 8
• Inthecooneofareeentcon\en*tjort IVo- to ftitfumue the important contribution of
frttor ( Jliont maintained that the credit for Lfld«r> this doe* not in any way lessen ouf
thii »chie\etnent ihouM be fTivrn to LOdffi his appreciation of the »Vilful Kindling of ihese deb
ovti&mmbuyonbemBoniy Iherepljeement of cate fr*CTflents which has s>' *r us juch excellent
ih e lw r i «t m it bceamc dfinable id put them recorvitruUicriscf liree parti of the manuscript
undtr fm h s lm Bui while no <xi< would wuh
RECTO VERSO

1 Brihirans ($0)

ti SWbu (-?0)

iv Papa
v Arhant

vi Màrga (30)

yii Apratnada (25)

viii Citta
[nffl-ml]
ix Bàia
xxii [Naqs or A:va ?]

xxi [Krtya ?] (9)

x iars (25)

[Sii*?] (IO)

zi Sukha (20) xix [SahairaJ (17)

xviii [Puspa] <J5)

xii Stfiavtra (19)

xvii [Krodha] (ife)

xìii Yamafca (22)
xvi [PraKTrrata ?] (15)

xiv [Pindita] (19)

xv [Bahuiruta} (jb)
13 IN T R O D U C T IO N

length written on one side only which would be altogether out of proportion
with what could be expected in a manuscript of this nature
When the chapters are then set out in the order given, as shown in the
accompanying diagram (not drawn strictly to scale), all the surviving parts are
needed, and m addition two portions, X and Y , are seen to be missing At
least as far as chapter vu, there is no writing on the reverse, and all of the
parts beyond the missing piece Y contain writing on both sides This is a
familiar state of affairs, and the implications cannot be doubted the manu­
script is without question a single-stnp manuscript T he present appearance
of some of the parts suggests that it was of the concertina-type, though it is
possible that it was originally intended to be a roll
In theory, this fact might perhaps have been guessed from the original
publication, for if any set of pieces, known to be from a single manuscript, is
found to consist of portions of unequal length, some written on one side only
and some on both, there is always a very high probability that these pieces
have been broken from a single-strip manuscript Books of this form, while
much less usual than those consisting of separate folios, are nevertheless not
at all rare in more recent times O f the two forms, the concertina-type1 is
more frequently used, being much more convenient for the reader than the
roll
Scnart, it seems, thought of the three mam pieces as leaves which had been
separate from the start, and applied to them the terms ‘cahiers’ and ‘feuillets’ 2
These leaves he described as follows 'Une fois écrits, ils étaient repliés sur
eux-mêmes de façon à se présenter sous 1‘aspect de cahiers de 20 centimètres
de long sur une hauteur de 4 centimètres et demi à 5 centimetres ’ On the
other hand, Tilliozat, who had also handled the manuscript, described it as
‘un rouleau* J
It seems likely that a manuscript of birch bark would suffer less in being
used if it «ere rolled than it would if folded If a roll was the original inten­
tion, it must be assumed that it \vas w ouad round a cylinder, possibly of wood,
since the end of N, which would have been the innermost part, shows no signs
of the tight folding which is characteristic of most paper strips which have
been rolled without a centre-piecc But even if the manuscript was originallj
rolled, it seems certain that at a later date it was folded into the concertina-
form It seems impossible, however, to envisage a strip of this length folded
into such narrow sections as the 4I-5 cm suggested by Senart Sections of this
• ^ a l t o ) T iB O 7*t0 \i 1958 p 9«,) who * L in d t Clamqur u p 711 Oldenburg*
u«rt t>« dnenpttont un« longue feuille pi ie en communication of 1897 referred to the two
p a m m l and plii* «1 »cconiion roll» of birch batk which he had received from
1 T h m 1* of cour** no harm m continuing Pctrovsku but it u ju at possible that the term
to tit* t! e term 1ea%c* for the tcpame piecti used {airrox) m ay h a\e intended nothing more
Trended it U unJentnod that they were not precise than packet or parcel
Kpsr«^ in th* original stare of the manuicnpt
 IN T R O D U C T IO N I3

size would for the most part contain only two lines o f writing; and although as
the plates show, some parts o f the manuscript do indeed have breaks at about
this distance apart, the more serious breaks are for the most part spaced more
widely, and the appearance of the manuscript as a whole suggests that the
primary folding (whether done by the original scribe or later) was rather into
sections averaging about 10 cm. in depth. I t is still possible that some of the
subsidiary cracking is the result o f careless refolding at a later time.1
T h e fact that the manuscript was o f the single-strip type has important
consequences for the text, since it allows us to deduce the numbering of the
later extant chapters and the total number of chapters in the book, with a
degree o f probability that is little short o f certainty. Th e characteristic feature
of so many manuscripts of this typ ew riting on only one side at the beginning,
and on both in the later parts) is the natural result of caution on the part of the
scribe. F or the sake o f economy, both sides should be used; but since it would
be most vexatious to reach the end of the reverse side before the text has been
completed, the scribe normally takes the obvious precaution of continuing to
extend his strip until he is a little beyond half-way in the text. I f his judge­
ment has been good, the blank portion of the reverse remaining at the beginning
of the strip will be relatively small.
In the present manuscript the part blank on the reverse side is at first sight
quite unreasonably large, and indeed amounts to rather more than half of the
total length of the strip.2 But this somewhat wasteful expenditure of birch-
bark is immediately understood if we assume that the scribe judged his text-
length in terms of the total number of chapters. This was admittedly rather
unintelligent, since the chapters are arranged, with only slight irregularities,
in descending order of magnitude.
W e may therefore assert with considerable confidence that the Prakrit text,
although differing very much in the arrangement of chapters and verses,
agreed with the Pali to the extent of containing a total of 26 chapters; and that
the scribe, mechanically taking the iiddana after chapter xiii as the half-way
point in the text, allowed one more chapter as his margin of safety before
starting to write on the reverse.
Th e grouping of a number such as 13 in an uddana in itself suggests that the
total number of chapters was very probably a multiple of the same number,3
although naturally it cannot be taken as absolute proof. But a total of 26
chapters is in ever}' way the most likely hypothesis here. The almost regular

s See also note on verses 343, 344.
5 A lth ough the lengths o f the missing pieces
X and Y cannot be determined exactly, 2 prob-
able estim ate fo r these lengths w ould s u r e s t
that the half-w ay p oint in the length o f the strip
came a little before the beginning o f A .
1 B y w a y o f contrast, the U dinavarga, w ith a
total o f 33 chapters, has vidar.ai in the Sanskrit
m anuscripts after the tenth and the twentieth
chapters, w hile the Tibetan translation is divided
into two groups o f 12, one o f 6, nnd one o f 3
chapters.
,4 IN T R O D U C T IO N

arrangement of chapters in decreasing order o f length shows that the two

chapters Citta1 and Bala on the recto side of the missing piece Y probably
contained together approximately 50 verses, and this would leave enough
space, and perhaps a little to spare, for the verso of Y to bring the total number
to 26 chapters (Indeed, if the decrease in length continued, there might even
ha\ e been room for a total of 27 or 28 chapters in all, but there are no positive
grounds for conjecturing this)
There remains the further possibility that a third section of the manuscript
might ha\e been lost bejond N, in which case a number of chapters might
ha\ e disappeared betv, een xiv and that which has been numbered as xv in this
edition But this is unlikely, for several reasons As already suggested, one
chapter after the central uddana is an understandable place for the scribe to
turn to the v erso, and the end of N (see plate XIII) appears to have been care­
fully cut, whereas all the other pieces (and the beginning of N) have irregular
edges suggesting that they have been tom rather than cut In addition, chap­
ter xiv ends about an inch and a half before the edge of the bark, and the
senbe has preferred to leave the space empty, and to start his new chapter* at
the beginning of the other side Nowhere else in the extant portions has a
similar space been left between chapters, with the exception of a gap betv. een
chapters xx and xxi (plate XX), where the reason seems to have been an
unusually rough piece of bark The case is indeed not proved with complete
certamt) , but the hypothesis that the whole work consisted of 26 chapters,
and that the end of N is the point of change to the verso, allows all the facts
at present available to settle into position more easily and naturally than any
alternate e possibility It has therefore not seemed an unreasonable risk to
number the chapters on the verso of the manuscript as following without a
break after xiv

Division, and musing parts

If we now return to consider the manner in which the various parts of the
manuscript are arranged— and here it will be remembered, we are on entirely
firm ground— it can be seen that this arrangement displays a symmetrical
pattern which is much too well ordered to allow us to believe that it is due to
cliancc \Vhate\er ma> have happened in 1892, it is certain that the manu­
script was not simpls divided at random between the Trench and Russian
purchasers We might reasonablj have cxpccted a division roughlj in the

* ^ ,vjnnrc ^n,TT' tHu chapter »tnp o f bark remains attached to the main leaf
i^ _ r . be>on<J the place from which these fragment*
tint vene* o f th * th j^ t r now Jure come which again contrasts with other
, from t »e man leaf are contained in eJfre* where fragmentation has resulted difectlf
« i r x r > W ' j M p a e K M l i A. w tw w from the tearing
 IN T R O D U C T IO N I$

m iddle o f the book— not that it matters much w here: if the foreigner is going
to buy it at all, a foot or two more or less is not going to make much difference
to the price that can be extracted. O r if there are three possible clients, the
book w ill be divided into three more or less equal parts. Instead of this, it was
divided into seven parts, in a precise, calculated, methodical division o f spoils,
almost as if pains had been taken to ensure that one customer should have as
good value for his money as another. W hy the vendor should have troubled
about this, I cannot guess.
First, a piece was torn from each end of the extended strip for M . Petrov-
skii, who thus obtained one portion written on one side (later to fall into two,
0 and M ,1 the thread having rotted) and one portion written on both sides—
N , together with the debris of fragments resulting from the break (now under
the same glass as M). Next, for MM. Dutreuil de Rhins and Grenard, a piece
from each end o f the remainder; B, written on one side, and C, written on
both. Next, X and Y — for an unknown third purchaser?— but again, one
piece single-sided, one double. Only A was now left,2 and for some reason the
French travellers were favoured with this additional piece.
N ow it is quite obvious that, on the information at our disposal, we cannot
unravel the problem after so many years. It is possible to imagine a number
o f different ways in which the symmetrical distribution might have come
about; and in such a situation, conjecture is usually profitless. One point,
however, can scarcely be doubted: when the manuscript was found in the
nineteenth century it was entire. The two missing parts are situated in the
interior of the strip, and stand in exactly the same relationship to each other
as the French pieces B and C , and the Russian pieces O-f-M and N ; and the
part between them, A, still survives. Any suggestion that these parts might
have been accidentally lost through the attrition of time is so improbable that
it need not be considered.
I f we could assume that there were only two purchasers, the distribution
might in some ways be more easily understood. Th e seller in that case need
only have gone alternately to his two clients, selling on each occasion a
1 It may be noted that the break between ficaoce in the matter. It may be added, how-
these w o shows much less damage than mostof ever, that the nearness of the beginning of A to
the other fractures. I f the two parts had already the centre-point of the strip may in some way
separated before reaching Oldenburg, they were be linked with the fact that it is the only one of
at least recognized by him as a unity, since his the six priman- breaks which docs not come at
preliminary publication describes the material a chapter-division (as seen from the rccto). It
received from Pctrovskii as consisting of two may be thought only a coincidence that the
pieces in all. slanting tear between M and 13 should have left
1 Even here there is something of a curiosity, the chapter-marking (after Jinc 100) almost
since, on the most probable estimate of the exactly half-way in distance between the points
lengths of the missing parts, A almost exactly where the tear reaches the edtres. Yet the other
bridges the distance between the mid-point of four primar}' breaks nrc at chapter-dm-ion';;
the total strip and the end of the part without and the fact further reinforces the conviction
writing on the reverse. But I can see no signi- that the method o f division was not random.
,6 IN T R O D U C T IO N

pair1 of pieces, one from each end, until only the centre, A, remained for the
final sale. In this case X and Y would have fallen to the share of Petrovskii. But
we know from Oldenburg’s statement that he received only two pieces(0 -f M,
and N) from Petrovskii, and it would therefore be necessary to assume that
the other two bad been lost in transit. Such an accidental loss, unlikely enough
in any case, becomes entirely incredible when it involves the double coinci­
dence of the balanced position of the lost pieces in the text, and the close
equivalence in size between the known Paris and Leningrad portions. The
same reasons (and several additional difficulties) make it impossible to believe
that, after Petrovskii had acquired the extremities, everything remaining
might have gone to Dutreuil de Rhins. Since, as already said, it is equally
difficult to believe that X and Y might have been lost at an earlier period in
the history of the manuscript, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that the
division was into three parcels.
The finder of the manuscript, whether or not he was directly responsible
for tearing it, is hardly likely to have retained the missing pieces as a keepsake.
It is almost certain that they represent a third purchase.2
It is admittedly not very helpful to know that the lost parts o f the manu­
script almost certainly existed seventy years ago. The fragility of the birch-
bark is easily seen from the showers of fragments which resulted from each
tear; and the shattered condition in which the French portions reached
Europe shows clearly enough, when contrasted with the extremities of the
manuscript, O and N (obviously more vulnerable when the book was whole),
the extent of the additional damage which must probably be attributed to the
* The alternative hypothesis, at first sight narrow tail at the right-hand side. Apart from
simpler, of an alternating succession of the sale this tail, and a few small pieces from the interior
o f single pieces, beginning at tu tor end c f the of the lea!, all the fragments which came to
»trip and working steadily to the other, is ex- Senirt in company with A are the result of mix-
eluded by the distribution of the fragments ture in the baggage, and belong to B and C In
Each break produced a number of fragments, notable contrast to this mixing together of the
and in each case thtse were gathered and put French fragments, and a similar mixing of the
with the piece removed Thus, the fragments two jets of Russian fragments among themseh es,
between M and B , and those between C and N , not a single fragment from the interior of a
went with Petrovska's pieces, and similarly, a French leaf found its way to Russia T his fact
few fragments at the end of B and the beginning in itself proves that no significant splintering
of Ccam ctornnce,Ag3!n»tthu,no fragments had taken place before the manuscript was
»t til hive been identified which come from the divided in 1892, there being no conceivable
part immediately before A , and any such frag» method (other than reading) whereby fragments
ments must have kept company v,ith X . Apart which had broken off earlier could have been
from trivial subsequent breakages, thermly ap- «»signed to the correct parcel o f major portions
parent eicrpnon to this disposal of fragments is * It is possible that the pieces were not sold
the beginning o f »he Ctttt>ch»pttt. following at that time, but were merely held back in the
the end of A . Here, how n er, the position o f the hope that a wealthier customer might later come
pieees and the preservation o f the thread (piste into the market. But the fact that they were de-
XX I) together indicate that this breakage also tached before the final piece A was passed to
is sub»e<p»«rt, snd that the removal of Y left Dutreuil de Rhms (see preceding footnote)
this p»rt *ull attached to A in the form of 1 makes this seem very unlikely.
 IN T R O D U C T IO N i7

manner of transport in the baggage of the expedition. Unless the missing parts
have lain relatively undisturbed, they might well have disintegrated by now,
and might have been thrown away as useless rubbish. Nevertheless, it is pos­
sible that they are still intact among the family heirlooms o f a descendant of
an unknown third buyer, and it is possible that they may yet be rediscovered
in the future. But it would be foolish to imagine that there is very much hope.
Although it is clear that the manuscript was divided into three parcels in
this manner, the reason for such a division is less obvious. Th e result was un­
doubtedly that each purchaser received approximately equivalent quantities
o f bark, and in each case approximately half was written on one side, and
the remainder on both sides. The writing on the whole manuscript being
arranged as it was, a more or less similar result could have been achieved quite
mechanically if the whole length had first been folded in two, successive pairs
o f pieces being then removed, by tearing through the double thickness. This
is to some extent suggested by the fact that O + M is of approximately the
same length as N with its adjoining fragments; and similarly, the total length
of B is very close to that of C. But the long slanting tear between 33 and M
would throw the second pair some 9 inches out of position; and if only a
rough-and-ready division had been intended, it seems unlikely that the
operator would have paused to adjust the centre fold before proceeding to
remove the second pair. And in any case, the situation of most of the breaks at
chapter-endings is hardly consistent with such a procedure. If it had not been
for this question of chapter-endings, some such method of operation mieht
have been a reasonably plausible hypothesis. We should then imagine that,
since the centre of the whole strip was in any ease fairly close to the beginning
of A, the removal of the two outer pairs of pieces would have left a trunk con­
sisting o f a double-folded portion which, if divided at the fold, would result
in a single-written piece (X), and one of comparable length with about half
its length bearing writing on both sides. Th e double-written piece might
then be removed (V), leaving A as the only remnant. The implied equation of
length, however, (X = Y-f-A), is improbable, and would seem to require
chapters in X unduly short for their position in the scries, or too great a Icncth
for V, or both. It seems hardly possible, therefore, to envisage a more or less
mechanical or haphazard method of procedure which would have given the
tvpe of distribution actually reached.
 IN T R O D U C T IO N

readily imagine that he would Have taken into account the marks of chapter-
endings
But while these things were of ivo consequence to the seller, it could more
easily be thought that the buyers, if each had paid an equivalent sum, might
have felt it important to receive equivalent shares of the ink, and not merely
equal lengths of bark There is, however, no direct evidence at all of collusion
between the purchasers Stein, indeed, assumed almost as an axiom that the
acller would have taken great care to keep each customer m ignorance of the
other’s existence The axiom is admittedly not well founded The seller must
ha\ e been unusually naive if he did not perceive the commercial advantage of
raising the pnee by bidding one potential customer against another But he
could well have overlooked the danger that the interested customers might
resist a further increase in price by combining to buy jointly Against any such
supposition must be set the fact that m 1897 neither Grenard nor Pctrovsku
gave any hint that they had known earlier of anything beyond thar own indivi­
dual share Even although the buyers in 1892 could not possibly have known
whether the manuscript was of any value at all, it seems initially absurd to
think that Dutreuil de Rhins, Petrovskn, and the unknown third customer
might have sat down together and carefully worked out a treaty whereby
each should obtain an equitable share It would be still more incredible if,
after 1897, when the unique importance of the manuscript had been made
known, anyone concerned in the purchase should have remained silent if
he had any relevant information to disclose And it might even be thought
that the innocence of the Europeans involved is proved beyond doubt by the
simple fact that no use was made of scissors
Nevertheless, whoever was responsible for it, the division and distribution
was not accomplished without careful prior consideration For this the seller
had no motive, and although the buyers (if there had been collusion between
them) could indeed be said to have had a motive of sorts in demanding fair
and equal shares, the same motive would surely haveworked strongly in favour
of a rather less destructive method of dismemberment We are therefore left
V, ith the mystery It 15 a pity that the uddana-verse was not read and its impli­
cations seen at a time when questions could profitably have been asked of
some of those who had been concerned in the transaction

Esttniatcd length of the complete text

In the present condition of the manuscript, the width vanes for the most
part bctvtccn 19 and 19 5 cm , but occasionally approaches 21 cm Allowing
for some slight loss through near, the average width m its original state may
hetakenosippfoMmatelj 20cm or 8 inches Before division, thevvhole strip,
held together b> stitching down both edges, can be estimated to have mea*
 IN T R O D U C T IO N I9

sured some 5 metres or 16 feet 6 inches in length. T h is estimate naturally

cannot be taken as exact, but an error o f 1 foot more or less is probably the
maximum which could be reconciled with die number o f verses contained in
the missing portions.
On the basis o f the parts of the text published by Senart, it was quite im­
possible to make any reliable estimate of the length of the complete work.
From a comparison o f the relative lengths o f individual chapters dealing with
the same topic in the various recensions, Barua and Mitra1 calculated that the
Prakrit version contained approximately 600 stanzas. This calculation was
based on the assumption that the ratios of lengths of corresponding chapters
would remain relatively constant between the recensions. Sylvain Lévi, ap­
parently working on the same assumption, seems to have thought (although
his statement is not entirely specific) that the Prakrit version might have been
of the order of 750 verses.8The additional information now available not only
shows that the assumption of a constant ratio in chapter-length was not justi­
fied, but also makes it possible to estimate the total length with a high degree
o f probability.
T w o independent methods of calculation may be suggested, one based
on the external data provided by the manuscript, and the other on the
internal relations between the text-material of the Prakrit and that o f the
Pali Dhammapada. Since the two calculations converge on the same result,
this result may be accepted with fair confidence, subject to a small range
of error.
Since the whole of the extant text shows an arrangement of chapters in
order of decreasing length, with only slight irregularities, it may reasonably
be assumed that the missing chapters conformed to the same pattern. I f we
assign in every case to the chapters which are missing or incomplete the
largest numbers of verses possible without disrupting this pattern, wc arrive
at a total of just over 570 verses for the whole text; and if in every case wc
assign the smallest possible number within the pattern, we obtain a total
of just under 510 verses. Since, however, it is ver}1 improbable that all the
missing chapters should have been uniformly minimum or maximum in this
respect, these figures may safely be regarded as lying outside the range which
need be considered. The mean figure of 540, with an error of, say, ¿ xo, is on
this basis a very probable estimate; and anything outside the range 520 to 560
may be regarded as remotely improbable.
An alternative method of calculation is made possible by the fact that the
Prakrit shares a ven- large number of verses with the Pali Dhammapada; and
although the arrangement of this common material differs considerably in the
two texts, there is now a sufficiendy large scction of tlie Prakrit available to
* The Prakrit Dharnmapada, pp. r c iii- s r iv . : JAs. 1912, p. 222.
20 IN T R O D U C T I O N

allow us to assess the quantitative relationships between the two with a fairly
small margin of error. Of 350 Prakrit stanzas, between 225 and 230 are shared
with the Dhammapada.1 Since the latter has 423 verses in all, a similar propor­
tion would indicate approximately 640 verses for the Prakrit, if it could be
assumed that in the end alt the verses of the Pali would appear in the other
text. Such an assumption, however, would in itself be most unreasonable,
and is in fact contradicted by the manner in which the Pali verses are repre­
sented in the extant Prakrit.
Although the two texts have in common not only a high proportion of
verses, but also of chapter-subjects into which the verses are grouped, there
is by no means unanimity in the allocation of a given verse to the same chap­
ter-heading. A very large number of the verses contain several key words
which make it quite understandable that different redactors should have
placed them under different headings. Taking the 14 vaggas of the Pali which
are best represented in the Prakrit text, it is found that, of the 243 stanzas con­
tained in the Pali chapters in question, 65 are missing from the extant Prakrit;
and of the 178 which are present, 131 are placed in the same subject-matter
groups as in the Pali.2 It may be assumed that this last group accounts for all
those verses whose content makes their placing very probable; and the 47
which are differently allocated show by this fact that they had at least an equal
probability of being placed in two different chapters. Instances are not un­
common of verses shared by the Pali, Prakrit, and the Udanavarga which are
under different headings in all three; and many verses could without difficulty
be considered as possible candidates for a still larger number of the given
chaptcr-headings. The motives which led to varying allocations by different
redactors were certainly not uniform; and since a choice of at least Wo head­
ings, and often more, was available for such verses, and since the order
of chapters in the two texts is unrelated, it would be expected that, for a
1 The figure M n ti considerably from one although in some nays it might have been ex*
chsptrr to mother. in xu, 19 stanzas out of pected, it is worth pointing it out, since the
3& at* shared v ith the P ill Dhammapada, but attention u more readily caught by the differ-
in xv, only t out of >6 Put the sample is cnee* than by the agreements, and at first sight
sufiieisntly larfie to make these discrepancies u u easy to form the wnptession that there ate
negligible. Disregarding chapter diMsions, more discrepancies in allocation to chapter than
Section* of j 0consecume>erses show a ranseof » the case, nefore counting, I should ha\e been
between 15 andao^etwswhichdonctoccutm prepared, on impression, to guess that rather
the P*|i Dhammapada, snd atotalof 129 such less than half of the common stanzas v, ere placed
\er*ei for the extant portion ma> therefore be m the corresponding chapter by the two texts.
Ultra at a rtluhle utdtcaiton 'he proportion But in fact the allocation is to the same chapter
in the «hoi« in t . Some account must be taken for>ery nearly two-thirds o f the itanzas »bared
of P*nul correspondence». and the figures m e n by the two texts (This figure applies only to the
male sprn* »«wane* for this impim sion It is representation o f the Pali chaptcr^ in the Prakrit.
Iw tt fitt that *50 »s slightly too high, on the basis of the 14 roajar under discussion.
Inrt no, by y-try much. and it would be d.Ticult The equi> almt relationships of the Udlnavar*»
» Vnns the mimWr below »35. t0 both the others, ha* e not been m%etti^ted.
Th»» 1« really quite » high proportion, and and may be different.)
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 21

sufficiently large number, the verses placed differently from the Pali would
be spread through the Prakrit text in a random distribution.1
It is immediately obvious that the distribution of these 243 Pali stanzas in
the proportions given. (131 in corresponding chapters: 47 in other chapters:
65 absent from extant Prakrit) can hardly be reconciled with the figure of
230 Dhammapada stanzas in 350 Prakrit unless some of the 65 were absent
from the complete Prakrit text.
For sufficiently large numbers, there will be a good expectation that verses
which were common to the Pali and the complete Prakrit will be distributed
between large fractions such as the extantportion(E) and the lost portion (L) in
numbers closely approximating to the proportion of length between E and L.
From the figure of 230 Pali verses in the 350 of E, we can therefore calculate
a probable number for the Pali verses represented in L, for any arbitrary
length assigned to L (provided it is not too short), and from this obtain a
probable figure for the proportion of a group of 243 Dhammapada stanzas
which might be expected to be missing from the total Prakrit text. The sub­
traction of this number from 65 will then give a probable number {a) for the
remainder of the floating verses from these i^vaggasvtiiich. might be expected
to occur in an L of that length.
Similarly, it will be expected that the floating verses also will be distributed
between E and L in a proportion closely approximating to the proportion of
these lengths. For any sufficiently largevalue of L, therefore, a second number
(6) can be obtained by the proportion b:47: :L:E.
Itis then a straightforward matter to ascertain by trial and error the range of
values for L which brings a and b reasonably dose.1 For the total figures indi­
cated by the estimate from chapter-lengths, the result of these calculations is:
E -j-L a b a-b
520 19 23 -4
540 26 35 +1
560 34 28 +6
1 There would seem to lie a disturbing factor shortest. There is thus a reasonable expectation
in the arrangement of the Prakrit chapter that the mobile verses will be spread sufficiently
lengths, which, by providing a greater number evenly through the text for the proportions in
of choices of heading towards the latter part, the extant and lost parts not to differ signi-
mighthe expected to lead to a greater concentre- ficantty fiom on entirely random distribution,
tion of mobile verses nearer the end. But this 3 Since in an ideally regular state of «flairs
seems to have had a signiScant influence only at a and b should in fact be equal, the reader may
the extremities. O f the 47 verses in question, prefer to Sec the matter set out in the form of a
only one appears in the firet 50 of the text, while simply if cumbersome, linear equation:
to appear in the last 50 extant. In spite o f this,
however, the first 150 extant verses have iS, and 47k _ f _ a3° / , * v|
the second iso have 19. The lost chapters of the 350 d 423 [ 35© ‘ /
text certainly must account for more than 150
verses; and they consist o f 3} of the longer which gives a value iS^-l for L, ond con
chapters, s o f medium length, and 5 of the quently a total o f 539 for E + L .
22 IN T R O D U C T IO N

On the assumption that the missing parts of the text were sufficiently large to
show a distribution of the verses shared with the Pali Dhammapada statis­
tically similar to the extant parts, these figures indicate a total of 540 verses as
the most probable.
The various stages of this calculation naturally involve possible errors,
which, however, are not likely to be great The 230 Dhammapada verses
shared are spread evenly through the extant Prakrit: an average of 33 in each
group of 50, with a mean deviation of 2; and the floating verses from the
14 chapters considered are distributed in the same groups of 50 (excluding the
first, which is not typical) with an average of 8 to each group, and a mean
deviation of i*5.x As a rough check on the likely range o f error involved, the
above calculations were adjusted so as to assign probable maximum and mini­
mum values to a and b in each case, consistent with the observed variations in
the extant parts. The combination of minimum values for a with maximum
values for b gave a result of just over 560, while maximum values for a with
minimum values for 6 gave just under 520. Sincea value for «smaller than the
originally calculated mean would imply a smaller number than expected from
the 243 verses in question in the whole Prakrit text, and a larger value for b
would imply a greater number than expected of the floating verses from the
same 243 in L, it is safe to assume that the possible errors involved in the
exact proportions would be more than compensated by the assumption of
outside values for a and 6, shifted in opposite directions.
As a further check the same calculations were earned out on the assump­
tion of 225 Dhammapada verses in E instead of 230,* and for both of these
figures on the basis of only iatwiggas3of the Dhammapada instead of 14. The
mean probable total (to the nearest 10) indicated by each of these four
reckonings was:
14 laggas 330 verses 540
14 225 560
12 230 520
12 225 540
* 11 ill l i e Dhintfoapsdi \ tttts in die a u n t tion on 14 chapters in clu d ed in addition the
Prakrit are included in this latter cou n t, the Pali Pakinnaka (w h ere the title can in any case
floating \<nt* »how an average o f 12 to each h ard ly be th ou g h t to in d icate a ‘subject-m atter
Croup o f so, with a m ean deviation of 1 grouping*), and the Pali Niraya, which is suffi-
* nole 1 on Pa2e 20s ciently well represented in the extant Praknt to
* This m tncts the calculation to the 10 which make it probable that the heading was absent
have a cortespondung iubject.group complete from the complete text T h e inclusion of these
in the extant Prakrit, together with Jari (with n\o probably makes a more reliable sample to
only one ' erte missing) and M lrga Although w ork from, not only because of the greater num-
less than half of the list U preserved in the bers involved, but also because in this ■way there
P n km , the extant test contains in thu and » some compensation for the fact that the Pra-
other chapter. >m ei1c e rm p e n d u ig to 1 r of the knt had a few chapter-iubjecta not in the Pah
1L -m” . ° 1 » ^ ( « the extant portion, chapter» x v , XX, xxi), and
possible to include it u u he coxmt. T he calcuU- * numberofthe float^g verse» do ¿ » ¿ r in these.
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 23

It would appear, therefore, that the internal relationships between the two
texts provide very strong confirmation of the estimate based on the lengths of
chapters within the Prakrit text itself (and thereby, incidentally, give additional
support for the assumption that there was no further section of the manuscript
lost beyond N). Since both methods of estimate independently give the same
figure, 540, as the most probable (the agreement being in fact almost too good
to be credible), it is perhaps desirable to say explicitly that this agreement is
not to be taken as a proof that the original text did consist of precisely this
number of verses. All that can be claimed is that, on the basis of the two types
of available evidence, the figure of 540 is a reasonable working hypothesis for
the present. At the same time, the two estimates may reasonably be thought to
agree sufficiently well to make any figure less than 520 or more than 560 ex­
tremely improbable.
It would seem, therefore, that the missing set of pieces of the manuscript
was slightly larger than either of the two extant sets, but not by very much.
Making some allowance for a few fragmentary verses in the French portion
whose other parts may have originally gone with the missing set, we may con­
clude that the surviving part represents very close to five-eighths of the total.

III. G E N E R A L R E L A T IO N S H IP S W IT H T H E P A L I D H A M M A P A D A
AND TH E UDANAVARGA

When the verses themselves are out of reach, it is admittedly a matter of

rather minor importance to know how many have been lost But it is not
entirely without interest to determine that the Prakrit recension was signifi­
cantly larger than the Pali, but still much closer to it than to the Udanavarga,
with nearly 1,000 verses. It is also worth observing that, in spite of the great
difference in total lengths, the Prakrit and the Udanavarga are very close to
each other in the number of verses which each of them shares with the Pali
Dhammapada. From the proportions in the surviving Prakrit, the complete
text may be assumed to have shared between 350 and 360 verses with the
Dhammapada; while for the Udanavarga the corresponding figure is probably
between 360 and 370.1 It would not necessarily be expected that the verses
themselves should always be the same in the two cases, even although the
number is very close. But in fact a very high proportion of these verses must
have been the same. Of 66 verses in the extant Prakrit for which parallels have
not been traced in the Udanavarga (many having Pali parallels from texts
1 In his translation of the Tibetan version, with searching for parallels to those Dhamma-
Rockhill identified counterparts for 307 Dham- pada verses which arc missing from the extant
mapada verses, and I have noted just over 50 Prakrit, it is probable that a few remain un-
others which are not included in his tables. The traced. It seems unlikely, however, that the
figure of 360 is therefore certain as a minimum; total will in the end be much more than 370.
but since I have not been directly concerned
24 IN T R O D U C T IO N

other than the Dhammapada), there are only 6 which occur in the Dhamma-
pada
It is thus probable that all three texts share a common nucleus of about 330
to 340 verses This is such a large fraction of the total Pah text that we may
reasonably see in this common nucleus an indication that the three texts 'were
built up in their separate schools by a process of rearranging and adding to a
specific collection of verses inherited from an earlier period, and recognized
as dhamapadam A first glance at these three different texts gives an impres­
sion of such diversity in the choice of verses, in their allocation to chapters,
and in the arrangement within the chapters, that there may be an initial temp­
tation to think that it was only at a relatively late period that the idea occurred
of having a definite canonical Dharmapada collection among the Ksudraka
texts and that each school independently gathered together likely traditional
verses m order to provide such a text for their respective canons 1 It seems
improbable that, if they had been produced in this way, the three available
texts of this class, differing so much in their total lengths, would have shown
such close agreement in the number of verses which the Pali text shares with
each of the others, or that so large a fraction as five sixths of the shortest of
than should be common to all three

Varga-titles
In addition to this common fund of verses, the three texts show the same
type of arrangement, grouping the verses in sections (varga, vagga the term
is not, however, attested in the Prakrit manuscript), for the most part accord­
ing to ethical or more generally religious topics There are in addition a few
chapters whose titles do not come directly under this description, but instead
are named by a characteristic, as Yamaka ‘paired verses’, or indeed the lack
of any common feature, as Praklmaka ‘miscellaneous Others again use a
non ethical topic for ethical illustration, as Puspa, Asva (or Naga), Sahasra
All five of these are shared by the Pali and the Udanavarga, and three of these
groups certainly, and the other two probably, were also included in the
Prakrit To this group the Uv adds also Udaka
While the titles of the first thirteen chapters of the Prakrit are given in the
manuscript itself, in the uddana-vtTst already discussed, the later chapters
can be given titles only by conjecture from the contents of each, while taking
into account the known titles of the Pah and Sanskrit vargas There is, how­
ever, a slightly greater risk of error in such conjecture than might appear at
first sight, and, as a double indication of their conjectural nature, the headings
in the text from chapter xiv onwards ha\ e been enclosed in brackets, and have
« T h u is virtually the process suggested by the third century a d See below p 39
the Chinese editor of the Fa c/rfl thing early in
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 25

been given in Sanskrit. M any of the titles which are certain are common to the
Pali, the Prakrit, and the Udanavarga; but occasionally synonyms may be
used, as when a chapter which certainly corresponds in all three is called
Sramana by the Sanskrit text, Thera by the Prakrit, an'd Dhammattha by the
Theravada text. Presumably sectarian rivalries lie behind such variations.
Similarly, the Pali has a Buddha-vagga, but the Uv. a Tathagata-varga. The
chapter called Jara by the Pali and Prakrit is Anitya in the Sanskrit. The Pali
has a Naga-vagga, the U v. an Aiva-varga. This leaves us completely in doubt
which title to choose for chapter xxii of the Prakrit, where the one certain sur­
viving fragment probably comes from a chapter of similar content; and even
although the identification of the verse is certain, it is still not impossible that
the Prakrit text allocated it to a different rubric.
T h e title Praklrnaka has been adopted for xvi simply because it has not
been possible to discern any common theme which might account for group­
ing these verses into one chapter;1 and both the Pali and the Udanavarga
include the same title, although with different verses in the chapter. Verses
corresponding to those of the Prakrit chapter are scattered through eight
different chapters in the Pali, and eleven in the Sanskrit
There can be little doubt concerning the subjects of the remaining chapters,
and,exceptforxxi,thetitlesproposedarereasonablyprobable.Chapterxivwould
then share the title Pandita with the Pali. Th e Uv. has almost all the verses
in this chapter, but lacks a Paijdita-chapter, and these verses are distributed
through eight other vargas, Inxv, BahuSruta, the title is shared with the Uv., and
is missing in the Pali, which has only one verse in common (in the Atta-vagga).
Chapters xvii Krodha, xviii Pu§pa, and xix Sahasra, are virtually certain.
For xx, the title Slla was suggested by Franke,2 and from the content of the
verses, this would seem to be almost certain. Th e title is missing in Pali, where
the verses shared are scattered through 7 vaggas. Th e Uv. has the tide, but
none o f the verses from this Prakrit chapter appear there under Siia; and the
verses held in common are spread over 8 other vargas.
Th e subject-matter of xxi is clear enough, but there is no similar grouping
either in the Pali or the Uv. Franke described the topic as ‘das Handeln’, but
refrained from suggesting a title. It was probably this that led Sylvain Levi to
give the chapter the title Karma. But although the Udanavarga has a Karma-
varga, the topic of the Prakrit chapter is quite different. It deals, not with the
retribution of acts, but with acts still to come; with taking thought for the
morrow (hrtya being considered in this case as an unnecessary task better
avoided); or alternatively, in other verses, with real duty. Since the word
itself frequently occurs, it is not an unlikely title for the chapter.
1 From the 15 verses, 6 at least would be varga; but neither of these titles could cover the
suitable for an Atma-varga, and 4 for a Naraka- whole chapter. 2 Z D M G 1906, p. 494.
26 IN T R O D U C T IO N

It will be seen that the agreement with the Pali in these chapter-headings is
fairly dose All of the first group of 13 Prakrit titles are represented in the
Pali, while in the remainder of the extant text, Bahuiruta and Slla, though
shared with the U v , are absent in Pali, and Krtya is peculiar to the Prakrit
Because of the uncertainty about some of these later chapters, and the loss of
the concluding parts of the text, it is hardly worth going into too detailed a
comparison of the three texts in their chapter-headings But allowing for
synonyms and uncertainties, there are probably 16 chapters which are com­
mon to all three And if the U v has two further in common with the Prakrit
which are missing m Pali, this is balanced by the fact that the Prakrit shares
with the Pali the titles Bala, Pandita, and Arhant, which are absent from the
Uv
In brief, there are 16 headings shared by all three texts, 7 which are common
to two, and 17 which are represented m one only Smce the U v has a total of
33 chapters against the 26 of the other two, it is not unexpected that 12 of
these 17 should come from that text
These figures are given only as a general indication of the situation, on the
basis of the available information Smce there is some doubt about a few of the
Praknt titles in any case, and 4 of them are entirely missing, the complete
picture for the three texts would certainly show alterations in some or all
of these numbers, but there is no possibility of conjecture concerning the
missing titles Even so, it is clear enough that there was a definite stock of
chapter-headings considered proper for a Dharmapada-collection, and that
this common stock included the descriptive (as Yamaka) and illustrative
headings (as Puspa) Moreover, among the 24 attested groups which are not
shared by all three texts, there is only 1 further example of this type (Udaka
in the U v ), while the other 23 are all quite natural headings for ethical verses

Possibility of a \primitive Dharmapada'

In spite of the common fund of verses and the common list of chapter-
groupings, it is quite impossible to see these three texts as derived m any
simple manner from a primitive canonical Dharmapada containing (at least)
these common verses grouped under these common chapter-headings There
is certainly much more involved than a gradual addition of further verses and
supplementary chapters m varying extent in the different schools We have
already noted that, from 14 chapters of the Pali, a little less than two-thirds of
the common verses appear under the corresponding heading in the Prakrit1
Although in general there is little agreement m order, occasional groups of
two, three, or even more consecutive verses do appear in the same order in
two or even all three texts In some chapters (Sahasra, for example) all three
1 See page 2ov note z
 IN T R O D U C T IO N a7

agree fairly closely in the verses included, while in others the divergence is
extreme. The Tathágata-varga in the Uv. must be the equivalent of the
Buddha-vagga in the Pali; but although both chapters by a coincidence con­
tain the same total of 18 verses, only one of these is shared (Uv. xxi. 9 = Dhp.
181). Yet in both cases most of the remaining 17 verses are common to the
two traditions, though placed elsewhere. Of those in the Pali chapter, 3 have
not been traced in the Uv., but the other 14 are distributed through seven
other chapters. Of those in the Uv. chapter, one occurs in the Dhammapada
(xxi. 1 = Dhp. 353, under Tanha); and although none of the remainder are
in the Dhammapada, Chakravarti identified parallels for 13 of them in other
parts of the Pali canon.1
In these circumstances, it would be futile to attempt to reconstruct a ‘primi­
tive Dharmapada’ which was the ancestor of all three texts. It may even be
felt that the diiferences are so extreme that it is almost impossible even to
believe that such a common ancestor ever existed. Nevertheless, the agree­
ments in verses, in chapter-headings, and in the general principles of arrange­
ment, make it also very hard to believe that these collections were put
together only at a later period. If one school had, at a fairly late time, made
for itself such a collection, we might perhaps imagine other schools making
similar compilations, in order not to be outdone by their rivals. But it seems
rather improbable that the result would have been similar to what we actually
find. On the evidence of the texts themselves it is much more likely that
the schools, in some manner or other, had inherited from the period before
the schisms which separated them, a definite tradition of a Dharmapada-text
which ought to be included in die canon, however fluctuating the contents of
this text might have been, and however imprecise the concept even of a ‘canon’
at such an early period. The differing developments and rearrangements of
the inherited material would have proceeded along similar lines to those which,
in the Brahmanieal schools, produced divergent but related collections of
texts in the different Yajur-veda traditions.
Merely in respect of size, it is probable that the Uv. in its present form is the
result of alonger continuation of the process of addition of verses and chapters
than either of the other two. But when allowance is made for this, and only
the common material considered, a comparison of the Pali Dhammapada, the
Gándhárl text, and the Udanavarga, has produced no evidence whatsoever
that any one of these has sny superior claim to represent a ‘primitive Dharma­
pada’ more faithfully than the others. Since the contrary appears to have been
assumed from time to time, it is desirable to say with all emphasis that the
Pali text is not the primitive Dharmapada. The assumption that it was would
make its relationship to the other texts altogether incomprehensible.
* See also p. a j, on the titles Pandits and álla.
28 IN T R O D U C T IO N

Whether we consider the common ancestor o f these versions as a definite

text or merely as a rather fluid tradition of ethical verses, but already tending
to be gathered into some sort of groupings in the earliest period of Buddhism,
the only likely hypothesis is that the various schools have all to a greater or
lesser degree modified, rearranged, and expanded a common fund of inherited
materials The divergences are much too great to have arisen in any normal
tjpe of textual transmission so great, tn fact, that it is almost tempting to
conjecture that, at some point in the history of each school, one monk was
found who remembered a fair number of Dharmapada-verses, but without
the least idea of the chapters in which they should be placed, while another
monk who had not learned the verses, was able to recall about two-thirds of
the proper chaptw-titles, and that the two thereupon sat down together, m-
\ented a few additional chapter-headings of the same style, collected further
■verses of similar types from other scriptural sources, and thus pieced together
an ‘edition’ for the use of their school This is of course a caricature, but may
nevertheless ha\e some correspondence with the truth The final differences
between recensions are probably due to accident and intention in varying
degrees m each case It is much easier to remember individual verses than to
retain them, in a definite order, when there is no thread of narrative to keep
them in the same order Probably a fairly high proportion of the divergences
are the result of nothing more than a careless oral transmission m the earlier
period There is no reason to suppose that the early monks would have
de\ otcd to a group of not very inspired gnomic verses the zealous study which
enabled the Brahmans to presen e the Rg\ eda with such incredible accuracy
The sunning texts themselves strongly suggest that the various branches of
the Sangha hardlj started to concern themselves with the fixing and presena-
tion of a definite scriptural canon until a time when large parts of such tradi­
tions as thej had inherited had already become thoroughly disorganized It
is in the nature of the case %er) probable that the Dharmapada recensions we
possess arc in many respects the result of a definite editorial activity in each
separate school, in an attempt to re establish and fill out a text which, through
fault} transmission, had become both depleted and confused, but in different
ways in each case
There are indeed a few traces of deliberate sectarian m alry Between the
three texts, agreements in chapter-order are hardly more than might be ex­
pected bj chance But \\hen the last three titles in the Pali, Tania, Bhikkhu,
and Hrahmana (the two latter being also the last two in the U v ) appear in
int erse order as the first three of the Prakrit, \ve can hardlj help thinking that
thu was done quite deliberate!), in order to be different from a n\al sect (not
nccev<anlj, of course, the Therawdins) It is not impossible, therefore, that
m a few instances a \erse might have been placed in a gt\en chapter sunpl}
 IN T R O D U C T IO N a9

because some other sect preferred to have it in another- This type of rivalry,
however, probably played a small part, since one school is not likely to have
made extensive comparisons with the texts of another.
But while a careless oral tradition may have started the process of diver­
gence, the history must have been rather more complicated than this. One of
the points which the Prakrit text has confirmed is the important part played
by manuscript copying at a date •which may be considerably earlier than has
usually been supposed.1 Although the differences in selection and arrange­
ment of the verses are as great between the Prakrit and the Uv. as between the
latter and the Pali, there is, in very many places, a closer affinity between the
former pair in the text of individual verses; and in a verse such as 262, where
they agree in a four-pada stanza against six in the Pali, it is almost certain that
two padas have been lost through a simple error of copying (homoioteleuton).
This would imply a common manuscript ancestor in the line of transmission
which brought this verse to these two texts. Against this, the two verses 319,
320 in the Prakrit are represented by one six-pada stanza in the Pali and Uv.,
while the Mahavastu has indeed two full stanzas, but with a different half-
verse additional to the Pali and Uv. version. In 80, the Mahavastu agrees
with the Pali, while the Prakrit reading is shared with the Sanskrit version in
the Divyavadana (with which the Uv. very probably agreed). In 68, the Uv.
and Mahavastu agree against the Prakrit; but the Pali agrees with these two
in the first half of the verse, and with the Prakrit in the second half. In the
Sahasra-varga, the Pali and Mahavastu are fairly close to each other in the
ordering of the various groups of stanzas which make up this chapter. But
the Pali has allowed the idea of ‘victory’ in Dhp. 103 (= 305) to draw in two
related stanzas on this topic (104, 105) which have no connexion with the
chapter~heading. The same group of three appears together also in the Uv.,
but in a different chapter (xxiii. 3-5). In some instances a single verse is
certainly the result of a telescoping of two by a copyist; but some of these may
have occurred at a later period in the history of an individual recension.2 .
It has not been possible so far to disentangle the complicated textual rela­
tionships ; but there is no possibility of explaining them at all, it would seem,
if we try to exclude a very early written transmission. There seems to have
been at least some conflation between versions, and in some places it is vir­
tually certain that manuscripts were used. Further study may lead to more
precision in many details, though it could hardly be expected that a whole
histoiy of textual descent could be reconstructed. A t present our conclu­
sions can only be tentative; but it seems very probable that it was only at the
* See in p»tj/nilar p . WeUer, in Asia Major, * See commentary on die verses mentioned,
v, 1928-30, pp. 149-82; is, 1033, pp. 195-332, and also on vets« 95, 144, 148, 154- 5, i68,
on the likelihood of pre-Pali manuscript trans- 225, 231.
mission in the ancestry of Pali Sutta tests.
3o IN T R O D U C T IO N

beginning that the ancestors of out texts owed their divergence to accidents of
oral transmission We may imagine that the 'primitive Dharmapada* (if at an)
time a precise text, and not merely a concept o f a text, with indeterminate and
shifting contents) had already disintegrated very considerably before the pro­
cess was checked by the production of written ‘editions' in the various schools
But it also seems \ery probable that intervention of manuscripts came con­
siderably before the final period of editorial activity which resulted m the
recensions which have survived These are beyond question not merely the
end products of oral disintegration set down in writing, but, to a large extent,
new texts built around the debris of the differing inheritance of verses in each
school In one case, indeed, the tradition survived (or grew up later it is un­
certain which) that this re creation of the collection v. as due to a definite mdi-
vidual1 In some schools there may have been more than one such revision,
and many monks may have shared in a process of gradual rebuilding But in
this activity, they weTe not restricted to what they remembered manuscripts
were ccrtamly used, and not exclusively manuscripts of texts peculiar to the
school using them
Once a definitive recension had been established, however, subsequent re-
\ isions m the school recognizing that recension w ere probably minor Tor this
\\e ha\ e the evidence of the Udanavarga, where the manuscripts bear witness
to at least two 'versions, and probably more The fragments of an ancient
manuscript written on v.ood,s which formed the basis of Chakra\arti’s edi­
tion, show a text which is in general closer to the Pali and Gandhari, with
numerous partially Sanskntized forms remaining The later manuscripts show
rcMsions to improve the quality of the Sanskrit, often imolving rephrasing
The Tibetan translation sometimes agrees with the old version, sometimes
with a reused version, from which it may be inferred that the revisions
v. ere made in scv eral stages But these re\ isions for the most part affect onl)
the language Omissions and additions of verses do occur, but the text as a
whole remains essential!} the same Udanavarga

Canotiicaf siaius
Although the GSndhirl text was recognized immediately as a text of
exactly the same type of structureas the Pali Dhammapada, and has constantlj
been called a ‘Prakrit Dhammapnda’ since its discover}, occasional protests
w ere made * The Pali Dhammapada, it was argued, is a specific section of the
Canon, formingapartof the Khuddaka-mkaj a of the Sutta-pitaka, the Prakrit
text— admittedly sharing the same form and much of the same material— is
* On the qurit on of P h im u triU i t the * SecJ Tillm at JAs 1558 p &6,pI»teMU
ewrp1*r of the U d im v ir p K t *1»« txlow * Sec below, p 31
P SI
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 3r

different from the Pali text. Therefore it cannot be canonical, and ought not
to be given a canonical title. It is rather ironic that, at the time when these
arguments were being put forward, the introductory line of the manuscript,
which contains die title Dbarmapada, had already been published in Olden­
burg’s facsimile of 1897; but, by an unlucky accident, this part of the facsimile
was evenworse than the rest, and it was quite impossible for anyone to read the
word. Now that a better photograph has made it possible to read the title, the
argument must be turned round. Since the manuscript calls itself by a tide
which is certainly canonical, we can hardly deny to the test the right to be
considered as the text of that tide belonging to the canon of a distinct school.
There can similarly be little doubt that the Udanavarga, in spite of the fact
that it carries a different name (but nevertheless still formed from a traditional
title in the list of Ksudraka texts), is the corresponding text of a third school.
We have no trustworthy information about the number of ancient Buddhist
schools which recognized distinct Dharmapada collections, nor has any indi­
cation so far been found as to whether an)' given recension might have been
recognized as authoritative by more than one school.
This is merely a particular instance of the uncertainty prevailing with re­
gard to the canonical texts of by far the greater number of early sects known
to us by name. The ancient authors who wrote on the subject were chiefly
concerned to categorize the points of doctrine held by each sect; and although
the real existence of almost all the schools named in the traditional accounts is
confirmed by inscriptions, and later by the reports of Chinese travellers,
there is available, for about two-thirds of the sects and sub-sects named,
either no information at all about their sacred literature, or at best the virtually
worthless information that such-and-such a sect possessed such-and-such
Pitakas or Agamas or Nikayas.' For some of the remaining schools, consider­
able portions of several Canons have been preserved, in the Agamas and
Vinayas translated into Chinese, and the Tibetan Vinaya, together with
numbers of individual non-Mahayana sfllras and post-canonical works both
in Tibetan and Chinese. The existence of these translations, and die recovery
in modem times of Sanskrit Vinaya and Sutra texts (many, but not all, be­
longing to the Mula-sarvastivadin canon), have made it possible to sec, with
increasing clarity as research progresses, a fact which was not at all clear in the
earlier period of European studies of Buddhism: that the survival entire of
only the canon of the Mahaviharavasin sub-sect of the Theravadms is a his­
torical accident. Because of this completeness, but for no other reason, the
Pali version has naturally and deservedly attained a position of pre-eminence
in the study of pre-Mahayana Buddhism; but the mere accidcnt of the partial
‘ Sec in particular A-
Bare.iu, L 's SeettsI>. LamoKc, liitfattr da JSha—.r rV.AV*!, i,
I
bovidhiquts da P<tit 'thieuit, Saipon, 195*: PP* 57f iT-
32 IN T R O D U C T IO N

or complete loss of other canonical redactions does not m itself confer any
superior authority on the Pali scriptures whereby they can claim to represent
primitive Buddhism more faithfully than do the texts of another school This
has been said repeatedly by earlier writers, and indeed the logic of the matter^
is so self obvious that he who now writes it yet again cannot but feel m some
degree apologetic for the truism
Winternitz, although mentioning the separate existence of the Vmayas of
the Mahisasakas, Dharmaguptas, and Mahasänghikas, wrote the greater part
of his chapter on the subject apparently on the assumption that only two
Canons need be considered, ‘the Pali Canon’ and ‘the Sanskrit Canon* 1 This
was indeed an understandable attitude in 1912, when the book was first
mitten, but the revised edition published m 1933 in English translation, with
corrections and additional notes, still contains no hint that such drastic sim­
plification is inadequate Similarly, the hypothesis put forward by W E
Clark2 that before the Christian era there existed an eastern canon in Pah and
a north western canon in Prakrit, and that the latter was reconstituted m a
Sanskrit version in the first century a d , appears to be much too slight to
serve as a basis for the interpretation of a situation which was certainly ex­
tremely complex Although even now only a relatively small quantity of the
available material has been investigated in any detail, the comparative studies
which have been carried out3 show beyond question that although the various
schools in some respects agreed closely, they differed widely in others, par­
ticularly in the choice and arrangement of material within their respective
canons The amount of common ground is nevertheless impressive, and it is
thus not without reason that many scholars have seen in the different trans­
mitted collections the descendants of a single original ‘primitive canon’ But
we are still a long way from being able to determine with any precision the
contents of a primitive canon, and it is even possible to doubt whether the
texts which have up to the present been examined in detail really provide
sufficient justification for the concept of a primitive canon at all What appears
certain is that numerous single items, ranging from Vinaya rules, and
individual verses and poems, to complete and extensive butras, have been
1 M Wintem tz A History of Indian Litera Weller Über den Aufbau des Pafikasuttanta
ture 11 pp 231 ff As a Major Introd vol 1923 pp 640-39 and
1 Some Problems in the Criticism of the \ol v 1 1928 pp 104 40 E Waldschmidt
Sources for Early Buddhism Harvard Theo Bruchstücke des Bktksuni prattmoksa der Sanas
logical Renew a m a 1930 pp 121-47 I tivadins 1926 Bruchstücke buddhistischer Sutras
regret I have not seen this article and my aus demzentralastatischen Sanskntkanon i 1932
informât on is taken from a summary of its DasMahapanntrvanasutra 1950-1 andnumer
conclus ons given in Bibliographe bouddhique ©us other editions and articles by the same
M *3 author See also Lamotte Histoire du baud
ro r example J Przyluski Le Conale de dhisme tndien 1 pp 154-210 and especially the
Jtw p fta Pans 19*6-8 M Hofinger Étude detailed bibl ©graphical references given on
tur le Connie de Vatiali Louvain 1946 F pp 155 169
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 33

inherited by the sects from earlier originals, as well as much common sub­
ject matter and tradition set down ultimately in forms which are not always
directly linked through a common literary source. It is true that, as Lamotte
says,1 the variations chiefly concern the form of expression and the arrange­
ment of the material, while the doctrinal basis common to the Âgamas and the
Nikayas is remarkably uniform. But the variations in arrangement are some­
times very considerable. Doubtless a continuation of the work of patient
analysis and comparison could gradually lead to much more precise know­
ledge than is at present possible concerning the contents of much of the
‘primitive canon’, and perhaps even something of its structure (though from
the nature of the evidence no detailed reconstruction could be hoped for, and
certainly not completeness, since there is no possibility even of guessing what
or how much might have been lost in all the surviving redactions). For the
present, it would seem more prudent to interpret ‘primitive canon’ as meaning
no more than an early body of potentially canonical (i.e. authoritative) prose
and verse compositions, without allowing the use of the term to suggest any
implications of the fixation or codification of the texts. The accumulation of
such a collection of textual material must in any case have been a gradual
process, extending perhaps over centuries, and the conception of a ‘primitive
canon’ has thus an additional imprecision in respect of time.
It need hardly be said that in any case a western term such as ‘canonical’,
although convenient, must nevertheless be used with circumspection. If the
group of texts corresponding to the Pali Khuddaka-nikâya was viewed by
some schools as a separate Ksudraka-pitaka, either grouped with the Agamas
under the heading of Sütra-pitaka, or at times apparently considered as a
Pitaka in its own right, this does not necessarily indicate a fundamental
difference of attitude towards these texts. And if the Sarvâstivâdins did not,
as a matter of general practice, include the Ksudraka in their reckoning of the
Tripitaka,2 this certainly does not mean that they stigmatized these works as
apocrj-pha. On the contrary, *i)s n’hésitent pas à y recourir comme à des
autorités canoniques ou paracanoniques’.3
From the point of view of the comparative and historical study of the
Dharmapadas which have survived in whole or in part, it is a matter of almost
no significance whether a given version is to be considered as canonical or
‘paracanonicaT. On the other hand, it is of the greatest importance that such
a study should not be biassed at the outset by a prejudice which considers one
recension as canonical and the others as mere private literary exercises. Long
ago R. O. Franke4objected strongly to the use of the tit/e ‘DJjammapad.i’ for
the Prakrit version, and argued with considerable zeal that we had no right
* Histoire du ho-.iddhiiT'.t indien, i, p. 171. 3 Lnmoîre, Histoire, i, p. j C(r,
3 Barents, Ltl Sectes bouddhiques, p. I j j . * ZD M G 10-/, ji. 491,
B*(U I)
34 IN T R O D U C T IO N

to apply to a mere ‘Anthologie’ the title of a definite canonical work ('em ganz
bestimmtes Werk des Kanons’) Since the Prakrit text can now be seen to
carry the title Dharmapada in the manuscript, no argument is necessary, and
indeed the point would now be hardly worth mentioning, Jbut for the fact that
since the date of Franke’s article the term ‘anthology’ (in itself a perfectly
reasonable description) has reappeared from time to time, with the implica­
tion that the work so described is m some sense of less than canonical status
In a single paragraph, Winternitz1 designates in this way almost the whole
range of extant texts of Dharmapada-type ‘The collection of verses which
belonged to the original Canon, also served as a prototype and as a foundation
for more comprehensive anthologies, which were compiled in later times, and
were widely propagated in Central Asia, Tibet and China Thus, for instance,
there is a Chinese anthology with the same 26 sections (Vargas) as the Pah
Dhammapada though it has 13 additional sections Fragments of a Sanskrit
anthology have been found in Central Asia, which were at first regarded as
passages from recensions of the Dharmapada, but which in reality belong to
the Udana-Varga, which is known to us from a Tibetan translation This
anthology was compiled by Dharmatrata Another anthology was written
in a Prakrit dialect ’
It is not clear whether ‘the collection of verses which belonged to the
original Canon* was thought by Winternitz to be identical with the Pah
Dhammapada and indeed in another context the latter also is described as an
anthology2 But in the context of the passage quoted, the works in question
are explicitly contrasted with the Pali Dhammapada and the ‘Dharmapada in
the Sanskrit Canon’,3 and the manner of reference to the Udanavarga makes
it certain that all these ‘anthologies* were considered to be something other
than Dharmapadas This was indeed a perfectly understandable prejudice at
the time of writing, but now that it is possible to compare the Pali text in
much greater detail with both the Prakrit and the Sanskrit, such an attitude
of discrimination between the texts seems entirely out of place

IV OTHER D H AR M APAD A TEXTS

Of other texts of a comparable type, only the Pali Dhammapada has sur­
vived intact Equally important for comparison with the Prakrit text is the
Udanavarga, complete in versions in Tibetan and Chinese, and of which
* History of Indian Literature u pp 437-8 Sarvastivada or M ula sarvastryada texts It was
Ibid pp S i 83 probably the same confusion which led to the
Rather oddly this erpressiorj here denotes statement that both a Dharmapada and an
the Dharmapada quoted in the Mahavastu Udanavarga were included in the canon o f the
whereas in the remainder of the chapter works Mula sarvasdvadms (Keith History o f Sanskrit
Sanskrit Canon which are definitely Literature p 491) or the canon o f the Sarvasti
attributed to a school are as might be espected vadrns (Bare»« Les Sectes bmddhujues, p 135)
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 35

rather less than two-thirds of the total extent has been recovered in Sanskrit
from Central Asian manuscripts.1 Apart from these two, the only other
Dharmapada o f which there is direct evidence from an Indian source is one
from which two chapters and a few isolated stanzas are quoted in the Mahä-
vastu.2 These two chapters differ from the other three versions in the arrange­
ment o f the stanzas ; and it may be accepted that we have here fragments
surviving from the recension o f the Dharmapada belonging to the canon of
the Lokottaravädin-Mahäsänghikas.
Four Dharmapada texts have been, preserved in Chinese, and these were
described by Sylvain Lévi in a detailed study in which he compared ail t ie
available versions o f a single chapter.3 The oldest Chinese version, the Fa-
chü-ching4 (a.d. 224), is a compilation from several sources, and this is ex­
plicitly stated by the author o f the Chinese preface,5 who appears to have
edited and revised an earlier rendering. T h e work is in 39 sections, and it has
long been realized that its central portion, chapters ix-xxxii and xxxiv-xxxv,
correspond exactly in their titles and order to the 26 chapters o f the Pali
Dhammapada. Lévi, while mentioning this, also remarked: ‘L e choix des vers
est tout différent, comme l’étude de l ’Apramâda-varga suffira à l ’établir.’6
B ut although there are indeed differences, it seems very much o f an exaggera­
tion to express it in this way.
T h e nucleus of the Fa-chü-ching is, on the contraiy, a text which is in essen­
tials the same as the Pali Dhammapada. This is of course no new discovery.
Th e fact was known to the editors of the Taishô edition,7 who gave in their
footnotes the titles o f the corresponding Pali chapters, and also indicated from
time to time individual verses or groups of verses which were not in the Pali
text. But such additional verses are very few in number in comparison with
1 For details of publication of various por- parative study. On the subject of the Chinese
tions of the Sanskrit test, see Bibliography. Dharmapada versions, however, an unusually
1 T he Sahasra-varga is quoted by name large quantity o f misinformation has accumu-
(iii. 434-6), and is probably complete. The latcd in print, and it therefore seemed desirable
verses at iii. 421-3 are not specifically ascribed to put forward a few general observations here,
to the Dharmapada, but from their content they * Taishô Tripiçaka, vol. iv, no. 210.
are almost certainly a Bhiksu-varga, though 5 The relevant parts of the prefacc were trans-
possibly not complete. Individual stanzas are lated by Ldvi, loc. cit., pp. 206, 21S.
cited (dharmapade, dharmapadesu) at ii. 212; * Ibid., p. 90S.
iii. 9r, 156. 7 1* ^ad indeed been noted earlier by Beal,
3 Ù Apramâàa-varga. Étude sur les reccnsioni who was quoted on the point by Mas Müller in
des Dharmapadas, JAs. xx, 1912, pp. 303-94- *1« introduction to his translation of the Pnli
In preparing the present edition and common- text (SBE X, pp. li-iii), but in company with a
tary, while naturally making use of those verses fair number o f inaccuracies. It may be that, be*
printed and translated by Lévi in this article, I cause of these, the small {Train of truth was aire»
have for the most part not attempted to examine rcccived with scepticism, and the mi'lcadinc
the Chinese evidence. Not onlv was it desirable way in which the difTcrcncci between the two
to make the Prakrit text accessible in print as texts arc emphasized in Levi’s statement could
soon as possible, but in any case my limited in part be due to a rcact:on srainn such sn
acquaintance with Chinese was scarcely an ade- account,
quate qualification for a thoroughsoinp com*
36 IN T R O D U C T I O N

the total extent of the 26 chapters in question, and for the most part these
chapters run verse by verse parallel with the Pah, with only occasional inver­
sions or omissions It may be assumed that a number of the additional verses,
particularly those which in a few instances come in groups at the end of indi­
vidual chapters, were added by the Chinese redactor from another source
available to him, but it is also possible that in some other places the Pali text
has suffered a loss at some period prior to the fixing of the text by the com­
mentary In general transpositions and omissions are hardly more than what
might be expected in the course of any manuscript transmission» and the
agreement of the two texts is all the more striking in contrast to the completely
different ordering of the chapters and the verses within each chapter m the
Udanavarga and in the Prakrit recension
A detailed comparison would doubtless bring to light a number of agree­
ments with the Pali in readings not shared with the other versions For the
present, we may note that Dhp 26 dhanam settham va rakkhati ‘he guards it
as his best wealth’, is followed by the Fa-chu chmg (x 6),1 where the other
versions have sresthi, ‘he guards it as a merchant guards his wealth’ Similarly,
in the first and second verses of the Pali text, manopubbangamS dhammà
manosetthâ manomaya, the reading manomaya is isolated, against manojavd of
the other versions, and here the rendering >Ca> (‘mind caused ) can reason*
ably be thought to translate manomaya, but hardly ‘swift as mind’ 2
It is thus certain that the core of this earliest Chinese version is a text sub­
stantially the same as the Theravâda text We naturally cannot prove that the
translation was made directly from Pali, nor can we exdude the possibility
that the same basic text might have been shared by another sect If so, it
would be natural to think of the Mahisasakas, whose Vinaya has close affini
ties with the Pah3
The 13 chapters which are additional to the Pah text are selected partly
from the Udânavarga and partly from another source (or sources) The rela­
tionship to the U v emerges very clearly from the first chapter of the work
(Anitya), where the verses correspond as follows *
1\Avi loc eit p *47 vers« 117 of the Apramada varga are simply lifted with a few
ic * ■> minor alterations from the earlier translation
See note on verse 201 Here there might and an such instances this version can give no
seem to be a problem for although the reading information about the U t reading But in the
javS is guaranteed for the U v bytheTjbeta/t other verse (irtsf/ii) the translator bad prob
and its authenticity is supported by the Praknt ably not immediately located the rendering in
the later Chinese version based on the U v the Fa chU chxng and he therefore produced an
(Taisho vol tv no « 2 p 760& no ai3 independent translation based on his own text
P 79Sf) has the same phrase as the earlier trans * Lamctte Histoire du bouddhisme indien 1
ÎÎÏÏÜLih t «“ Î T 8,een .° ? *5? ver8M P l87 md «f slro the passages quoted in
^ 1 J *. /f53 7, of * e a « y*». Przyîusfa L e Connie de Raiagrka and Hofin
r3 Î ' “ v u USC 0Î !"* Prede« » ° r * ger Étude sur le Ctmale de Vaiéah Bareau Les
work «though his own Original was very differ« Sectes bouddhiques p 306
en y rrange The first few verse» o f the « The numbering of the U v verses is that of
 IN T R O D U C T IO N
r Uv. i. 1 Chinese i. 8 Uv. i. 22 Chinese i. 15 Uv. i. 36
2 3 9 16
23 u. 15
3 10 10 27 i. 40
17
4 15 11 29 18
5 17 12 3° 19 25
6 21 *3 33 20 41
7 18 34 21 42
This suggests that the translator might have had a maxi-mcript which had lost
folio 2 (and perhaps 3); but the succession is otherwise so regular that only a
direct textual connexion could account for it. Similarly, chapter iv (Sraddha)
is identical in verses and order with Uv. x, except that verses 12 and 13 of the
latter are dropped, and 4 additional verses are added at the end.
Chapter v (Slla) is almost the same as Uv. vi, with the interesting addition
of the question-verse which is not in the present Uv. before verse 4, but does
appear in Pali (Sam. i. 36) before the corresponding verse.
Chapter vi (Smrti) agrees with Uv. xv, though it has dropped the serial
repetitions at the end of the chapter, and has, moreover, telescoped verses
12-14 a single stanza.
In the same way, viii (Vaca), xxxiii (Satkara), and xxxvi (Nirvana) show
very close correspondence with the Uv. chapters of the same tides.
In the remaining 6 chapters, occasional verses occur which correspond to
individual verses in the Indian versions. In chapter iii (whose title is Bahu-
s'ruta, not Sravaka), the second verse is the equivalent of 2 5 4 in the Prakrit
( = Thg. 141), and the third verse appears to be a telescoped version of the
two verses 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 . In chapter vii, the first verse is Uv. vii. 9, but the chap­
ter as a whole does not correspond. It would seem therefore that these chap­
ters are taken from yet a further source; but this source has not yet been
identified. The final chapter o f the work (Mangala) was identified by Beai as
agreeing with the Mahamangala-sutta of the Pali Sutta-nipata, of which it is
a rather expanded version. But we need not suppose that the translator
actually used a ‘Sutta-nipata’. As the preface indicates,1 the redactor was
acquainted with at least three Dharmapada recensions, to which he ascribed
(in round numbers) 900, 700, and 500 verses respectively. In view of the
textual agreements, we can hardly doubt that the shortest of these was the
equivalent o f the Pali text, and the longest a version of the Udanavarga. I t is
then probable that the additional chapters which do not correspond to either
of these were taken from the third text, also presumably entitled Dharmapada.
It was naturally tempting to conjecture that this source was the Prakrit ver­
sion, and this guess was in fact put forward by P. K . Mukheijee.2 This must,
Chakravarti’s edition, except in the first three 2 ‘Th e Dharnmapada and the Udanavarga’,
items, w hich arc taken from RockhiU (the Sans- Indian Historical Quarterly, x i, 1935, pp. 7 4 1 -
krit being lost). ‘ L<5vi, p . 218. 60. T h e author goes so far as to assert that none
38 IN T R O D U C T IO N

however, be rejected The Bahusruta chapter is preserved in the Prakrit, and

it is certainly not the source of chapter in of the Chinese version T he other
unidentified chapters clearly do not correspond in their titles to any of the
surviving Prakrit chapters, and it would imply too much of a coincidence to
suppose that they should all have come from those parts of the Prakrit text
which are lost The figures given for numbers of verses are probably not to be
taken too seriously, but it may be added that, when allowance is made for the
missing parts of the manuscript, the total extent of the Prakrit version can
hardly have exceeded 560 verses 1
The remaining three Chinese versions require no more than a mention in
passing for our present purposes The Fa-chup'i-yu clung2 translated between
a t> 290-306 is a selection of verses from the earlier work, together with

explanatory stones, and is thus similar to a somewhat condensed Dhamma

pada Atthakatha This is the work which formed the basis of the English
rendering by Beal3 The Ch’u-yao-chtttg* translated m A D 398-9, on the
other hand, is a very much more extensive work of similar type, but the basic
text in this case was the Udanavarga The fourth version, the Fa-du-yao-
sung chmg,s dated towards the end of the tenth century, merely collects to­
gether the verses of the preceding work, although at the same time revising
the expression in many places For fuller details of these the reader may be
referred to Levi’s article on the Apramada-varga already quoted
In brief, then, the situation, is that the Chinese versions give us only two
recensions in exienso, a text closely similar to the Pali, and the Udanavarga,
and although some of the additional chapters of the Fa-chu-ching may be
assumed to be fragments from a third text, this is certainly not the Prakrit
version Apart from these, only one other specific mention of a definite text6
has been noted 7 a Chinese version contemporary with the Fa-chu chwg (and
bearing the same title), of a Dharmapada which was translated by a man from
the country of the Yueh chih This translation has not survived, and there is
no means of telling whether its original was one of the texts known to us, or
still another recension It is not impossible that it was the Gandhan text, but
the rather vague indication of a Central Asian connexion is scarcely enough to
support any positive belief that it was
We have therefore direct information in the case of four texts certainly, and
a fifth possibly
(1) The Pali Dhammapada
o f the 13 c x tn chapters in the Fa ehB chwg can known as Dhammapada vnth accompanying nor
be traced in the Udinavaiga and gives no rattves London 1878
reasons for his theory concerning the Praknt 4 Taisho no 212 * Taisho no 2x3
* See above pp 19 ff * A s distinct from numerous references to
* TaishS vol rv no 2tt dharmapada merely as a category tw ung scrip
* Texts front the Buddhitt Canon commonly tural texts 7 L i n JAs xgxz p 208
 IN T R O D U C T IO N • 39

(2) The Gandharf Dharmapada.

(3) The Udanavarga.
(4) T h e Mahasanghika Dharmapada.
(5) T h e text (or perhaps texts) which contributed the unidentified chapters,
of the Fa-chii-chmg.
Since only 2 chapters of (4) are known, neither of which has a title in common
with (5), it is possible that (5) might be the same text as (4); but there is no
evidence for or against this.
The author of the preface to the Fa-chU-ching, in a short discussion1 of the
significance of the term Dharmapada, expressed the view that the g&thas of
which a Dharmapada text is composed originally belonged to the Sutras of
the canon; but at a later period, the monks of the five schools each made indi­
vidual collections (presumably one for each school), and arranged the verses
according to subject-matter.
Since the list of five schools is constantly repeated in other connexions else­
where,2 the agreement o f the number with the list o f texts given above which
have survived in. whole or in part is almost certainly a mere accident Nor is
it possible to accept the suggestion that the recensions of individual schools
were independent collections made from the SGtras.3 The statement is never­
theless valuable, since it shows that the author, early in the third century A.D.,
considered that different schools did possess different Dharmapadas, and
there is no reason to imagine that on this point he was mistaken.

Dhanaatrata and the Udamvarga

Among the surviving texts, the Udanavarga stands apart, not only in its
title, but also in the fact that its compilation is ascribed to an individual. The
Chinese preface to the CKu-yao-ching« already knew the traditional opinion
regularly held in later centuries, that the work was compiled by Dharmatrata,
who ‘brought together these thousand verses,5 and made 33 sections, called
r L6vi, loc. cit.,p. 218. Literature, ii, pp, 83-84); and the majority of
1 L6vi here gives: Dharmaguptakas, Sarvasti* those in the Prakrit text which are absent from
vadios, K&yapfyas, Mahi&sakas, aad VstsI- the Pali Dbammapada do nevertheless occur in
putriyas, Other versions of die list replace the other canonical Pali texts. But the scriptures are
last named by the Mahasaoghikas (Lamotte, after all full of repetitions and overlappings; and
Fiisloire du bouddfdsme mdien, i, pp. 593-4); anthologies compiled independently in the
and the five Vinayas extant in Chinese are different schools could hardly have contained so
ascribed to schools in die latter form of the list, much material in common,
with the further substitution of the Mula- * L 4vi, loc. cit., p. 2x7.
sarvSitivSdins for the KaSyapiyaa. 1 Dr. P. S. Jaini has drawn my attention to
1 Secs above, p. 87. It is admittedly true that the closely similar statement in Yaiomitra'a
very many of the verses in the Dharmapadas do Abhidharmakoh-vySkhyS (ed. U. Wogihara), i,
occur also in other canonical works. More than p. 12: yathS tthavira-Dharmatrdiena udand
balf o f those in the PaB recension appear else- ‘am'tyd beta sarrukard' ity-evam-adika vinsya-
where in the canon(Wintemitj, HistoryofIndian «aiai Ultra tatra tutra ukta varg&rtSk, See.
40 IN T R O D U C T IO N

Dharmapada1 He transcribed the episodes which gave rise to the verses, and
brought them together to form a commentary called Ch'u-yao * On this, Lévi
comments ‘Ainsi, d’apres ce temotgnage fort clair, Dharmaträta a composé
une anthologie du canon à son goût, et il a composé sur cette anthologie un
commentaire narratif du même type que l’Atthakathâ du Jataka [read ‘Dham-
mapada,î] pali À l’anthologie seule était Téservee l'appellation de Dhaima-
pada ’
A slight doubt is raised, however, by the still earlier discussion of the term
udâna in the Mahaprajnaparamitâ-éâstra of Nägärjuna2 From the description
given (‘starting from the anitya section and ending with the brâhmana-sec­
tion’), it is almost certain that the author had m mind the Udänavarga, but
not only does he make no mention of Dharmatrata, but he specifically attri­
butes the work of collecting and arranging the verses to the time of the original
compilation of the canon (in accordance with the common tradition of the
sects) immediately after the Nirvana of the Buddha This testimony is ad­
mittedly insufficient to disprove the later universal tradition concerning
Dharmaträta, but it is at least a warning that this tradition cannot be accepted
as proof either It is possible that DharmatrSta’s contribution was only the
commentary providing the illustrative narratives to the verses of a collection
made by earlier redactors of the same school (not, of course, at the Councd of
Räjagrha) The later tradition could easily have arisen from this
The pomt is in itself unimportant It is quite conceivable that Dharmatrata
was editor as well as commentator of the ‘anthology’ What is surely mislead­
ing is the implication, entirely out of harmony with the situation, that he was
a mere dilettante, engaged in the rather trivial task of compiling ‘une antho­
logie a son goût* Rather, he was performing the much more serious task of
fixing in a definite form a specific Ksudraka text on behalf of his own school,
which thenceforth was to recognize this work as its own authoritative Udäna,
in contrast to the Udânas and Dharmapadas of other schools In its design and
contents, the work is in every respect a Dharmapada, and we can hardly deter­
mine whether the title of Udäna is here the result of a genuine confusion

* This statement is probably the origin of the
ascription o{ th« earlier Fa chü e) tug to Dhar
matrata (Max Millier Introduction to transla
tion of the Pali Dltammapada SBE x p li
ultimately denved from Beal) On this basis
Bania and lvlitra were ready to declare (Intro
duction p xlvi) that the original text which was
the contra! core of the Fa ehü cktng was a Sar
vSstwlda work adding that it vsas wntten in
Mixed Sanskrit (This last statement however
appears to have been their own contribution )
Raahaknshnan went «till further and said ( The
Dhaxunapada p that the Chinese attribute
the work to Arya Dharmatrata where from the
context it seems that the work means the Pali
text It would certainly have been interesting if
the Chinese had in fact made such an attribution
(although it would certainly have been wrong)
But doubtless the idea began merely through a
confusion of the prefaces o f the two Chinese
versions leading— as such things tend to do—-
to progressively worse results
’ Chapter33 quotedbyLévi loc cit p 220
The passage in question is just beyond the part
of the work so far publishsd in Lamette a trans
laöon (Le Tratte de ta grande vertu de ¡agent)
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 4i

between the two Ksiidraka titles in the school in question, or whether it was
adopted of set intention, merely by way of rivalry with other sects. A detailed
discussion would be out of place in the present context; but there are, so far
as I am aware, no reasons for doubting the numerous indications that the text
as thus fixed was the canonical (or paracanonical) text of the Sarvastivadins,
and may well have been recognized by some of the various sub-sects into
which this school divided.

Bttddkavarman
Since the first line of the Prakrit manuscript gives the name of the monk
Buddhavarman, it is natural to inquire whether this person stands in the same
relationship to this Dharmapada as Dharmatrata traditionally does to the
TJdanavarga. But it seems very unlikely that this is so. ‘The Dharmapada
of Buddhavarman’ would be a somewhat unusual form of expression, and
although it might perhaps be thought just possible in a verse (the usage being
not very different from that familiar in later colophons, b'tir iyam with the
genitive of the author’s name), it is more natural to understand that it is the
manuscript which is Buddhavarman’s, and that he is named as owner (and
possibly copyist), rather than as author or compiler. This is confirmed by the
inclusion of the respectful mention of the teacher’s name. Such a mention is
particularly appropriate where, as in votive inscriptions, the writer or donor
is n a m i n g himself. It is not impossible that a later copyist should repeat an
author’s name with the original teacher’s name still attached to it, but it is
decidedly unlikely.

V. A F F I L I A T I O N O F TH E G A N D H A R I T E X T

Although the other three known texts of the same class can be attributed to
the Theravadins, the Sarvastivadins, and the Mahasanghikas respectively, no
evidence has so far come to light to permit the identification of the school
which produced the Gandhari text. After a very lengthy discussion, Barua and
Mitra concluded that it was ‘another Mahasanghika work’,1 but on the pre­
vious page described it as ‘a synthesis of two older texts in Mixed Sanskrit,
one belonging to the Mahasanghika school and another to the sarvastivada or
Sautrantika’. This may absolve us from any obligation to examine their argu­
ments in detail.
Had it not been for the existence of the UdSnavarga and the text quoted in
the Mahavastn, the Sarvastivadins and the Mahasanghikas would certainly
have been the strongest claimants for the Gandhari text. Both schools are
known to have been well represented in Khotan, where the manuscript was
i Barua and Mitra, Prakrit Dhammapoda, p. li.
42 IN T R O D U C T IO N

found, and there is ample evidence of the presence of both in the Gandhlra
region The SarvSstivadins are mentioned more frequently than any other
school in the KharosthI inscriptions from the North-west,1 and they may
share with the Mahásánghikas the distinction of having left us a tmy fragment
of scripture written in KharosthI in the Gándhárl dialect The Kurram
casket,1 dated in the year 20(of the Kamska era), commemorates the deposition
of a relic in fl Vihára of the Sarvastivádins, and includes m its inscription the
pratilya-samutpada formula The Wardak vase,3of the year 51 of the same era,
records the dedication of a Vihára of the Mahasanghikas, and the inscription
makes use of a cliche descriptive of all living beings, which is very probably a
direct quotation from a canonical source Further, these two inscriptions show
a decidedly closer resemblance to the handwriting of the manuscript than do
the majority of the other inscriptions edited by Konow On the other hand,
although the language is essentially the same, the Dharmapada manuscript
belongs, it would seem, to a distinct tradition in the matter of spelling
Among several differences, the most striking is the use of -g-Ain the inscrip­
tions, representing an older intervocalic -g- (including sometimes g < k) or
-J-, a feature shared also with the Niya documents In this function the
Dharmapada manuscript uses -k-, and reserves the character g for an entirely
different employment5
This argument is of course not in itself conclusive, since a school may have
changed its orthography, nor, from the other side, are the inscriptions con­
clusive proof that the two schools in question actually possessed at that time
canonical works written in Gandhan (A layman’s inscription, after all, might
weft have translated a canonical quotation into the vernacular) The suggestion
had been made more than oncc6 that the Sarvastivadins had a canon in the
north-western dialect before they turned to Sanskrit, and it must be conceded
that this is not improbable But if one school in this part of the country had
such texts, so m all probability did members of other schools resident in the
same aTea
A given language need not have been the exclusive property of a single
religious sect It is perhaps hardly necessary to enunciate a proposition so
evidently true But frequent mentions of 'the Sanskrit canon* and *a North­
western Prakrit canon' may give the impression that there was only one in
each language, even although individual writers using these expressions may
have intended no such implication In Sanskrit, canonical works are known of
‘ CII 11 part i , ed Konow, Lamotte, His- tions as ¿(r)
Jotre du boudJhtmt indiat i, pp 578 ft i Sc« also below, pp 6», 86, 99
* C II u, part t p iss» pl*t*s XXVIII’* * Sometimes directly associating the Kurram
X XIX. casket with the Dharmapada (Konow, CII 11
* Ibid , p 170, plate XXXIII p J54), without perhaps intending a definite
* Transcribed in the ediuen of \\tt inscnp- ascription oi the t e a to this school
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 43

at least three, and probably four sects;1 and there is no reason to think that
Gàndhârî, if used at all for scripture^ would have been more restricted.
With due caution, Lamotte says on this point: ‘Sans préjuger de décou­
vertes à venir toujours possibles, il faut reconnaître que la seule existence du
Dharmapada Dutreuil de Rhins ne permet pas, dans l’état actuel de l’informa­
tion, de conclure à ¡’existence d’un canon en pràkrit du Nord-Ouest/2 And
indeed a general conclusion of this nature may have the appearance of an
illicit speculation. But the solid facts remain that the text is a Dharmapada;
that because of its générai characteristics, and not only its name, it cannot
legitimately be separated from the other works of this class ; that it is neverthe­
less a distinct specimen of this genus; and that a Dharmapada is in any case
a relatively minor section of a canonical collection. There are no grounds
for thinking that this test is, uniquely, a littérateur’s anthology, constructed
for his own edification or entertainment. There are tolerably good grounds for
considering that the mere existence of this one text does allow the inference—
indeed almost compels it—that there did exist a more extensive canonical col­
lection of texts belonging to the same school. It seems to me veiy difficult to
believe that a group of monks might have possessed a Dharmapada (showing,
as much as do the others, a common inheritance of verses, altered and re­
arranged during its earlier transmission, and finally edited within a school),
without at the same time possessing at least some stock of Sütra and Vinaya
works.
I should therefore not hesitate to say that the existence of this Dharmapada
does imply the existence of a canon of which it formed a part. It does not
necessarily follow that this inferred canon was redacted entire in Gândhlrî.
The Dharmapada is to such an extent a manual of lay ethics that it would be
easy to understand the production of a vernacular translation (for use in
preaching, perhaps), even by a school whose principal texts were carried in
some other Prakrit, or even by then in Sanskrit. But it seems unlikely that this
Dharmapada should have been the only Buddhist work written down in this
language; and there is at least indirect evidence that others did exist.3
In spite of numerous textual affinities with the Udânavarga in individual
verses, the GândhSr! text shows such distinctive differences that it is hardly
possible to consider that it might have belonged to an earlier Sarvâstivâda
tradition. The two chapters of the Mahâsângbika text in the Mahâvastu.,
although limited in quantity, are enough to show that this version was still
1 Müîa-sarvàstivSdin, Sarvâstividin, and Lo» desa. It is of course possible that still further
feottaravâda-Mahâsânghika (Mahâwutu) with schools maybe represented by some of the Cer¡-
certainty; and a fourth if, as isprobable, thefrag- tral Asian fragments whose attribution remains
tnenis from Bamiyan identified asMahisánghüa uncertain.
(Lévi, JAs 1932, pp. 4-8) belong to a sub-sect 1 Histoire da beuddhtttne indien, i, p. 634.
distinct from the Lokottaravadins of Madhya- * See below, pp. 5° 34-
44 IN T R O D U C T IO N

more distant (and in some ways closer to the Pali) An attribution to another
Mahäsänghika sub-sect, therefore, hardly seems likely unless that sub-sect
had already separated from the owners of the Mahävastu version at a date as
early as the separation of the latter from the Theravädins of the Pali.
If we exclude one very doubtful conjectural restoration,1 only two other
sectarian names have been observed in the KharosthI inscriptions from the
North-west the K-äsyapiyas,2 and the Dharmaguptakas.1 This naturally need
not exhaust the list of schools which might have been represented in the area
in sufficient numbers at the right period. These two may, however, be thought
to have a slightly greater chance of claiming our text than many others, since
both are credited with the possession of a quantity o f canonical texts which
have actually survived,4 and, apart from the better-known sects mentioned
earlier, there are very few others of whom this can be said.®There is, of course,
no way of knowing whether the remaining schools of the Lesser Vehicle have
merely been unlucky in this respect, or whether (being in many cases rela­
tively late secessions) they may have simply continued to use such canonical
material as had already been consolidated before their respective schisms.
For the present, therefore, our conclusions can only be negative. The revi­
sion of such a text within a school, even in a fairly radical fashion, is not incon­
ceivable ; but any relationship of this sort would have left traces of affinity
much closer than can be observed between any two of the known recensions.
We can with reasonable confidence say that the Gändhärl text did not belong
to the schools responsible for the Pali Dhammapada, the Udänavarga, and the
Mahävastu; and unless we are prepared to dispute the attribution of any of
1 C IIii, part i , p 132, where Konowsugges- written in an aranya o f the Dharmaguptakas.
ted the possibility of a reading BoÄ[ufuf»]a[fcj]mi But the photograph is clear, and the only pos­
ts bahu{ruttyakänam). But the inscription was sible reading seems to be dharmuyane This can
available only in a very unsatisfactory eye*copy, scarcely be interpreted as the name of the
and the reading can hardly be quoted as evidence school the final -e is certain, and -*-{<•«-)
* Ibid , pp 88,89, and i2 i could not have been lost in the language We
3 Ibid , p 113, plate X X II Konow (follow- could hardly risk the suggestion that the scribe
ing F W . Thomas) understood dhamaute (foU had omitted it accidentally, in the first line of
l<raedhy a break in the stone), as «he equivalent wnting.
o f S dhatmayukta T he context, however,«- 4 T he lesser o f the two Samyuktägamas in
<jiures the name o f a school, and «he interprets- Chinese is attributed to the KSiyapiyas by some
tion proposed by Lüden is certainly right commentators (P Demiiville, in L ’Inde Clas-
¿Hama'utfana], S dhamaguptakandm. (AO uque, 11, p 43a, Lamotte, HmIoiw, 1, p 169),
18 I7 ;H \V, Bailey, BSOAS ju, 1946, p 790 and the Dharmaguptakas, in addition to their
It is thus necessary to revise the statement that Vinaya, may also have contributed the DirghS-
the Dharmaguptakas are not mentioned in any gama (Waldschmidt, Bruchstücke buddhisHtchtr
extant inscription Barcan, Lt> Seats boud- Sutras, 1, p 229)
Äxju«. p . 190, Lamotte, Hutoire, 1. pp 582, s Almost the only certain additions to be
39S ) A superficial similarity with this word made to the list appear to be the Vmaya of
might tempt us to « « the name of this school m the Mahiiasakas and the Vinaya-mUtrhä of the
the introductory \erse, and if the manuscript Haimavatas Bareau, indeed, suggested that the
had been blurred, it would probably hate lastmentionedworkmighthavebeenKMyapTya
teemed reasonable to conjecture that it had been (Lts S e c t" bouddfoqutt, pp. ao i-z).
 I N T R O D U C T IO N 4S

these, this excludes the Sarvastivadins and Lokottaravada-Mahasanghikas, as

well as the Theravadins (and probably, in company with the last, the Mahlsa-
sakas).1 Among possible claimants, the Dharmaguptakas and Kasyapiyas
must be considered as eligible, but still other possibilities cannot be ruled out.

A Müla-sarvâstivâdin criticism
An interesting episode in the writings of the Müla-sarvâstivâdins2shows ao
awareness of the existence of a Prakrit Dharmapada; and although there is no
certainty that the test referred to was the present recension, we can hardly
doubt that the criticism was directed against a version in Gàndhârî, or one
imperfectly translated into Sanskrit from a Gàndhârî original. This curious
tale concerns the last days of Ananda, and tells how he chanced to overhear a
certain monk reciting a Dharmapada-verse in the following manner (according
to the Chinese versions):
If a man were to live for a hundred years, and not see a water-heron,* it were better
that lie live only for one day, and sec a water-heron.
‘My son’, said Ananda, 'the Buddfia did not say this. What he said was :
If a man were to live for a hundred years, and not see the principle of coming into
existence andpassing away, it were better. . . (and so forth).
The monk thereupon reported the matter to his teacher, who replied,
‘Ananda is an old fool. Go on reciting as before’. On hearing once more the
same faulty recitation, Ananda realized that it was futile to attempt to convince
the monk of the error, since all his seniors, to whom he might have appealed,
had already entered Nirvana. Being thus unable to -do anything further to
protect the Buddha’s words from corruption, he considered that there was
no reason to delay his own Nirvana.
It is a pity we do not have the Sanskrit original of this story ; but the main
point of the criticism is established beyond any doubt by the present text,
where, corresponding to Dhp. 113,
y o cû vassa-sataipjiv e apassam udaya-vyctyam,

1 Sec also above, p. 36.
* Vinaya, Ksudraka-vastu, Taishô, vol. xxiv,
no. 1451, pp. 409-10 (translation by Przyluski,
JAs 1914, iv, p .529); Ahkâoadâna, in two-ver-
sions, Taishô, vol. 1, no. p. 115, and
no.a043, p. 154(1(16 former translated by Przy-
luski, La Légende de FEmpereur Açoka, pp. 335-
6); Tibetan version Ifdul-ba, vol. Da, 6826-
683<s(Narthang) -* vol. xliv,Ne, joaa-i(Pekin).
5 In Przyluski’s translation of the Aiokava-
dâna, p. 335, ‘Si un homme vivait cent ans sans
voir le vieux héron des marais', the word ‘vieux’
is the result of a variant reading now discarded
by the Taishô edition. The translations of the
bird’s name vary: heron, crane, snow-goose(?)
egret or paddy-bird ; and there is a
insert the adjectivc ‘white', which could not
have been in the original. The Tibetans, with
bya kar (so written in N,; gar P.) 'white bird’,
may have had in mind the grey duck (Tib.-Tib.
Diet., bya dkar = chuhi bya gag),
 IN T R O D U C T IO N +7

translation would seem to have altered apcUyann udaka-bakam (which must

have been the source of the Chinese versions) to avasyam udake bakah. This
seems too good to be an accidental corruption. In the language of the Dharma-
pada manuscript, a single consonant immediately following the negative pre­
fix a- is sometimes treated as initial, sometimes as intervocalic.1 Although in
this verse the word in question appears as apaiu, it might at other times have
had the form avasu; and even if usage had recognized only -p~ in this particu­
lar word, the phenomenon was familiar enough to make it easy for the Vinaya
reviser to impute -v- to the rival text, and hence arrive at avasyam.
Unfortunately, Ananda’s correction as it appears in the Tibetan translation
is no longer of any use, and later generations of Tibetans must have wondered
what it was all about:
gan na lo brgya htsho ba ni
riespar skye dan hjigpa yin.
T o live for a hundred years is undoubtedly birth and death.

Here avaJyatn, which helps to elaborate the jest in the verse derided, has,
rather sadly, intruded from there by an error of copying, and destroyed the
genuine verse; and in addition—whether as a result of this, or as an indepen«
dent accident— the second half of the verse has disappeared, taking with it a
further short passage which was still in the text when the Chinese translations
were made.
It is naturally a temptation to believe that this criticism by the Mula-
sarvastivadins was directed against the text of this Gandharl Dharmapada;
and it may be so. Equally, it may not be.* We can, however, be reasonably sure
of the language of the text criticized.
It is true that Gandharl is not the only Prakrit dialect in which udaka and
udaya would have collided in this way; and since a spelling udaya or udaa in
a Prakrit text in another dialect could have represented either word, such a
spelling might in theory have been rendered into Sanskrit as udaka. But it
rather stretches credulity to suppose that a translator should have chosen the
more remote formal possibility in order to make nonsense of the text. The
situation is entirely different if udaka, as a perfectly legitimate Gandharl
spelling in the sense of S. udaya, already stood in the source from which the
translation into Sanskrit was made. And if the text under criticism had been
read in a Gandharl version, the origin of the Mula-sarvastivada story is even
easier to understand. The mere fact of the strong association of this school
with the North-west might even by itself be thought sufficient corroboration.
1 Similarly in other compound words: sw cism, suggests the latter conclusion. But since
p. jpg, the word could be a variant arising even within
2 The fact that the manuscript has muhutu in the same school (intruding from 320, where the
the group of verses to which this belongs, against Pali also has muhuttanr), it is not a final proof
ekahaiji in the other versions and in the criti« that a different recension was involved,
40 IN T R O D U C T IO N

the Prakrit gives the reading (317):

y a jt vasa-iado jt v i apastf udaka-vaya.

The story is thus merely the vehicle of a proposed emendation of a text which
was corrupt, or was at least thought to be corrupt. If the verse under criticism
was at the time still in a Prakrit form, it may not have been thought by those
reciting it to refer m fact to a 'water-heron1; and the Mula-sarvastivadin
author may have been merely indulging in ridicule without adequatejustifica­
tion. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the verse (which might easily
have been written with the spelling udaka-vaka in some Kharosthl manu­
script) 1had been translated carelessly into Sanskrit as apafyann udaka-bakam,
in which case the emendation proposed was most essential. It may be observed
that the mythical setting of the story not only provides the critic with an
authority for his emendation2(which is good enough not to need it), but also
suggests that the corrupt text had gone unobserved until the one surviving
authority was so old that his powers of memory might be challenged. No
doubt it was felt that, if the correction had been attributed to an earlier period,
the mere existence of the wrong reading in a rival school might have been diffi­
cult to explain.
The version of the same story in the Tibetan Vtnaya is worth a separate
mention, since, although itself coTrupt, it suggests an artistic elaboration in­
troduced later in the history of the Mula-sarvastivada text, hut still making
use of a Prakrit (and probably Gandhari) background. The verse criticized
appears as:}
gait na Jo brgya htsho ba m
net par chu la bya kar biin
chu ¡a bya kar mthon ba liar
bdag titi gag buht htsho ba dge.

This is still more appalling than the version given to the Chinese:
T o live for a hundred years is certainly like a grey duck in th e w a t e r b u t a life lw cd all
by oneself alone is happiness, like seeing a grey duck in the water.

We need not try to decide whether the interpretation of ek&ham (as if the
second part of the compound had bcca aliam ‘I’) is a mistake or a further
attempt at mockery; but the first half of the verse is almost certainly an
attempt to improve upon the earlier version. The Sanskrit implied by the
* The spelling, betides being theoretically sought support for emendation in Latin or
po&ub\«, u auwtedby Niya 637 line a (the Greek texts by the quotation of mythical read-
docuroents regularly having in such posi- ings ex uetustu eodtabus
tion», where the Dharmapada has ~k~) The 1 The text o f the Naithang edition is repro-
manusenpt also has vdaka ‘water’ (Niya ujago) duced literally. The Pehn edition »hows only
1 In the same way, some editors in the earlier unimportam(and mostly mienor) spelling vana-
ctnMxies of classical scholarship in Europe tions
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 47

translation would seem to have altered apasyann udaka-bakam (which must

have been, the source of the Chinese versions) to avaSyam udake bakafi. This
seems too good to be an accidental corruption. In the language of the Dharma-
pada manuscript, a single consonant immediately following the negative pre­
fix a- is sometimes treated as initial, sometimes as intervocalic.1 Although in
this verse the word in question appears as apab, it might at other times have
had the form, avasu; and even if usage had recognized only -p- in this particu­
lar word, the phenomenon was familiar enough to make it easy for the Vinaya
reviser to impute -v- to the rival text, and hence arrive at avasyam.
Unfortunately, Ananda’s correction as it appears in the Tibetan translation
is no longer of any use, and later generations of Tibetans must have wondered
what it was all about:
gan na lo brgya htiho ba ni
riespar skye dan kjigpa yin.
T o live for a hundred years is undoubtedly birth and death.

Here avaiyam, which helps to elaborate the jest in the verse derided, has,
rather sadly, intruded from there by an error of copying, and destroyed the
genuine verse; and in addition—whether as a result of this, or as an indepen­
dent accident—the second half of the verse has disappeared, taking with it a
further short passage which was still in the text when the Chinese translations
were made.
It is naturally a temptation to believe that this criticism by the Mula-
sarvastivadins was directed against the text of this Gandhari Dharmapada;
and it maybe so. Equally, it may not be.2We can, however, be reasonablysure
of the language of the text criticized.
It is true that Gandhari is not the only Prakrit dialect in which udaka and
udaya would have collided in this way; and since a spelling udaya or udaa in
a Prakrit text in another dialect could have represented either word, such a
spelling might in theory have been rendered into Sanskrit as udaka. But it
rather stretches credulity to suppose that a translator should have chosen the
more remote formal possibility in order to make nonsense of the text. The
situation is entirely different if udaka, as a perfectly legitimate Gandhar!
spelling in the sense of S. udaya, already stood in the source from which the
translation into Sanskrit was made. And if the text under criticism had been
read in a Gandhari version, the origin of the Mula-sarvlstivada story is even
easier to understand. The mere fact of the strong association of this school
with the North-west might even by itself be thought sufficient corroboration.
1 Similarly in other compound words: see asm, suggests the latter conclusion. But since
p. I06a the word could be a variant arising even within
2 The fact that the manuscript has muhutu in the same school (intruding from 320, where the
the group of verses to which this belongs, against Pali also has muhuttatii), it is not a final proof
ehaham in the other versions and in the criti- that a different recension was involved.
4& IN T R O D U C T IO N

But as for the particular text which provoked the criticism, we have a
warning against too swift a conclusion in the unexpected fact that the Maha­
vastu, in other respects so far removed, also gives the reading udaka- in both
halves of this verse (m. 436.12) in one of the two manuscripts available at this
part of the work. Senart naturally preferred the reading of the other manu­
script, udaya-vyayam. But in such a context udaka- would be a most extra­
ordinary corruption to have arisen accidentally. In spite of a great deal of
Prakrit in the ancestry of the Mahavastu remaining visible beneath the San­
skrit orthography, most of that Prakrit is certainly not Gandhari (although it is
just possible that a few traces might be hidden among manuscript readings
rejected by the editor).1 It may therefore be that udaka- is after all a coinci­
dence, however surprising. But at least it seems desirable not to rule out
absolutely the possibility that the Mahasanghika Dharmapada used by die
compilers of the Mahavastu had reached them in Madhyadeia after a period
of exile in Gandhara. It would not be unexpected— rather the reverse— that
sections of the same school widely separated geographically should have pro­
duced copies of a text held in common which, even if not definite translations
into different regional dialects, were at least influenced in numerous ways by
the differing local languages.

V I. THE g a n d h A r! la n g u a g e
This Dharmapada text is not only of considerable significance for the study
of early Buddhist literature, but also forms a substantial part of the remnants
of the Middle Indian dialect of the North-west, whose importance and in­
fluence was quite out of proportion to the relatively small quantity which has
survived. In addition to this one literary text, we possess only inscriptions
(the Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra versions of the Asokan edicts; a number of
later inscriptions, mostly very short, and dated by Konow for the most part
between the first century B.C. and the second century a.d. ; and a few words
on coin legends), and the collection of official documents from Niya and other
sites in Chinese Turkestan, from the third century a.d.2The Dharmapada, as
* One naturally thinks of the 3rd plural aonst the Mahavastu had at one stage passed through
and optative forms m -ilsu, -etsu -insu, ~mu, a version in GSndh5rI, forms with in place
where Senart regularly chose the latter, and of -mi- would certainly be expected to have
Edgerton (BHSG $ 31 38 and 95) favoured the come into the text at that tune But mote evi-
former In »review of Edgerton'j WOrk(BSOAS dence would be required than this one ortho*
*VI>*954. PP 358 0 . 1 suggested that, since the graphical idiosyncrasy and the isolated udaka
graphic alternation tjn was common in other beforeaGandharlelementintheanceitryofthe
situations in Nepalese manuscnpta (also before Mahavastu could be safely asserted
and dnmd being often enough written * A further collection o f documents, also
for ja m a and atttti), the relative frequency of written in Rharo§thI, but coming from Sites
the spellings in the Mahavastu nunusenpta north of the Takla Makan desert, and asenbed
earned little weight, and that the forms with « to a later penod, is preserved in Berlin, but has
could therefore be accepted The arfufflent is not yet been published,
of coune obligingly reversible, and if parts of
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 49

would be expected, has incorporated a number of words (though not many)

taken over with the text in forms originating in the more central dialect from
which it was translated.1 But in general, all these sources show a language
which is fundamentally the same, contrasting with other Middle Indian
dialects. There are indeed variations, partly geographical (as already shown
by the differences between the two As'okan versions), and partly due to differ­
ences in time. Between the Dharmapada and the Niya documents, when
allowance is made for the Buddhist vocabulary in the former, and a quantity
of borrowed Central Asian words in the latter (and a few differences in the
conventions of the orthography), the language is so similar that it would be
quite artificial to treat these two sources other than as aspects of the same

Except for some doubts expressed in the initial period of the study of the
Niya documents,2 this view has for the most part been accepted in principle;
and the language has been generally referred to as 'the North-western Prakrit’.
More recently, in an article dealing with a number of problems concerning
the language, the name ‘Gandhari’ was suggested by H. W. Bailey^ to whose
writings we are indebted for numerous exemplifications of the very important
part played by this form of Middle Indian language as one of the principal
vehicles for the carrying of Indian civilization, and in particular Buddhism,
into Central Asia, and ultimately to China. In this capacity, it almost certainly
preceded Sanskrit, and doubtless continued for a considerable period as the
spoken Indian language best known in Central Asia, even when Sanskrit and
Brahmi writing had displaced Gandhari and KharosthJ in the written Bud­
dhist texts in use. The extent of this linguistic influence is clearly demon­
strated by the stock of Indian borrowings in Khotanese, Agncan, and
Kuchean, and other languages of Central Asia, where, in company with many
words taken directly from Sanskrit (though often altered in appcarance by
local orthography and subsequent phonetic development), (here are consider­
able numbers which show features indicating an origin in Gandhari.4
1 For convenience we may use the expres- a specific language, niih relatively small dialec-
sion. 11is, however, quite possible that the tedac- tical and temporal variations. The older de-
tion of the text in its present form took place scriptivc term, carrying a vague suggestion of
only after the school (or branch of a. school) to ononymit)-, may have obscured this to some
which it belonged was already settled in Gan- extent, even if itt theory it should not have done
dhara. If this were so, wc might rather think of so. (Doubtless our attitude to the language and
a proccss of gradual transposition of the text of literature of France would be unaffected, in
individual verses, during the period of move- theory, even if the only term at our ifisposaf was
mcnt from n central or eastern district, rather ‘the North-western Romance language'.)
than a single definite act of translation. 4 On the general question, r.cc in particular
' For example, Senart, JAs.xix, jg i: , p. 411. W. W. Bailey, GSndhdn (loc, cit.), and Tram-
(Contra, Konow, BSOS viii, 1936, p. 603,) actions of the Philological Soeicty, ¡ 947._ pp.
1 BSOAS xi, 1946, pp. 764-9;. This con- 139 ^ By way of illustration, a few additional
vcnfait designation has the additional merit of examples arc cited below, in pan II of this
emphasizing the fact that we are concerned with Introduction.
B 0UI E
so in t r o d u c t io n

A recognition of this fact is important from both sides Many Central

Asian forms which, when compared with Sanskrit, seemed at first to be mere
scnbal vagaries, or were even described as errors, can now be seen to reflect
developments attested in Gandhari And from the other side, the independent
survival of such forms justifies the Dharmapada manuscript in many placcs
where otherwise we might too readily assume a blunder by the scribe Thus,
for example in anuvathida and antmasuda (137c , 137d), Senart recognized
that the vowel -u was clearly written in the second syllable of each word,
although in both places the corresponding Pah had an ava- (and an tipa- was
in any case unsuitable in the context) He therefore did not hesitate to describe
both words as mere errors Bailey,1however, drew attention to the same feature
m a Khotanese form anftvatatlu (S anavalapta) together with Chinese trans­
literations implying originals such as *anudatta (or ano ) beside *anavadatta
The spelling anuva- m the Dharmapada manuscript is thus confirmed as
genuine
A good example of a similar situation is provided by the newly published
part of the text (242) in. the vtcxijabodana ‘golden’ , where the well-established
S jambttnada, P jambonada,jambunada might have led us to suspect that the
transposition of the two syllables was a mere accident in the writing The word
nevertheless is real, its existence in the language being established by the fact
that it reached Sogdian in the form ¿np'tchn, cnpu&n,3 through the inter­
mediary of Chinese |g] ^ ¡am b izu-d an 3 The same Indian form is
probably the origin also of Khotanese jabuvana* jabuva* (with ystra ‘gold’),
and jambunrf (< *jambudanya)

Evidence from Chmese transcriptions

An important question which can only be touched upon very briefly here is
the possibility that the originals of some of the earlier translations of Buddhist
works into Chinese were written in Gandhari The suggestion has been made
specifically with reference to the Dirghagama,1 ascribed to the Dharmagup-
takas,8and the indications are sufficiently strong to make it very probable that
the language of this text if not exactly the same was at least very close to that
of the Dharmapada Since only a few sutras have been examined in detail with
1 BSOAS x 1942 p 913 * Konow Soka Studies (vocabulary)
* Reiehdt Soghdisehe HattdscknftmresU i s Bailey Khotanese Buddhist Texts p 72
p 45 lines 212 *15 I wn indebted to Professor * Jataka 1lava 22«
Bailey for the relevant Iranian and Chinese in 7 Translated m a d 413 b y Buddhayaias
formation here (DemifnUe L in d e Qasstque 11 p 418)
» Kadgren Grommata Senea Reeensa 672 * T he ascription to the Dharmaguptakas (on
1*33 >48 T h e Archaic reconstruction of which see NValdschnudt BruchstUcke buddhis
the first syllable » (cf also jn the same tucker Sutrat 1 p 229) was disputed by Weller,
•eues «lom < •dsim ) and the initial occlusion Ana Major v 1928 p 180
evidently had not yet been lost m the form
taken over by Sogdian
 IN TRO D U CTIO N *r
this problem in view, further investigation would be desirable. All that is
attempted here is an indication of a few points1 where the evidence of the
language of the Dharmapada should be considered in the interpretation.
On the basis of 36 transliterations (including proper names) in the 15th
s&tra of the Dirgftagama, F. Weller2came to the conclusion that the text from
which the translation was made was not in Sanskrit; but he refrained from
suggesting any positive identification of the Prakrit. The material was admit
tedly too scanty; and it was of course realised that transliterated terms might
be taken over ready-made from an earlier tradition of translating, and these
would in consequence be useless as evidence. (There are in fact 8 such items
in the list) A few of the remainder which appeared to raise difficulties are,
however, at least compatible with GSndhSri. Against the Pali form Gotama,
the Chinese transliteration indicated in the second syllable; and, with
some hesitation, Weller suggested that, beside the normal Prakrit Goyama,
a dialect such as Magadh! might have had a form Godama. The Dharmapada
does in fact attest this.3 More serious difficulties were raised by the form cor­
responding to Pali Ajiia . Here the Chinese text has |i^ %a-igu-d’&*
indicating an Indian original such as Ayuda, which was felt by Weller to be
troublesome not only in. the second vowel, but also in the fact that the inter­
vocalic should be lost, although the intervocalic dental survived. For the
consonants, this is the regular situation in the language of the Dharmapada.
The treatmentof the vowel, which would be quite extraordinary in most of the
familiar Middle Indian dialects, can be set beside a number of examples in the
Dharmapada which, if not precisely parallel, at least show a similar tendency.
There are numerous indications of vocalic weakening in unemphatic
short syllables, particularly at the end of words, but also occasionally else­
where.5 The most probable explanation for the spellings observed would
be the assumption that in such syllables the vowel tended towards a central
or 'neutral’ vowel. Thus, the common particle <ft(Skt. iti) is twice written du\
and the genitive of dukha, appearing twice as dukltasa, is once written dukhtisa.
In most of the examples noted in the text, the «-quality in such syllables can
usually be attributed at least in part to the influence of the phonetic sur­
roundings. Even in the example closest to the transcription under discussion,
vinavana'u 89 (dat. sg., where normally we find -d i < -dya), it maybe thought
that the initial {bli) of the following word has exercised this type of influence.
Nevertheless, it would appear that such vowels were sufficiendy neutral in
quality to make an occasional spelling such as ayuda for ayida (or a'ida) easily
1 For a discussion of numerous additional * Verses 100- 5, 288. Such a form is natur-
matters relevantto this and allied questions, see ally not conclusive evidence in itself. See also
H. W. Bailey, G&uDtari, BSOAS si, 1946. Bailey, loc. ot., p. 777.
: Oder den Auf&azt du PittkasuiUmio, Asia * Karlgien, GSR x, 1079,(4).
Major, ▼, 1928-30, pp. 104 ff. s See also below, pp. 82-3.
St IN T R O D U C T IO N

understandable Such a spelling, read aloud slowly and distinctly for the
benefit of the translator, would naturally result in a rendering of the type
found m the Chinese text
A very much larger collection of transcriptions, from the 19th sutra of the
Dirghâgama, was examined by E Waldschmidt in connexion with an edition
of fragments of a Sanskrit version of the same sütra (Mahasamaja-sutra)
With these two versions, the Pali (Mahasamaya-suttanta) and a tenth-century
Chinese translation by Fa-t’ien, from a Sanskrit original, were also available
for comparison 1 The sutra contains lists of proper names of yaksas, ndgas,
asuras, &c , who came to the assembly, and these name9 were naturally given
in transliteration2 Such a list is by its nature especially liable to corruption
and it is clear that the different versions had already diverged in many ways
before the earlier Chinese translation was made It is therefore not surprising
that there are places where the underlying Indian word remains doubtful
But in spite of this, there is still a respectably large quantity of usable material
Waldschmidt3 drew attention to a number of agreements between this
material and the language of the Dharmapada, but left the identification of the
Prakrit open, since there were also some contradictions Some of the agree­
ments, while compatible with Gandhâri, were admittedly not conclusive
evidence [127]4 vaya (vâcâ), [164] veroyana (vmrocana), and others, might
have come fiom many other dialects On the other hand, the preservation of
tr in [156,157] vemacitru, sucitn (apart from the improbable hypothesis of an
incipient Sanskritizing of the text) could hardly come from any other form of
Middle Indian, and a form such as [170] abrami (abravit), with hr surviving,
and -m- < -t>-, is especially reminiscent of the language of the Dharmapada
Some minor but very probable adjustments in the interpretations originally
given reinforce this conclusion For example, the character d'â occurs
35 times in the list, and (leaving aside two or three instances which are either
probably corrupt, or have a more complicated explanation) the corresponding
Sanskrit and Pali forms show m these places examples of all four stops t, th
d, dh The transcription thus gives an initial impression of being somewhat
haphazard m this respect If, however, it is assumed that at this period a
voiced stop was intended by the translator, the interpretation of this character

1 These four with portions of other texts
which gave parallels in shorter passages are set
out conveniently for comparison in Btuchstiuke
budJhuttscher Sutras 1 pp 149-206
Quite early in the list the Dirghâgama
translator formed the impression that he was
dealing with a succession of dharams— iLmistake
which hadthe useful result of giving us transcnp
tiona instead o f translations o f quite a number of
other words in addition to the proper names
5 Op a t , pp 231 ff See also Bailey, Gan-
dkan for a o f further words from
this te?t
♦T he references in square brackets are to the
numbering o f the words in Waldschmidt s edi
non pp 1 6 4 « T h e forms quoted with these
references are reconstructions o f the Indian
words probably implied b y the Chinese tun-
scnption
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 53

as regularly representing an Indian d or dk results in forms which agree with

the Dharmapada,1 where the latter differs from Pali and Sanskrit. Thus, for
example, besides idana2 [172] (P. dSni, S. idanid), where all three have d, we
find acuda [262] (P. accuta), adJia [101] (P. atha),jida [143] (P.jita).3
An interesting point of contact is provided by the word which appears
where the Pali text has bhaddam te(p. 181), a form of polite address which the
Sanskrit has here replaced by the vocative mahavlra. In the Dharmapada, the
form bhadranu appears twice, in verse 126 corresponding to the Pali plural
quasi-vocative bhaddam no, and in 286 apparently transformed into a nomina­
tive singular.* The same word, it would seem, was used as the Dh-ghdgama
form corresponding to bhaddam te: [173-4] ^ Vuat-d'M&iak*
which may be taken to represent bhaddaiia (or bhadrana).
A point which might well be thought decisive in itself is the preservation
of all three Indian sibilants. Except for some sporadic appearances in Afokan
inscriptions from other parts of the country,6these survived as distinct sounds
only in the North-west. Weller had already observed7 that the renderings of
the words corresponding to S. Vaiidli and Sdkya showed the sibilant £in the
Ancient Chinese reconstructed forms; but he found difficulty in the fact that
the word corresponding to bramana contradicted this regularity by appearing
as '¿J? ptj sa-mum, Admittedly, a term so universally employed as this last was
already established much earlier, and could not be cited as evidence for any
specific text. But since the developments?- > s is regular in Gandharl, the hypo­
thesis that the Chinese form was taken from the latter removes the anomaly.8

1 Because o f the confusion in the transcrip- tencc transliterated, it could hardly be suggested
tfon of the Kharosjhi t and d, the regularity o f that the final syllabic was choscn in order to
this correspondence could of course not be seen convey its Chinese meaning, ‘you'.)
from Senart’s edition. 6 Jules Blach(Les Inscriptions d' Asoka, p. 4$)
2 For the final syllable, cf. -aria ns well as thought that such spellings with f or / might,
~ani in the Dharmapada (S. -Sni, neut. pi.): see outside the North-west, be due simply to the
below, p. 8a. whimofthewritcr.Theyareindeedhardlycon*
3 T he only example of the same charactcr in stant enough to have an y real foundation in the
the 10th-century version of the same list occurs local languages. B u t even if some reality were
in the rendering of S . ttifita. But since the whole granted to such distinctions at the time o f A.<obi,
word is identical in the earlier version, it seems they could hardly have continued to a very
probable that this was merely taken over as nn much later period.
inherited version o f a familiar word, and that 7 Asia Major, v , p . 108.
the Indian form originally represented was a * The argument m ay perhaps fail short o f
Gandhuri tusida. It has not been possible to see certainty for a w ord such as this, since precise
com plete consistency in the rendering o f voiccd dating is hardly possible, and, as W d lcr nlro
and voiceless stops throughout Wnldschmidt’s pointed out, the Archaic Chinese recnm tm c-
cxam plcs ; b u t in general the hypothesis of an tion of the sa in question is ¡a (sec Karlcren,
original in a typ e o f G andharl brings the picture GSR 16). But quite npnrt from the improh-
much closer to consistency in this respect than ability o f a central Prakrit form sarr.ana h.vorc;
either Sanskrit or Pali. been accessible early cnoupli to iinvc !>een
* See also com mentary o n 2 S 6 . written in this way, ?he agreement o f Kliojanese
* Knrlgren, GSR 276, (4), 777. (Since the ffamana, ■Acnc.m ;ur-.nm, appears to maJ:s the
word occurs in the middle o f a complete sen- conclusion virtually certain.
54 IN T R O D U C T IO N

In the more numerous examples from the MaJiasamdja-sutra, the regular

correspondence of the three Indian sibilants with the Chinese is striking
Exceptions are so few that they are probably either corruptions or are based
on readings other than those represented in. the extant Sanskrit and Pali ver­
sions 1 There are too many non-Sanskntic features m the list o f transcriptions
as a whole to permit the hypothesis that the treatment of the sibilants is due
to a measure of Sanskntization & the original text, and the Gandharl distribu­
tion of the sounds is shown by mtsa [278] {mtira the corresponding Sanskrit
text has mtSrtkah) In contrast to samana, this must be a rendering ad hoc
An interesting exception to the normal development ¿r > s appears in ieth
[42] (S iresihah), a word which also retains the palatal sibilant in the Dharma-
pada
There are, however, some notable disagreements also for example, pnhm
[179] (P pathm), where the Dharmapada has pradkam and the borrowed
form padhdt And even within the material provided by this one sutra, there
are numerous problems which await solution
Nevertheless, the points of agreement make a very strong case, and it is
difficult to Bee how the general picture can be explained except on the hypo­
thesis that the original of these Dirghagama transcriptions was fundamentally
the same language as that of the Dharmapada Differences such as pnhtw
against pradhavi are not necessarily inconsistent with this conclusion, since
a number of forms surviving from earlier versions in other dialects (and even
hybrid forms, as prthm seems to be) are to be expected in such Buddhist
texts, and similar contrasts ate familiar enough between different parts of the
Pali canon There are indeed no positive grounds for believing that the two
texts belonged to the canon of the same school, but the language seems to have
been similar enough to allow the possibility to be left open, until further
evidence comes to Jjght
* The Tendenng faha [94 973 'whtrt the Pali has saha rrnght be thought to be due to analogy
with ¡¿¡¿a (P sang“)
 P A R T II

PA LA EO G R A PH IC A L AND G R A M M A TIC A L
T he discussion in the paragraphs which follow has no pretensions to com­
pleteness, either as a palaeographical study, or as a linguistic analysis. A
full and detailed account of the grammar of the text could indeed be judged
an appropriate adjunct to the edition, but the attempt would certainly have
been unduly ambitious at present, especially when much of the material is
here published for the first time; and the field of Kharosthi palaeography
extends far beyond any reasonable limits for this book. Nevertheless, in the
course of the work of editing, a considerable quantity of material relevant to
a grammatical study was inevitably accumulated; and while problems con­
cerning individual words have in general been discussed in the Commentary,
it seemed more useful to present most of this grammatical material in more
systematic form here. It follows from the nature of the text, as a rendering
word by word from another dialect, that our preoccupation is the sound-
system of the language, and that other aspects of the grammar need in
comparison very little comment.
From the time of its decipherment, there have been many scholars skilled
in the reading of Kharosthi, and many have indeed contributed important
observations relevant to its palaeography. But in the sense in which palaeo­
graphy is understood in relation to European documents, the palaeography
of Kharosthi is as yet unborn.1 Until an adequate historical study of the
script has been carried out, it is hardly possible to date the Dharmapada
manuscript in a historical sequent» except by general impression. On this
basis, it has usually been dated in the first or second century a . d . ; and a
reasonable similarity to the styles of writing on die Kurram casket and the
Wardak vase2(an impressionisticjudgement which admittedly is provisional)
might lead us to consider that the later date is on die whole more likely. It
has even been suggested that certain linguistic features indicate a date possibly
later than the Niya documents,3which would bring us to the end of the third
century or even into the fourth. But the appearance of the handwriting
certainly suggests that the manuscript is older than the documents. A more

1 Most of the relevant materials have been
collected together by C. C. Das Gupta, The
Development o f tke Kfiaroffht Script, Calcutta,
*958, Where, however, the treatment of the
subject scarcely meets the requirements of a
palaeographical study: see my review in
BSOAS a s i, JP5P, pp. 593-4.
* CIJ ii, p]atesXXVIII-XXIX, and XXXIII.
* T . Burrow, BSOS vjil, 1936, pp. 428, 430,
citing examples such as the regular assimilation
of nasal+voiced stop in the Dharmapada
■where the stop frequently persists in the docu­
ments: pitta, dam in the former, against
pimda, darpda in the latter. But the spellings
btidlianadt (for -namdi) in the introductory
verse, and vaditva (for vamditva) in the cover
56 IN T R O D U C T IO N

detailed study m the future may produce reasons for revising this opinion,
but for the present a date in the second century a d would seem to be a
probable hypothesis
The interpretation of the characters of the script naturally interacts with
the grammar, but insofar as a separation is practicable, §§ 20-80 below are
concerned with what is primarily linguistic, while §§ 1-19 discuss a number
of points relevant to palaeography and problems concerning the interpreta­
tion of individual characters

§ 1 The values of almost all the uncompounded characters of the script may
be accepted as certain that is to say, they are directly equivalent to the
Brahmi signs transliterated by the same roman symbol This does not, of
course, imply a phonetic equivalence, and although in many eases the
pronunciation associated with a Kharostbl character was probably phoneti­
cally very similar to that represented in another dialect by the equivalent
Brahmi character, this cannot be automatically assumed A given symbol
equated with a Brahmi stop may carry a similar value in some places, and
in others may represent a related but phonetically distinct sound such as a
fricative, which (so far as is known) had no counterpart in the more central
Prakrits With this reservation, we may say that the manuscript shows a set
of vowel signs corresponding to those of the Brahmi scripts— although,
with two or three doubtful exceptions, it indicates neither vowel-length nor
onusvam (§§ 14a, 20), and the vrddhi diphthongs of Sanskrit are not in any
case required— and a full set of consonantal signs similarly corresponding,
except for na,jha, fa, and tha Of these four, ta (known in other Kharosthi
sources) does not occur at all The phonology of the text would lead us to
expect it to appear only where an initial t or intervocalic -it- occurred in the
corresponding words in other Prakrits or in Sanskrit, and there are no such
words m the extant text1 Of the remaining three, the place of na is taken by
ga (§ 46), and that of j ha by 3a (§ 6), while the interpretation of the two
KharosthI signs conventionally transliterated tha and (ha remains controversial
(§ 180, b), and it is not certain that either of them should be understood to
correspond directly to the Brahmi tha

§2 ha The manuscript shows two extreme forms a squat, rounded

character, with a single curve for the right-hand limb, and a more elongated
form, with a marked kink in the right hand limb, which thus resembles the

ve n e (J43) both subsequent to th em a m tex t
ihovr that such feature* arenot reliable lo r dating
Either the documents have in some respects pre
served an older spelling tradition « h ic h d x j not
necessarily « fle e t contemporary pronunciation
or the dialect o f th e Dhacmapada d c s e to t h a t
o f the docum ents b u tn o tid en tica lw ith it h adm
this respect undergone a development
* K o n o w in deed suggested th a t the value (
should be assigned t o th e character usually
transliterated fh leaving A as th e equivalent o f
th e Brahrm ¡h O n this, see fu rth er, § l8 a
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 57

figure 3. Between these, numerous intermediate forms occur. Since this

character must represent more than one sound (§§31,38), it might be expected
that at least the two main varieties would serve to distinguish different
functions which the character had been made to serve. It has not been
possible, however, to discover any agreement of this kind between form and
function, and repeated examinations of the manuscript have so far failed to
reveal any correlation between these forms and the distribution of any other
linguistic feature (for example, nasalization, accompanying voweljength,
syllable-Jength, initial or intervocalic position). It would seem that the
variants can be written in identical contexts; and at the best, only tendencies
could be observed. In some parts of the manuscript, one might collect 22
examples written with the single curve, against ro with the double curve, for
places where, historically, a stop would be expected; while in the same part,
expected fricatives might show an opposite tendency, with 6 examples of
the single against 13 examples of the double curve. But in other parts of the
manuscript, even these tendencies failed to appear. For the present, therefore,
it seems most likely that variants of this type are for the scribe simply forms of
the same character, to be used more or less at random. Although it is possible
that some linguistic factor may have to some extent influenced the choice, no­
thing sufficiently clear-cut has been discerned to enable us to discriminate two
distinct characters, and the single transcription k has been retained in all cases.
A few other characters exhibit similar variations: ia (cf. § 14a) and ba, for
«sample, are especially liable to develop a kink in the descending stroke.

§ 3. kha. The upper part of the character swings in a curve well above the
general level of most of the characters in the line of writing. In contrast, the
Niya documents show a form of the character completely contained in the line
of writing. In the same published collection, however, the verydistinctivehand-
writing of document 661 from Endere shows a kha very similar to that of the
Dharmapada. The inscriptions are in general closer to the documents in this
matter, and most of them either contain the character within the line of writing,
or allow it to rise only slightly above. A few, however, have a form comparable
in height to that of the Dharmapada: the Taxi la copper-phte, the Takh t-i-Bahi
inscription, and the Wardak vase.1 Since these three, according to the provi­
sional dates adopted by Konow, are ascribed respectively to 6 B.C., A.D. 19, and
a .d . 179, it s e e m s that this feature is unlikely to be of assistance in the matter of
dating; but it is possible that the difference reflects regional traditions in writing.

§ 4. gha and ¿a. The sign for gha in the older inscriptions consists of ga
with the addition of a downward-turning hook on the right of the vertical.
« CH ii, plates V, 301 , and X X X III.
S8 IN T R O D U C T IO N

Usually, this hook is attached somewhere near the middle of the stem, but
on occasion it might be virtually attached to the head of the character,1 and
this is the normal position in the script of the Niya documents In the
manuscript, however, the hook is normally added without lifting the pen,2
and therefore t e n d s t o appear nearer t h e bottom of the vertical than in many
of the older examples 3 Beside this, a distinct character was formed from ga
by adding a short horizontal straight lme projecting to the right, more or less
at a right angle, at the bottom of the stem Th e result is thus similar to grat
and Konow therefore adopted the transcription g(r)a for the inscriptions.
It is improbable, however, that the diacritical mark in question has any real
connexion with -r, since all the sources which possess this sign as well as
gra keep the two quite distinct * The editors of the Niya documents used the
transcription ga, and it seemed best to retain this here, since, although the
character is employed for a different sound in the Dharmapada manuscript
(§ 46), the graphic form is probably historically linked with the Niya ga
In the script of the documents, the basal diacritic in ga tends to develop
into a curve, which is sometimes so considerable that the resulting character
presents almost exactly the appearance of gha m the Dharmapada Because
of this close similarity, both characters were earlier transcribed as g a 5 The
Niya gha, however, was safe from collision with ga because of the placing of
the hook at the head, and the basal line of ga could be permitted to curve
without any risk of confusion In the Dharmapada, the two were kept distract
by maintaining the diacritical lme of ga straight, or very nearly so Usually
it takes a slight upward slant, and projects a little to the left of the vertical
also Occasionally it has become detached from the main character. Although
examples of ga are not very numerous in the manuscript, the distribution of
the two graphic forms is sufficiently consistent linguistically to make it neces­
sary to recognize gha and ga as two distinct characters see for example £ in
line 3» (< ngh), above gh in 393 (< nkh)

§ S ya* 1° the Niya documents, the editors sometimes found difficulty

in distinguishing these two characters, and Rapson (following Senart)
ascribed the same potential confusion to the Dharmapada 6 Here, however,
there are few if any doubtful examples The most constant distinguishing
feature is the direction of the head-stroke, which in ya regularly slants
* F o r example, C I I 11, plate X H 1, i script occurs in the Z e d s in scription o f the
O n « , m lme 131, th e h ook has b ee n year n o f the K a n a k a era. C I I « plate X X V I,
attached b y a separate stroke o f th e pen, after lin e 3
the basic character h ad been com pleted p ro - « In gra, the stem norm ally tu rn s to the nght
ducmg B result rather sim ilar to the gh in the in a continuous curve w h ile th e other character
latt hne o f t h e W ardak vase inscription C I I show s a definite angle
u , plate » « 1 1 1 * H W B ailey B S O A S n , 1945, p p 489 ff
A form v ery sim ilar t o that o f th e m a m i. « Kharoffht Imcrtpiumt, p 308
 IN TR O D U CTIO N J$

downward from right to left, while in sa it is horizontal, or occasionally with

a slight slant in the opposite direction to that otya. This makes it necessaiy
to re-interpret the words formerly read aruyu, vikaya as aruht. vikaia. (See
also § 61.)

§ 6. ja. The character normally transcribed as jha in other Kharosthl writ­

ings is absent from the Dharmapad'a, and in words where Pali hasjh-, -jjh
the manuscript regularly shows; with a superscript stroke. The occasional
absence of the stroke cannot be taken to mean that the scribe intended to
represent a different sound in such places, and there is certainlyno confusion:
the diacritic never appears where the older language had an unaspirated/.
At the same time, the distinction may have been kept alive only in the litcraiy
tradition, and forms such as jrna (for dhyana) in Buddhist Sanskrit in Niva
no. 511, and jSm for the same in Khotanese,1 may suggest that/and jk did
ultimately coincide in the spoken language.
It seems doubtful whether Kharosthl ever possessed a definitely distinct
sign for the palatal voiced aspirate. In the Aiokan inscriptions, earlier editors
accepted jft in the Kharosthl versions in nijhati RE VI, istrijhaksa RE XII
(M), and anunijkapeti RE XIII. But these readings were merely fanciful,
and were due partly to the other versions, and partly to etymological con-
siderations. In VI (Sh. 14, 15), where the passage in question is repeated
in error on die stone, an accidental mark of weathering at the head of theja
led Hultzsch to retain nijhati in line 14, but in 15 he correctly read tiijaii,
and similarly istrijaksa, ammijapeli. In all these places, however, he proposed
to emend back to the old rcading/A, but gaveno explanationfor thisprocedure.
Wherever the character is legible in these words, it is quite unmistakablyja,
and bears no resemblance to the shape which has traditionally been tran-
scribtdjha from later Kharosthl sources. In XH M istrijaksa there is a curved
mark at the foot of the stem of ja, but this is probably an accidental break.
On the other hand, the plates show a definite dot above the character in
tiijaii in M line 29 and in Sh. 15; while a similar dot is probably present
also in Sh. 14. In XII M istrijaksa a superscript dot is also probable. In
XII Sh- the surface of the stone is broken at this point, and it is impossible
to say whether or not there was any mark intended above the character.
Itis thereforepossible that the Aiokan Kharosthl employed thesame method
as the Dharmapada 1» indicate the aspirated counterpart of j. For the dia­
critical dot which later appears in manuscripts as a superscript stroke, we
* Bailey,BSOASiiii, I 949.PP-133-4, where (see $49),anJ in the Nivadocumcnu (Burrow,
further examples are quoted. Other voiced Gramr.ar, §554: although there m.iy Ik t'lT-t
aspirates of Indian words are frequently hesitation in artnbutinc such speHinp speci-
rcplaced in this way (Konov, Salta Smdiet, fica!!)- to the influrr.ee of the native Unniaje
p. S); also sporadically in the Dharmapada of Shan-sfian).
60 IN T R O D U C T IO N

have a parallel m the K^absara mscnpuaix, m th a dot over s> corresponding

to the Dharmapada and Niya s 1
The Aiokan stones, however, are so liberally flecked with marks of
weathering that the apparent dots above the characters m question may be
thought to be accidental From the published plates, only the example in
mjati RE VI M 29 is sharp enough to make accident unlikely The choice
is therefore to read either 3 (with no emendation to jh), on the assumption
that no diacritic -was ■written, or j , as in the Dhatmapada,if the dot is accepted
as part of the original carving On the latter alternative, we might then prefer
to adopt the transcription }h in place of j , but if so, it will be necessary to
abandon the rendering (in any case an unhappy one) for the quite different
character which has hitherto been represented by ‘jh’ m the transcription of
post-A^okan KharosthI

§ 6a It has long been recognized that the latter character is frequently

employed to render a foreign z What has not been sufficiently observed is
the fact that the implied theory, that the sign was originally intended to
write an Indian jh, is purely speculative While its use in the sense of 2 is
frequent, there are very few places where it has been thought to occur as an
Indianjh , and these are mostly either misreadings (as in the Aiokan examples)
or dubious m etymology It is possible that the sign is not attested at all
with the -value of Indian j h , and if it was in fact ever used in this way, the
instances must be so rare that they could be taken to represent an occasional
aberrant orthography On the other hand, the writing o f) or j where other
Prakrits have jh is established beyond question as the normal Kharosthi
practice It would seem that the facts strongly urge the more economical
hypothesis that the other character was designed specifically in order to
write a voiced sibilant [z] In this use, it appears frequently both as a
rendering of a foreign z, and in place of an earlier Indian intervocalic sotdh
In the latter case it may (at least m the earlier examples) be used for [S],
but it is probable that the two sounds coalesced as [z] It would be desirable
to avoid the implied suggestion of a connexion with the Indian palatal
aspirated plosive, and to transcribe the character simply as a 2
In the post-Aiokan inscriptions edited by Konow, the word corresponding
1 C I I u plate X X X V I c f §<) and sim ilarly connexion is qu ite possible e ve n i f n o t proved
k w ith d o t o n a com ©{ P olyxenos fulfilling b u t ts in an y case inconclusive as evidence for
th« Mnie function as th e later d acntical dash th e sound intended b y th e differentiated sign
(quoted b y I I \Y Bailey B S O A S x i 1946 T h e transcription z has in d eed b een used
p 796 H .B W hitehead NumisnmiicChronicle from tim e to tim e (Ltiders B S O S vm 1936
** pp PP 6 3 7 # Burrow Translation) b u tth e general
, j V hape t*'e , l 8n h “ b cei» thought to persistence of jh suggests that m ost w riters on
be t differentiated form d enved from j b u t th e »ubject have cons dered thfs unfam iliar s as
h « e 's e Me reduced t o guessing T h e graphic m erely a concession to foreign words
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 61

to S. upadkyáya is written, as upajaya.1 T ie same word has been seen in the

Taxila copperplate of Patika2 in the form uvajha’a-;3 but the character here
has more the appearance of ja with either a very short superscript stroke
(little more than s dot), or, just possibly, the vowel sign -e: hence, uvajo'e or
itvaje’e.4 (For the palatalization of the vowel in the latter, cf. § 22a.)
Although the Pali verb jhapeti ‘is used inter alia about the cremation of
the Buddha’s bodyV it seems unlikely that a sacred relic would be described
as a ‘Buddha-cinder’, and the suggestion might not have been made if,
instead of 'budkajhava?, the word had been transcribed as budhazava, The
words which are normally used in similar contexts are sarlra and dhatu, and
it is possible that the latter is intended here. This would involve a form
equivalent to S. dhatavah (though used here as an acc. plural): > *-dhatuva >
-Sa’uva > -ztfva; or conceivably *-dhátü > ~závu. We might then have a
form reminiscent of Khot. hvadávcfi (S. lokadhátxi), beside spellings with
-data. -d>

§ 6b. If the seal inscription from Taxila7 is transcribed as mahazana-

pulrasa zanapriyasa, there is perhaps (ess o f a temptation to think of personal
names as improbable as ‘MahSdhyana'■and ‘Dhy&napriya', If the sound
represented was [z] or [t>] < dh, there is no difficulty in supposing that the
seal belonged to a merchant Dhanapriya, son of Mahadhana. Such names
are familiar enough,8 and even if in origin nicknames, they might well have
been accepted as complimentary by business men who saw no reason to
be ashamed of their prosperity. And, on the other side, it may seem im­
probable that a man who saw fit to call himself ‘Dhyanapriya’ would have
had much need to possess a seal.
From the Niya documents, no examples have been observed of 'jh' used
in words where other Prakrits have jfiS Sanskrit dhy is sporadically repre­
sented by dy (489 madya), but regularly byj'paribujUalu (-budhya-), ajisana-

1
1 M am áñe DherT, C I I ii, plate X X X I V .
Ib id ., plate V , lin e 4 , w h ere K o n o w read i i attested before u in ca'uri, co'ufka'. cf. § 53.
-utaitae.
* B a iley, B S O A S s iii, 1949, p . 13 3 ; T P S
J95 &> p- ia S .
* T h e context, however, remains obscure to
me. The original is broken after the V, and seme
syllables may be lost; but the interpretation o f
th e preceding ja (or should we read Patika
saja?) is difficult.
1 Konow, op- cit., p. 14$: M ü n ik iíh in teñ p -
ticn , plate X X V I I .
6 T h is admittedly may not be dircctly eon -
nected, since (as Professor Bailey has p ointed
o u t to me) such a form cauld have developed if!
K hotanese independently of Prakrit. T h e loss
o f ¡n tcrvoaJic / is infrequent in G ándhári, bu t
7 C I I ji, plate X X . 3.
* F o r exam ple, D iv y . 435, Mofiádhano,
w h ose son w as nam ed S udhara; ib id . 0 :
Dhonaiammala, virtually a synonym o f Dhace•
priya.
* Rapson, K f& ro tfiT Inscription, p. 303,
while noting that the Niva 'jh' was u<cd w hh
the value r , thought that the character itself
rnipht be a c u n iv c developm ent c f 't h i jh a e (
AioVra’s edicts’ (i.e. the draw ing o f the sicn so
labelled in Bilhlcr's plate). A t ih e same tim e,
h e w as q yitc elear that no exam ple had been
found of (he N iya ;7;‘ jn places where//; w ould
appear in eth er Prakrit*.
62 IN T R O D U C T I O N

(adhyesana) , and, as in the inscriptions, ljh* represents a foreign z, or an

Indian i or dh adhmatra, asimatra and 'ajhtmatn
Tor the character marked with the diacritic stroke in the Dharmapada, it
seemed best to retain the transcription ja, partly because the diacritic is not
mvariablj written in the manuscript, and partly to avoid confusion with the
traditional ‘j ha'
The same character also appears in praiajadt (pra-toms-), with an assimila­
tion comparable to that in iaiana (iasana), and in dajamano (P dayhamano)
Since in other words we find hy > i (§ 61), the latter example suggests a
value [z] This does not exclude the possibility that, in initial position and
*herc representing an older double stop, the sign might still have represented
a palatal plosive or affricate

§ 7 na A similar diacritic stroke is written over the n which results from

earlier ndh (§ 46) Here also the mark is sometimes omitted, but it is never
written except where the earlier group was aspirated Senart used the
transcription n[d)h, but there is no reitson to suppose that there was any
implication of a plostv e tn the notation of the manuscript The transcription
nh would doubtless be a reasonable one, provided it were not thought to
mean a dental nasal followed by a separate aspiration, or a devoiced nasal
with breathiness, of the type of Burmese hn It would be more probable m
an Indian language that the sound intended was a fully voiced n, with a
feature of brcathiness running through it

§S The diacritic is wntten only once over ga, in the word saga (S
and elsewhere S ng and ngh are both represented by g 1 The
analog) of the treatment of other voiced plosiv es after nasals (§ 46) suggests
that g should be interpreted as [rtf Since it could not be assumed a pnm
that the \elar scries would behave exactly in the same way as the others, an
interpretation as fag] might seem possible, particufariy as the character is
formed from g simp!) b) the addition of the stroke at the base This cannot
be dcfinitcl) denied, since the orthography is not free from inconsistencies
But it seems more probabl? that, if the basal stroke w ere used to indicate the
addition of a nasal to a plosi\e, the word sangha would have been wntten
with gh plus an extra basal stroke rather than with g plus a superscript, or
altematiNch, with a superscript o\cr gh, since in the Ni>a script the stroke
above is used with a number of characters to indicate a conjunct nasal, and
this is certainly the intention of ta in the Dharmapada also (§ 9), and probably
of j>a ($ 10) 'Hie hypothesis which best fits the facts is that, as in the case
of fla, the diacritic above ga also indicates a feature of aspiration, and we
• figtnotinvaru blytnth ecattofnr »« §46
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 63

should therefore understand the symbol as [gh]. Since the use of g in the
Dharmapada is in any case quite different from that of the graphical!**
similar sign § in the Niya documents and the inscriptions, where a value
[y] is to be understood, there is no reason to expect that the sign transliterated
g should have the same sense in both sources.

§ 9. sa. The most frequent use of the superscript line in the Niya documents
appears to be themarkingofan accompanying nasal.1 Of the examples quoted
from the documents, the word tusi (< tusnlm) is written in the same manner
in the Dharmapada, verse 237. Similarly tasa (< frsnd) 84, where the same
writing of the word appears on the Kurram casket.2 See also note on verse 41.

§ 10. ga. In two places, the manuscript shows a superscript stroke with ga,
in verse 109 athagi’o and 153 kadigara. The same symbol in the Niva
script has the etymological value of giia in naga (< nagna) and viga (< vightia),
and a comparable value is established contextually for ga by the two spellings
of the same name, suguta and sugnuta.3 As already indicated (§ 8), it is diffi­
cult to interpret the latter symbol in the same way in the Dharmapada, and
the analogy of iia virtually compels us to see there a mark of aspiration or
spirancy. In ga, on the other hand, there is no reason for such a feature,
and it seems at least probable that a nasal is intended by the diacritic. This
is a somewhat untidy conclusion, but there seems to be no alternative which
fits the situation better. It must be remembered that we are dealing with a
system of spelling, and not with a phonetic transcription; and although the
spelling shows a fair constancy throughout the manuscript, it is not free from
inconsistencies. At the same time, it is probably not so inconsistent as
1 Rnpson, foe. cit., p. 320. In one instance, Joe. dr., p. 769, where the old Khotancse
it appears in this function together with the spellingarpgti/dlu(S. agttiWa) «'as quoted, and
regularline abovekf, intheword trikja, no. 565, the suggestion made that the additional supcr-
< tiksva: see Bailey, BSOAS xi, pp. 768 ff. script strokeinXiyn trifyamr’frfct fortr intended
' Cl I ii, phte XXVIII. In the Kanhiira some such forma* •trir.hta. The rcpubr u-e
inscription (ibid., plate XXXVI) the diacritic of the anusvlrn in the document.-; does rot
appears as a dot, in krifa, and the value of the disprove this; and equally, the Ssn«f:rii form
symbol is confirmed by a parallel version in docs not fuarantec that no£<t was at the time of
Brihmf, where the spelling is Af/ra«. In both tvritinj; pronounced [mens]. In such a •.von!,
inscriptions, Konow thoucht that the diacritic however, onemisjht ihinl: of anearlier dcvc-lop-
might denote an aspirationor someother modi- ment, through fnacijs], from which it vn-.th!
tfeaoon of the f with the loss of the nx’al be 2 fhort step to the of the ¡iv.-l.
(pp. « , 153). B ut this conjecture was based (naqra}. C f. also Hindi r.sr-u, ss cmtf?.*tr«!
only on the analogy ofJ« and no in the Dnarrna* with Xcpali kbco(sccTumer, X tjaiiD itti'-'isry,
pads, and could hnrdly b e upheld now. .41- s.v.). In the alternative iprllir.z o f h tirr
thouph opinions m ay indeed differ on details word, r.it-;o. the writing reercly ssS-es n-str r f
o f in te rrelatio n , th e evidence has « t a b - the nasalization o f the f jjlsh!<* zn'-tnr th '
lished beyond doubt that no sin clt explanation jn uisl r*. ar.il the « if.rlT m tn t 1» rmT
can account fo r all the uses o f the superscript historically from thit o f the c-orTcip’’''! : ''?
diacritic. Hindi tinrd.
5 Rapson, Ioc. cit., p. 321. See also Hailey,
6+ IN T R O D U C T I O N

Konow seemed prepared to accept when he suggested1 that ‘a curve above

or a hook below’ might be used indifferently to denote a nasal with g, gh

§ loa While nk and ithh of the older language regularly appear as g and
gh respectively, the manuscript is less constant in its notation for earlier ng
Tor this, g is written in about half of the examples available, g in the two
words already mentioned, and in the remainder, simply g In two parallel
\erses (228, 229) we find sagadt and sagadi, and in a single verse (305)
both sagamt and sagamu This is possibly to be explained m part as the result
of carelessness in adding the basal diacritic stroke to indicate g , or it nnay
suggest that the assimilation of fig to [qq] was not so completely established
in speech as that of nd to [nn] appears to have been A provisional hypothesis
might be that g was a notation for the assimilated form [qq], g for velar nasal
plus stop [qg], and g alone where the preceding vowel might be nasalized
[mg], the anusvara being left unmarked As the examples show, even if
some such theory lay behind the different spellings, the application was
somewhat haphazard This does not necessarily mean that the scribe was
altogether unaware of what he was doing, and in other matters also he seems
to have uBed alternative notations side by side quite deliberately2

§ n gga In four words in the manuscript a flourish is added to the tail

of ga, producing an appearance very similar to an anusvara m the Niya
senpt This seems to be rather different from the case of ia and a few other
charactcrs (§ 14a), and it seemed worth drawing attention to the variant
The transcription gga has been used merely as a method of noting the
difference, and is not intended as a positive assertion of the value of the
charactcr The words in question are dkadaggadi (47), druggade’o (51).
xaggapa (213), and rasvtggaha (275) A transcription gam would hardly be
possible, m any of these If the curve is intended to mark any linguistic
feature, the doubling of the consonant is at least a possibility Or alternatively»
sincc in the first and third examples a nasal is ctymologically justified
(tik > n"), and could be understood in the fourth [*raimm-graha), the
anwrtJra-hke sjmbol may be intended to express this (although, if con­
sidered as an amuvara, it uould be misplaced) This interpretation would
then Ita\e us with an implied *drungadi, which could be classified with
words such as Prakrit jampai beside japp- (S jalp-),3 where a nasalized form
appears m place of a double stop4
' C I I 11 p n The character w ih the hoolt ranes considerable difficulties if both have the
below « u that here transcribed but he hid same function
* * * seen th*t in the example ht quoted t i * F or examples s te p 65
MjAa th isw u tnfsctth echm eter tn d n o tj* » PischelJ21)6 B*iley,I1S O A S *1 p 769
( w w 102 line IK) T he one charsetcr would * It should be observed that the normal
U u* lu te both liuent.c* together, • f.ct which sellin g of the word, drugadi (contrasting With
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 65

It might reasonably be said that a special written form was superfluous,

since elsewhere in the text any g which is not initial represents either a
Prakrit -gg- or without any distinction being marked in the writing.
But the recognition of a differentiated sign has some encouragement from
the fact that in two of the four instances observed the next verse has the
same word in a corresponding position, but written with the normal g: 51
dmggade'o, 5 2 dugadi'o; 213 saggapa, 2 1 4 sagapa. It is difficult to believe
that this was not deliberate; for there are numerous examples to show that
the scribe of our manuscript took especial pleasure in using alternative
possible spellings. This embellishment naturally shows to the best effect
in a pair of successive verses, and particularly when the two spellings can
be balanced one against the other in verses of parallel structure. For
example: 106, 107 prañaya, praña’i ; 107, 108 savi, sarvi, and magu, mago;
108, 109 cakhksuma, cakhuma\ 207, 208 kuví’a, korvi’a; 228, 229 sagadi,
sagadi; 243, 244 vinayadu, vim’adw, 292, 293 yatha vi, yada vi; and in
the refrain of the first chapter, 17- 4 9, tarn ahu bronii bramana, tarn aho
brommi brammaria, and all of the six remaining possible permutations, with
the addition of bratntnano as an accusative in 27 for good measure.
It may be noted that a number of other characters appear from time to
time with various flourishes or extra strokes. Except in the case o f gga, these
normally occur in the last character of a páda: for example, in sañokaline 14,
babqeka 28, dala'itha 137, savaka uz, lahha 212, patke 383. It is probable that
in these there is no linguistic significance, and that they merely show a
reaction to the pause at the end o f the páda, which the pen, as it were,
emphasizes in a few places. In the transcription, therefore, such flourishes
have been disregarded.

§ 12. vha. Bühler took this character to be a variant for pha; and Scnart
transcribed it in the Dhannapada as bha, although indicating in his notes
the places where it occurred. R. O. Franke1 argued for the value fa, a
transcription which had a much longer life than it deserved. The editors of
the Niya documents, agreeing in principle with Franke, wrote ph'a; and
Rapson2 repeated the argument that the use of the sign in the Kharosthi
suhadi), is in any case capable of representing not be given too much weight as evidence, for,
either [droggadi} or [druggadi], whereas the although the editors may well be right, it is
single consonant would have been expected to easy to imagine a possible tcading confusion
result in the spelling *dnikadi (cf. § 3:). It is between the syllables turn and dru. In the only
therefore misleading to describe the proccss other Occurrcncc of the word in the documents,
leading to dm- merely os a transposition of r. no. j 8 j , plato X, tiie reading dnihh!!i;a ¡1 prob-
The edition of the Ñiya documents shows a able (ed. in;-),
nasal in a comparable word, tumbhihsa-iKdur- ' P ali tmd Sanskrit, pp. 111-J2.
bhikfa-),no.589. whereuafortunatelyafacsimile * Kharotfht inscription, iii, p. 307.
is not available. This instance should perhaps
F
¿6 in t r o d u c t io n

\erstons of the name Gondophames (guduvhara-), representing Iranian

-famah, established the value of the Kharosthi sign as a voiceless spirant
But the most that can be legitimately inferred is that the sound represented
b> vh 'was felt to be the best equivalent available for rendering the sound
in the Iranian name In the Dharmapada, the character occurs se\ eral times
in place of earlier inten ocalic bh (§ 44), and the assumption that it represents
a fncatne is consistent with the general behaviour of smgle intervocalic
consonants in the language, but there are no grounds \\hatever for supposing
that it was unvoiced * The relationship to bh suggests that the sound
represented was probably a voiced bilabial fricative [jS] The graphic form
appears to consist of a va with a diacritic (approximately of the shape of a
ia turned upside down) attached to the right of the vertical
No examples of this sign in initial position have so far been recorded,
except for a proper name (or names) in the Niya documents, vhurmazeva,
vhumaseia, vhitzasena, of unidentified origin, but certainly not Indian (If
Iranian, as has been suggested, it would not necessarily follow that the
source-language had initial / )
The transcription vha was proposed by Luders,* whose interpretation
was accepted by Konow,3 and the written shape together with the linguistic
relationship to bh make this a convenient transcription to retain, provided
it is made clear that this does not commit us to describing the sound as an
‘aspirated t>* Some such thing was indeed thought to be indicated by the
spelling makavha in the Dharmapada, a’transfer of aspiration’ being assumed
(maqhavd > *magavha, with the normal -k- in the manuscript form for
earlier -£-), and the opposition -v- -vh• undoubtedly does reflect -b- -bh
of the older language to a large extent But occasionally an older -bh- is
represented bj -v , and -zh instead of -v may appear where there is no
adjacent aspirate (in the usual sense of the term) to transfer 4 m the Peshawar
Museum inscription no 4 (bha)gavha- ,5 and in the Manikiala inscription,
the interpretation proposed bj Luders, karavha'ena, equi\alent to a form
ISrSpakttta Tor these, wc ma> assume [bhaya\a-, karavayena], where m
both words the spirancj of the y has spread to the neighbouring consonant,
1 T h e value in the Dharmapada is of course * T h e phenomenon discussed by R L
not necessarily the tam e as in the docum ents T u rn er Transference o j aspiration tn Europtan
•nd it »» possible that in the latter (excluding Gypsy BSOAS n u 1959 pp 491 8 is quite
the drt en:«nt no 661) the »ymbol w-aa restricted diitinct m nature from the examples under con
to the rendenrR of a fore gn »ound which may «deration here
lu\e been %oceless Rut all the instances »0 * C II 11 p 128 plate X X III 10 The
f»r olnenrd w| ere the * gn appear* in Ind an syllabic bha (not defaced but omitted by tbe
favour an interpretation as a \eced sculptor) «as restored b> Konow and seems
2
i* i * < almost certain The third *>liable «as read
* " ' m * W j iM cn ttu m JRAS I ** ) th ra but the stone is broken and it is difTcult
*’r>, V * / * . to be *ure from the photograph whether an '
• W i l t p 149 plate W \ I i «as intended
 I N T R O D U C T IO N 67

which then appears as The development of makavha can readily be

understood in the same way, without necessarily involving an intermediate
stage where -gk- had lost its aspiration. Cf. also atva-kana'i (P. atla-ghamidya)
(§ which aliows the possibility of die development -g/t- > [yj.

§ 13. sa. Like the Niya documents, the Dharmapada has two different forms
for s, one of which is directly inherited from the almost universal form used
in the inscriptions, the other a character more complicated in appearance,
but well suited to cursive writing. The two are distinguished in the edition
of the documents by the transcriptions j for the older form and $ for the more
recent. In the Dharmapada, as has been frequently remarked by earlier
writers, the distribution of the two is without linguistic significance, and is
determined by graphic considerations: in the syllables sa, si, se, the form s
is used, and elsewhere, namely in so, m, si',2 sain (§ 14a), and the conjuncts
sma, sya, and sva, the older form is retained. Exceptions are so few that,
within this text, they may safely be regarded as due to the whim of the
scribe. Thus sa instead of §a is written in sarvi line 14, and sadi 153; si for
si in siha m, si'a 225, and savrasi 22«; and conversely so in «32, 147, and
soJtu in 231. The exceptions being so rare,3 it seemed unnecessary to mark
the distinction in the transliteration of the text, and (except in the present
section) both, forms have been transcribed as s.
In the Niya documents the distribution of the two characters is somewhat
different. In the genitive singular -sa alternates with -sya, and the old form
sa never {teste Rapson) appears in this function at all. In other positions
s is used more frequently in syllables where the Dharmapada scribc would
have s; but in sajsa and sefse especially, the two characters alternate in the
same words sufficiently often to justify the conclusion that ‘in some instances
at least, the scribes . . . have written sa or sa indifferently without the
slightest intention o f indicating any phonctic distinction’.4
The emergence of the new character sa has been frequently discussed,
but no agreement has been reached concerning its graphic origin. This is
perhaps not surprising, since the two sources which possess it abundantly
in a fully developed form no longer distinguish it in value from sa, and the
68 IN T R O D U C T IO N

interpretation of the very few possible examples outside these sources has
been disputed. The principal suggestions concerning the form of the character
have been that it is an s written above another 5, hence originally ssa; or sa
with a basal diacritic, to express a voiced sibilant [z]; or, with the same inten­
tion, s r a or sya. The first of these is based on a single example, and since
Rapson’s reading ssa is certainly wrong in that example,* this interpretation
of sa needs no further consideration. There has been a tendency to consider
that the function of the character, whatever its graphic explanation, was to
indicate the voiced sound ;3 but, so far as I can see, the available evidence
is insufficient to prove this. The linguistic fact is not doubted, that single
intervocalic s was liable to voicing; but the hypothesis that s was specially
intended as a notation for [z] can be made to fit the data only at the expense
of an uneconomical number of subsidiary hypotheses. If instead we start
from the assumption which already fits the data, namely, that both characters
are neutral with regard to voicing, and that both can be used to write either
the voiced or the voiceless sound, their attested distributions become much
easier to understand.
Leaving aside two possible examples which are isolated,4 and can therefore
give no useful information, the principal evidence for the earlier history is
provided by the Wardak vase inscription,5 which was discussed in this
connexion by Senart, and a group of inscribed silver objects excavated at
Sirkap.6 A. detailed discussion is unnecessary in the present context, but the
regular inversion of the conjunct -y on the Wardak vase, and the appearance
on the Silver objects (all of approximately the same date, but by different
craftsmen) of sa, sya, and sya1 with inverted -y, seem to make i\ certain that
the Dharmapada and Niya fa is a direct descendant of the inverted sya
appearing on the two silver cups from Sirkap. Conjuncts with -y are veiy rare
in the earlier period, and it would seem that -sya was introduced as a learned

1 This has sometimes been thought to be, m
efleet, the same as the preceding, since it v u
assumed that the diacnUc t»as historically
«imply a spcaal application of the conjunct -r
This is implied m Konev's transcriptions,
although he discriminated the two functions by
placing the diacritic V in brackets It now
<««ms mare probable that the diacntic stroke
ahould be entirely separated from -r
* See Bailey, BSOAS xui, 1950. P 397»
* R. L Turner, JRAS 1927, pp 232-4;
Konow, loc a t , pp 98, 166, Rspson, p. 31*
* Mathura Lior, Capital, C II u. plate V II,
A7, in a proper name "here the reading is in
any case doubtful, although»with the subscript
diacntic may be intended; ib id , plate
X X 1119 (Kmio«, -it'om[jji(r)a)
* Sm art, JAs iv, 1914, pp 569 f f , C II u,
plate X X X III
4 Ib id , plate X IX , 1-5 T h e curious tram*
latum o f the inscription» on these, ‘(Gift) of
Murpjuknta, 20 stater», 1 drakhm’ .is duetothe
large number o f votive inscriptions dealt with in
the « m e volume O n objects o f th>s type the
sense must be ‘(Property) o f Murpjuknta, Sec.1
C f W B Henning, New Pahhvt inscriptions on
n/tw tesselt, BSOAS xru, 1559, PP 132-4 On
the name Murpjuknta, see below, § 26
7 This character is miicopied in C . C Das
Cupta, Development of the Hharo^hl Senpt,
table V I7, 38, where the tail is shown curvuiff
to the left T he photograph given, by Konow
tt dear, and the final curve is to the right.
 IN T R O D U C T IO N

spelling for the genitive singular long after the assimilation to -ssa. But, as is
shown by the use of the regular left-curving sya by the silversmith as an
abbreviation for satera, such a symbol could be readily accepted by those who
¿new no Sanskrit merely as aa alternative sa, and the use of the symbol need
not in itself carry the implication of either voiced or voiceless.
In his discussion of the Wardak vase Senart came to virtually the same
conchiston: thatia was, in effect, descended from a right-curving sya which,
with the cursive obscuration of its graphic origin, and the assimilation of the
consonant group in the spoken language, was subsequently able to alternate
with the old sa even in positions not involving an etymological sya, ssa.
Against this, Rapson argued that if sa had originated in this manner, it was
difficult to believe that it could have coexisted in the Niya script with the
normal (left-curving) sya, from which it is nevertheless sharply differen­
tiated by its distribution. This argument, however, appears to assume that
the two coexisted in the same scribal tradition throughout their careers.
The denial of this assumption removes the difficulty; and the Niya distribu­
tion is easily comprehensible on the hypothesis that the left-curving sya is
a much later introduction into a school of orthography which in an earlier
generation (and for the same purpose) had absorbed the right-curving form
whose reading-value had in the meantime become equivalent to that of the old
sa. It shouldbe added that Rapson’s discussion was written before the inscrip­
tions on the vessels from Sirkap had been published, and that these provide
additional visual support for the derivation of sa from an old form of sya.
I f the ancestor of sa was in fact introduced in the hist place as a learned
spelling for the genitive singular -sya, the marked predominance of -sa for
this case-ending in the Niya documents needs no further explanation. It is
merely a traditional spelling which continued to be taught in the schools as
the correct one.
The further spread of sa at the expense of the older sa is then almost
certainly influenced more by graphic than by linguistic considerations. Two
characters which had become equivalent in value might in any ease be ex­
pected to alternate on occasion; and in addition sa possessed the outstanding
merit of distinctiveness for reading. Being more complex in form (although
in fact easy to write), it could hardly be misread even in the most rapid hand­
writing— a claim which would be difficult to make on behalf of sa. The
older character continued to bold its position wherever a vertical stem was
useful (as in so, stt, See., and conjuncts). Where a stem was irrelevant the newer
form encroaches in varying degrees in the practice of the Xiya scribes;’
and in precisely the same positions, namely, in the syllables sa, si, se, the
* In the initial position in the word, however, position?. This I w e s open the ptrtibility rhs:
decided!}- less frequent than in other the w o character* came to be cor.ifJcrrJ by
i- is
70 IN T R O D U C T IO N

orthography of the Dharmapadahas adopted it throughout, with the exception

of the very few instances listed at the beginning of this section.

§ 14. Anusvara and w-conjuncts. No systematic distinction has been ob­

served between the writing of these in the earlier period, and it has been
generally accepted that a subscript m with a consonant (C) might represent
either Cam or Cma, according to context. In the post-ASokan inscriptions
the amitvara is normally written attached to those letters which have stems,
the effect being that the stem first bends to the right, and then continues in
an w-curve towards the left. In the case of tma,1 on the other hand, the tail
of the t reaches the centre of the m, both ends of which remain free. A
similar form appears in tma, in the Dharmapada, line 273 atmanam (the word
being elsewhere written atva-)t and in sma, if vesma is correctly read in line
119(see note on verse 67). In sma (imastna, vanasma) the m is written through
the vertical of the sa. In the Niya documents the anusvSra is regularly
written as described above, and the conjunct -ma (in those examples which
can be checked from the facsimiles) is distinguished from it, being written
either with a separate stroke of the pen; or, if attached, it is written in the
reverse direction.2 Such a distinction being impossible where the first char­
acter has no stem, the writing of m below tn appears to have been ambiguous
at all periods, and may denote either mma or mam. Thus, in the Asokan
inscriptions, samma- (S. samyak) has been read, beside imam, mamgalam;
and in Sh. RE IV, instead of kratnam (S. karma), the reading kramtna might
be possible. Since anusvara is not normally written in the Dharmapada manu­
script, the transcription mm has been adopted throughout, although with
some hesitation in samadikrammi (42) and sammijadi (238- 9), where a case
could be made for -kramim and samimjadi. Elsewhere, as in brammana,
sammatadi, the reading may be accepted as established.3

some »enbes it lea»» as appropriate for different
sound* If »0, the difference may have been con-
crtvedasonebttweemoicedandviHccleM.but
thu icems improbable. Although ftidiu may have
been more ‘convenient* to write than
there is no fundamental difficulty msolved in
writing the latter, and if | had been identified
with 1*1 it would surely have been used. I f a
phoneticdistinctionwuinvoltedbctweenimtHl
and internal vanant«. st is likely to have been
something abjhter than that between voiceless
«nd m c t d Hut the situation aeern* better
explained by the assumption o f a purely ortho-
graphic con>tntion which preferred *- in word-
tniua) potitMn (in the tame manner as the G m k
t m opposed to o carrve to tnirk w rd.fw al
position m wming)
' A rt inscription. C II li.jslate X X X II, lmc5
* Rapson’s table {Kharotfhl Inscription!, in,
plate X IV ) gives drawings only o£ \ht lattet
type Clear examples o f the distinct writing of
anusidra and «mo can be Ken in the facsimiles
o f documents j i t (pratatjtna, beside ctatnu,
inatmi) and 721, tine 4 (tarjibarpdha., beside
vtmumdato).
• The reading -mm- w » proposed by Senart
in his note on H 13 (e> 56
). On etymological
grounds, E. Leumann argued for ‘ tnh- (Dk
Ligature M H in der KharojthUUandtthnft det
Dharnmapada, Album Kem. 1903), which was
also accepted by Konow. In favour of ♦»"«*.
see the detailed discussion by H W, Bailey.
B S O \S xi, 1946, pp. 78711,; and xiii, 1949.
pp. 118-9.
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 7,

Occasionally the subscript m may degenerate into a short straight line,

slanting downwards from right to left This was noted by Konow in one
instance1 in the word ayatp; and line $ in the Dhamiapada shows the same
thing in bramma. It is then probable that a similar subscript stroke should
be interpreted in the same way in gammira, line 99, the same word appearing
in line 271 with the normal subscript m. These examples make it likely that
the stroke attached to the bottom of the vowel-mark in mi several times in
the Wardak vase inscription2 has the same intention, and in place of Konow’s
transcription viharam(r)i we might write viharammit which would then be
merely an alternative spelling for viharammi in other inscriptions.

§ 14a. Possible instances of anusvSra have been noted in the Dharmapada

only in santdana (where the character is divided between 62 and 66), and
anuvayasam, line 70. In general, however, we seem forced to the conclusion
that the writer of the manuscript did not mark atiusvara. In line 9it is tempt­
ing to read ekatvam, the final mark being very similar to a subscript m in the
line above; and similarly aharn in line 21 and subsequently. But the fact that
the latter word alternates with aho, together with the writing of Im in line
i3i (<=khu), and the frequent appearance of -u in place of earlier -am in
characters where there can be no doubt, makes it probable that we should
read ahu, and likewise ekatvu. Senart observed that many characters in the
manuscript ended in a curve which suggested anttsv&ra, but he could find
no system in the distribution of this feature; nor have subsequent investiga­
tors found any. If we are persuaded to read manttfamna in line 47, where
such a spelling might not seem too bizarre, then in line « it would be
necessary to have samrira, and in line 5— where the verb must be singular—
paiaifldi. It seems therefore that Senart was right in taking this feature
to be merely an occasional flourish of the handwriting, with no linguistic
significance. The same feature in ka has already been discussed (§ 2); and
in this character the analogy of the Niya script would lead us to expect the
aimsvara, if marked at all, to appear as a curve on the other limb.

§15. inru. The character so transcribed occurs only thrice, and has pre­
viously been accepted as a variant of mu. It is however quite distinct in
appearance, as can be seen clearly in lines im, isj, where the normal mu
appears immediately below the other, and can be easily understood as a
cursive development of the shape recognized in the Aiokan inscriptions in
ntrugo. In this the r-stroke was attached to the top of the right-hand arm
of the 7«; and in the manuscript the whole character has been lengthened,
and turned on its side, following in this the manner of development of the
' TaxiIavaseioscription,CHii,p)fltcXVlI.2. * Ibid., plate XXXIII.
72 IN T R O D U C T IO N

simple mu. Since the words in which the sign is written, mmya 184, mrucu »8,
mrvca i? 5, appear elsewhere in the manuscript as muya, mucu, the forms with
-r are presumably only spelling archaisms.
The same character is probably to be recognized in the Tor pherai in­
scribed potsherds,1 where instead of dh{y)armo it would seem better to read
dhyamro or dhyamru.

§ 16. ksa. The Kharosthi sign so transliterated, although not graphically a

compound character, has long been recognized to appear so regularly where
the corresponding Sanskrit forms have ks (§ 52) that it is convenient to
retain the transcription, which has been fairly generally adopted.2 This
has the advantage not only of showing the close relationship to Sanskrit
phonology here, but also of retaining a written reminder o f the retroflex5
nature of the sound. For Gandharf, Bailey suggested the value [ts],4 but
also drew attention to a number of instances where the group appeared as
(for example) kS or \s: Sogdian Sk$yptt beside ¿x^pt in other sources, both
for S. iiksSpada. It is therefore of interest that the Dharmapada provides
a few examples of the ksa sign with a superscript kha. There was only
one instance of this in the part of the text previously published (108,
line 1S8, cakhksuma), and since the same word was written cakhunta in the
following line, Senart assumed that the kha had been written in as a sub­
sequent correction. It now seems more probable that a conjunct character
was intended, and the mechanical transliteration khksa has been adopted.
The new material gives two further instances of cakhksuma (lines 307,309),
and rakhksa (line 263, S. vrksa); but the evidence is hardly sufficient to
determine whether a distinction in sound was intended, and if so, whether
this distinction was between a velar closure in a few words felt to be literaiy
borrowings from Sanskrit, against a retroflex closure in inherited words; or
only between a fricative and a Wop. The latter is to some extent supported
by the use o f Ate csiher efcrrr /hr, and msy pnmsionaf/y assume thst
the compound character was intended to represent [^s], or something very
1 C l I «1, plat« X X X V , no. 4 may be referred for a very full collection of the
* T h e character, earlier thought to be merely evidence provided by the forms m which Indian
• variant o f eha, «ms discriminated from the borrowed words appear in other languages,
litter by B ojer (JAa 1911, r,p p 422 ft ) T h e T h e assimilation of the point of closure to the
edition of the Niya documents marked the point of release would make the development
difference by adding » diacritic to the older £|> (f a \ery ea»y one; but the auditory tmptes-
tramenjmon (rA’d); while Hulczseh (Intenp- ston of the two may have been similar enough
i»*ii t f Atoka, C I1 1), Konow, and Dailey ha\e to foreign ean, and the argument from other
Ultd h a languages may not be entirely eondusi»e. In
* This conclusion 1* supported by the fact this connexion we may note die rendering of
that the modem related languages maintain S k| in T anul by |e, beside the more Brth-
wp tritely a retroflex afTncate Of, usually tran- marueal spelling whieh uses the Gninth* con*

4 nso \S
scribed f) «here SamVnt has kf junct of A with f
,
XI, PP 770 fT to which the reader
 IN T R O D U C T IO N n

close to the Iranian #?. Here it is relevant to observe that the same com­
pound can be seen in two Kharosthi inscriptions, in one of which it appears
in the Iranian borrowed word commonly used in dating, ksunami (which may
thus be transcribed here as khksimami or x^nami1), while in the same inscrip­
tion the superscript sign is absent in the Indian word daksi/ute.2
If the addition of the superscript kh was originally blended to express a
difference from, the simple character, it would seem ¿ a t iater the distinction
was forgotten. In the Niya documents ksa regularly appears with a super­
script stroke, and exceptions are so few that, for most of the scribes, this
stroke appears to have formed an integral part of the character. In the light
of the examples discussed above it is probable that with this character the
superscript stroke (which elsewhere had other functions: see §§ 6-10) repre­
sents the earlier superscript kh, either as a simple diacritic replacing it, or, just
conceivably, as a cursive development The Dharmapada example in line iss
already suggests a somewhat abbreviated form, with the tail of the kh tend­
ing towards a horizontal direction.

§ 17. tsa. Because of the occurrence of this symbol in words where the
corresponding Pali had -rnsa-, Senart conjectured for it the value ñsa. But
while a form such as sañsara(P. samara) seemed at leastlinguistically possible,
the acceptance of this value led to such curiosities as hheñsiH (S. bhtisyate).
It was early realized that theupper component of the character was quite clearly
t, and that the occurrence of this conjunct in piace of -msa- could be explained
as resulting from the release of the (dental) nasal before the sibilant: -ns- >
-nts-,3 written as -ints- in the Niya documents, but in the Dharmapada,
which does not mark anusvara, simply as -ts-. With regard to the sibilant,
opinions have fluctuated. In general, it would seem that those who have
given greater weight to palaeographies! considerations have preferred tía
1 Cf. MaralbaS xhne, in the same word, script kh was intended. Unfortunately, the pre­
written ia BrSbml with a spedal sigo for ceding characters are illegible, and the word
Iranian jp (H. W. Bailey, loc. tit., p. 772, and remains uncertain. AAA is written above so in
BSOAS zS, 1948, pp. 328-9; Asia Major, cukhsa (ibid., plates V and XVI), and it is
■vii, ig59( p. i 5) possible that the is an alternative method of
* MamáneDheri pedestal inscription, CII ii, writing the same sound-group.
p. 172, plate XXXIV. K mow observed tbe 5 In Brahmf script spellings suchas «nti&óra
superscript mark, and thought it could 'hardly are attested in Kbotanese. In a similar manner
be anything else than a slip of the engraver’s a fairly common English pronunciation of -m
tool’ ; but it is rather a complicated piece of (which in the structure of the language is dis-
wark to have been producid by accident. The tinct from -nts, and njny also be phonetically
shape is somejviar stylized, but can easily be distinct) is regularly interpreted by the ears of
read as bit. In the other example (Takht-i-Bahl speakers &om further nortii as -nts: thus,
inscription), die sign was read b y Konow as mi 'pence* may be heard as fronts]; and the two
(ibid., p. 62, plate X II. 1, line 3); but the quite words ‘correspondence’ and ‘correspondents
different form for mi immediately below, in may seem to such a listener to be identical in
line 4, and the closely similar ks in pahse in line sound.
3, mal» it almost certain that a ksa with super*
74 IN T R O D U C T IO N

(Buhler, Franke, Luders, Konow, and Bajley), while others, principally on

linguistic grounds (Rapson, Burrow), have chosen the reading tsa1
Besides the examples involving nasals, this symbol appears in words
containing earlier -ts- and -tsy- matsart (S matsarin) , matsa (S matsya)
bketsidi (S bhetsyate) A t first sight the latter may seem to give some
support to the palatal, and as a further argument, the Khotanese use of
Brahml ts for a palatalized sound has been quoted for example, gatsa~,
written for S. gaccha-2 But within Gandhari sy > s is regular (in con­
trast to sy > s, § 59), and there is thus a prima facie case for the transcrip­
tion Xra.
Such theoretical considerations would not in themselves outweigh the
palaeographtc evidence, and it must be said that in many of the later examples
the appearance of the lower part of the character is more similar to ia than
to sa But the resemblance is deceptive, and m almost all the sources where
we can make a comparison, there is a clear graphic distinction from ia . in
the conjunct character the nght-hand limb is usually shorter, and frequently
curves m to meet the left-hand vertical3 The Niya scnpt shows this espe­
cially clearly, and very similar forms occur in the Dharmapada, for example,
in asatsttha line 32, patsukula 68 Even those instances which are less sharply
differentiated seldom show graphicforms which would be really characteristic
of ¿a
It seems therefore that graphically also the evidence is less favourable to
ia than to sa Although the latter subsequently shows an opening at the left
of the head, a number of earlier sources show forms where the vertical
commences higher, and either completely or partially encloses the head of
the character 4 The preservation of a closed form (and the disappearance
of the part of the head-stroke which projected to the left of the vertical m
the old sa) can be readily understood if the conjunct developed as a single
graphic unit It is easier to assume that a sa in the group has preserved an
old feature than it would be to explain why a ia should have developed a
new one restricted to this compound Since there are thus good palaeo-
graphical grounds as well as phonological, it seems advisable to abandon
the transcription tsa, and to write tsa throughout, in the inscriptions as well
as the Dharmapada
' I cannot explain w h y C c D as G u p ta ju s t possib le th a t th e engraver o f th e rather
should h ave argued in favou r o f tsa in one p lace clu m sy in scription fro m M o u n t Wanj (lb td ,
(Development of the Kharoffhi Scnpt p 124) plate X I a ) th ou g h t th a t h e w as w ritin g tia ,
wiuJe elsewhere in the sam e b ook m aintaining b u t e ve n h ere th e right h and Iunb, though
that the reading should b e tia straight, is shorter than w ou ld b e exp ected in ia
K onow , A O x ir 1943 p p 7 3 -7 4 see a|so ♦ I n addition to A io k in exam p les, see C I I
> a *y ,B S O A S x j *9 4 6 , p 7 7 1 . « P 5 4 0 u plates I 1 and 2 V 1 (w ith b o th closed
A very marked d istinction can b e seen in an d h a lf closed exam p les), X I I I i . X V I c ,
the Paja inscnption (C I I u , plate X I I I ) I t is XXXVI 2
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 75
§ 18. sta, tha, tha, Üia. The character transcribed as sta has die appearance
of tha with the addition o f a short horizontal Une to the left at the top of
the vertical. It was thought for some time that this form was a cursive abbre­
viation o f a sa with a t written through the stem. But the Asokan example
shown in Buhler’s table1 which gave rise to this theory is an early misreading
caused by an accidental mark of weathering on the stone, and has long
since been corrected to sit, There seem to be no examples of sta which would
support the theory of abbreviation from a fall compound. In the Dharmapada
the sign was at first confused with tha, and was discriminated in the manu­
script by Franke,2 who, because of the shape, proposed the reading stha.
In the Niya script ca surmounted by a detached diacritic stroke appears
with the value ¿cap and similarly ka with the addition of a diacritic (in this
case attached), occurring in the documents mostly, if not exclusively, in
foreign words, is shown to represent ska (or a sound developed from an
earlier ska) by the words samHara and kamdha (S. samskara, sbandha) in
the Kurram casket inscription.4 These analogies suggest that in sta also the
initial sibilant in the group was represented by a diacritic mark; and it
is possible that Franke was right as far as concerns the appearance of iha
in the group. But even if the form of the character did originally denote
stha, it was nevertheless used at all periods of the Kharosthi script in words
where Sanskrit has sta, and it seems likely that this value was intended,
while the character conventionally transcribed as fha may have been adopted
(at least by some schools of writing) to represent stha. It may be the case
that in some dialects the distinction between and sth had ceased to be of
importance, or had disappeared. This is suggested by the fact that in the
inscriptions and the Niya documents the forms of the verb stha almost
everywhere appear with either tha alone, or with sta (and in the inscriptions,
also with the sign transliterated tha, after the prefix prati-; thus, pratistapita,
pratithaviia, and pratithavita occur, but not pratisthapita.) In the documents
a rarely occurring form of sta with an additional stroke rising from the right-
hand part of the horizontal has been transcribed as stha,s avalué which has the
support of the Sanskritic no. 511, which has vpasthitaand sthaira(for sthamra).

§ 18a. This problem must be considered together with the related question
of the characters conventionally transcribed pta, tha. These were first
1 Tab le I, line 39, col. iv. * Rapson, loc. cit., p. 319- This would then
1 Z D M G 1906. give the reading pratisthapiia in the Hidda
s Rapson, Kharotfhi Inscriptions, iij. 320; inscription, C II ii, plate X X X . 2 (but this is
also representing the sound-group resulting available only in a poor eye-copy, ■which cannot
from Iranian in borrowed words: be considered reliable); and on the inscribed
Ratify, B S O A S i i , 774. potsherds from Tor Pfrerai, sartxuthivadinarp,
< C I I ii, platal X X V H t, X X IX ; Bailey, 16,
ibid., plate X X X V , 1 4 , 17.
loc. cit., pp. 774 ,793 fit
76 IN T R O D U C T IO N

distinguished by Boyer,1 who showed that tha normally appeared where

Sanskrit had a retroflex group, and (ha where Sanskrit had a dental In the
Asokan inscriptions (where in any case the graphic distinction is smaller),
the two continue to be transcribed indiscriminately as tha, although it has
long been realized that in most places Asokan has (ha, while tha has been
suggested only for rathika- (rastnka-) and atha (asta) In a re-examination
of the material, Konow* emphasized the fact that the interpretation of both
signs as aspirates depended only on characteristics of other Prakrits, which
remained unproved for the North-west, and he proposed to read t in place
of ih, and ih m place of {h This not only left out of the picture the character
formerly accepted as ta, but was open to the same objection as the theory
which it was to replace if the rendering of the word for ‘eight* as atha owed
the aspiration to die evidence of other Praknts, so likewise did the proposed
ata (for atta) depend on the same evidence for the idea that the group st
was assimilated in Gandhari
In place of this Bailey proposed to transcribe the traditional tha of the
Kharosthi as sta (which would thus be parallel to sta in the dental series),
leaving the (ha as the Kharosthi equivalent of Brahnu tha 3 For sta he ated
the word transcribed in the Niya documents as sothamga, which appears in
Agnean in a Brahmi script as sostank-; and the name of the Ksatrapa
Castana, written in Greek as 7Vacrravq? and in Uigur script as csfny, but
transcribed from Kharosthi as cathana
This appears to fit the situation better than Konow’s suggestion But it
must probably be accepted that the employment of these characters was not
invariable in all our sources Thus, the scribe of document 661, in asti
'eight', wrote s over t, but this does not necessarily invalidate st for th in
other places The word usually spelt su€etha, for example, is written swCesta
in documents 431,433, with t above a dental t While the accepted sta appears
for Sanskrit sta both m the Dharmapada and the documents, a Sanskrit stha
is represented in the former by (ha, and sometimes tha, but never sta, but
in the latter regularly by tha and sta, and iha appears only in a few
words

§ 186 Whatever interpretation of tha and iha is chosen, it will not fit all
the sources equally well, and there will be exceptions Since the problem
can hardly be considered as solved, it seemed best to retain for the present
the traditional transcription But, within the available sources, the exceptions
would seem to be kept at a minimum if the opposition of retroflex to dental
suggested by Boyer is maintained It might then be possible to consider
* jA s xvu, I 9 i t , p 449 » B S O A S joii 1949-50, p p 1*3 f f , a n d 398
1 A O xix , 1943, p p 68 ff
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 77

that in origin at least the three signs sta, Iha and tha were intended to
express [sta], [stha], and [sta] respectively. With the three symbols available,
the Dharxriapada orthography chose the only retroflex group to write both [sta]
and [stha] (or, alternatively, the two groups were no longer distinguished in the
language); while the Aiokan had used the only aspirated group to write
both [stha] and [stha], and the Niya script for the most part preferred sta
for both [sta] and [stha] and agreed with the Dharmapada in using pta for
both [sta] and [stha]. If the differences in employment between the various
sources are in fact to be explained in some such manner, this would not rule
out developments of assimilation or other alterations in different dialects at
one time or another. This is at least indicated by the use in the Buddhist
Sanskrit of document 5rr of sta with the additional diacritic for sthdra,
upasthita, beside prasamthita) and tisthaiu, with a conjunct containing $
written in full. Here it would seem that the lower half of the conjunct must
be taken as tha, and this would exclude the otherwise tempting reinterpreta­
tion of hctha as hesta. A further difficulty in the way of reading fha as stha
throughout may be raised by the fact that it sometimes represents rtha of
the older language: afha (artha), ca'uiha {caturtha).
The survival of the sibilant in such groups in some of the modern languages
would favour the hypothesis that at least some of the Kharosth! sources
intended these signs as notations for s or s with a following plosive. Thus,
while transcriptions from Kharosth! such as hasta, are in harmony with
Pashai hast, host, Khowar1 host ‘hand’, the contrast in examples such as
atha beside Pashai asta, Khowar oft, ‘eight’, or Niya jetha, kanifhaga, beside
Pashai jesta, jestara, and kanisia, hamstha, gives some additional encourage­
ment for a reinterpretation of the Kharosthi th as st. On the other hand,
the development of initial sth- in these languages to th- (while st- is pre­
served, with a prothetic vowel), and etymologies such as Pashai satha
‘village’, < sartha, do not give any positive support to a reading sth for
KharofthI fh. The evidence is nevertheless fairly strong that this sign regularly
represents a Sanskrit dental rather than retroflex group, and within the
Dharmapada this would seem to be invariable. See also note on verse 144.

§ 19. tra, dra. The distinction between ta and da in the manuscript is

almost everywhere clear (although a very few doubtful examples may
remain), but the addition of ~r blurs the difference, and it is sometimes little
1 Examples cited from G. Morgenstierne, other Dardic languages, are the direct dcscend-
Indo-Iraman Frontier Languages, vol. Hi, The ants of any specific GandbSridialect represented
Pashai Language, part 3, 1956, and Sanskritie in Kharosthi; but they must certainly be very
Words in Khowar, in S. K. Belvalkar Felicita- close relatives. For further examples from these
tion Volume, 1957, pp. 84-98. It is nor of and other languages of the same group, see also
course suggested thateither o f these, rather than Turner, Nepali Dictionary, pp. 734 ff.
78 IN T R O D U C T IO N

more than a matter of faith to choose between tr and dr In effect, therefore,

the reader will find that these conjuncts have regularly been transcribed
according to their etymological value This is naturally not a situation to
be welcomed by anyone faced with a palaeographical problem But in a
rapidly written pen-scnpt distinctions may be intended by the writer which
are nevertheless discriminated by the reader only from their context This
is common, and is sufficiently illustrated by the assimilation in shape in
many modern forms of handwriting of the letters u and n It would never­
theless be a mistake if, in editing a modern English document, we allowed
some formal criterion (which might even be valid for another contemporary
hand) to force upon us the transcription ‘mu* where the writer had intended
'nun' In the Niya documents the editors found this type of difficulty in the
uncompounded d and t also, and considered that m cursive handwriting the
distinction between the two was ‘often merely a matter of opinion’ 1 In
the Dh&nnapada, where the scribe is reasonably consistent in his writing,
any formal criterion which would have led to a transcription of the same
word as trtkt m one place and dnhi in another would almost certainly have
been mistaken In the end, however, the doubtful cases are fairly few, and
if no single point of difference has been observed by which tr and dr can
always be distinguished, there are at least tendencies Thus, if the head of
the character is more rounded and ¿-like, the final stroke tends to compensate
by slanting upwards if tr is intended, and conversely, if the head is more
pointed and Mike, the tail tends to slant downwards if dr is required If
the head is unambiguous, the tail has more freedom In line 121, for example,
in metra and druma, it would be difficult to distinguish the heads of the
characters in question as definitely t and d respectively, but the manner in
which the two are completed justifies their discrimination In the same line,
in patra, the final stroke is drawn downwards in a manner more characteristic
of dr, but in this instance the commencement is so definitely t that we need
not attribute to the scribe the intention of writing padra
In the allied problem of tv and dv, it is more difficult to see comparable
tendencies But in the majority of examples the etymologically expected
1 Rapson Kharotfhi Intcnptiont p 306 and vtdita are right then twya 19 certainly
The problem in the documents is made more wrong and should be corrected to divya In
complex by the \arge number of scnbes in this connexion it may be observed that the
volved and the published facsimiles are enough Dharmapada scribe whose d is usually not
to show how troublesome this matter can be difficult to distinguish from his t shows a
A t the same tune it is unlikely that the con tendency to produce a more * like form m the
fusion v .» ia gtett as the edition suggests and syllable de sec for example deitda in line 3
it is probable that a re examination would con where the first d 18 aw twere pulled ghghtly in
Slderably reduce the uncertainty It is not im the direction of t (though no one would with
mediately clear what formal principles led to to read tehda) and bhudept m line I* where
the transcription <f.ia in nos 32 39 but tita m bhutepi might well seem tempting
213 Bui m 696 for example if vtRati bhavati
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 79

form can be considered safe. Where the writing now appears to be ambiguous
other eyes may subsequently find good reasons for dissenting, and may be
able to demonstrate that the distribution of tv and dv in the manuscript is
systematically different from that of Sanskrit. But for the present, it seemed
that the distinction was sufficiently clear to make it unlikely that an attempt
to distinguish the doubtful cases purely by written form would be justified.
In line 321, for example* it might appear that nadva was written; but since
in most absolutives, including other instances of the same word, the scribe
certainly wrote -tva, it seemed best to transcribe natva here also. Such a
decision may be questioned, and the editor may be accused of attempting
to normalize the language of the text unjustifiably. But in a manuscript
where the orthography is otherwise reasonably regular, the acceptance of
an occasional form such as nadva seemed on balance more likely to be wrong
than the admission of the possibility that the two written forms might from
time to time overlap.

Vowels
§ 20. Vowel-length is not marked,1 except possibly in one instance (aha
269), nor is aniisvara written, except perhaps in two places (§ 14a). The
absence of these two features from the orthography of a literary text, while
in other Kharos{hI sources annsvSra at least is frequently if not invariably
written, must be taken into account in discussing such formations as the
Middle Indian ablative in -<2«, suggested by Alsdorf and Liiders.2 Sufficient
examples have been adduced to make it certain that -am does from time to
time appear where an ablative is expected. But those quoted from Pali
are still rare enough to make it possible that they are due to a transmission
through manuscripts which, like the Dharmapada, did not mark vowel-
length and nasalization, or, like the ASokan Br2hmi, did not do so consistently.
It would be expected that when a text written in such a manner was rendered
into a full orthography— whether at the time of translation into Pali, or
subsequently— this would for the most part be done correctly, since the
writer’s knowledge of the language would enable him to interpret from the
context. But equally it would be expected that from time to time, either
1 It has been said more than once that the not necessarily have been taken into account,
metrical nature of the Dhannapada shows that There are some indications, however, that the
vowel-lengths were distributed as in other metrically significant distinction between single
Prakrits. It must be recognized that such an and double consonants continued to exist
argument Is inconclusive. There is no reason 6 28)» and we should therefore hesitate to
to suppose that the preservation of the original accept interpretations which imply gross
metre was a matter of conscious concern to metrical faults. See, for example, note on
those «ho transmitted the text; and even if verse 120.
the distribution of vowel-quantities had altered ’ For references and further details, see note
considerably in the receiving dialect, this would on verse 292.
 I N T R O D U C T IO N 81

(palatalization, labialization), or to the weakness of vowels in uneraphatic

syllables, especially in word-final position.
In non-palatal syllables (a) may appear as o: ajakamo (ajjhagama), monaso
(mdnaso), samokadu (samdgata-); cf. Niya 524 phahph<xla\ sado (sadd); instr.
sg. gamesino, cedaso, and with the spelling -it, ichadu. Similarly for (<T) or (<rw)
in kudaytno. It is possible that the same feature is responsible for the inverse
situation in spellings such as aya {ayah), tamasarnudu {tamoso-), lake (iokc);
but these are rare enough to leave it possible that the omission of the vowel-
sign is accidental.1

§ 22a. More frequent is the marking of palatalization of vowels in the neigh­

bourhood of a palatal consonant (although the consonant in question is not
necessarily still written): ecasari, precasari (P. accasarl, paccasarf)\ same-
sabudha (samyak-sambuddha; Khot. samyc-sabaudSya2) ; yed, paje (paiicd), hid
(krtyatti), hatavi, bhayidmn (-iavya; Niya here usually has -davo); dcichi
(1deiayet: for -h-, see §39); a'i (ayam; Aiokan ayi, beside iyam); pre'a\iadi
(prajanati). Regularly, compounds with (-carya): brama-yirya, -yiya, sama-
’irya, parikirya’i. In the last, -k- is written for -y- < (-0) (§§ 32,38); but the
palatalization also appears occasionally where the corresponding Sanskrit has
no palatal: ufhane'ala- {utth8na-Mla-), radhe’aro (rathahara). These spellings
clearly reflect the jy-like quality of the glide developed between vowels in
the position of intervocalic stops of the older language (the ya-iruti of the
grammarians). It is thus possible that parica'i in verse 164 should be inter­
preted as a direct equivalent to the Pali pariccagd in the corresponding verse,
although a locative gives acceptable sense in the context. Comparable here arc
A^okan mefiali (RE XIII Sh.); Niya sveya (Burrow, Grammar § 6). It is
possible that a few examples from other Prakrits should be brought under
the same heading: ahma < ajanya (taken as a desl-word by Shcth; see also
note on verse 173 )',sejja, P. seyya < sayyii,

§ 23. Not infrequently, an etymological (;, c) is omitted in the writing, and

it is possible that a few such cases may be seen as countcr-reilections of the
same situation. Thus, the spelling cayari (vihari-) may be justified to the
extent that the -y- was felt to give sufficient expression to the palatalized
vowel in the first syllable. A similar explanation might pass for raipaia
8o IN T R O D U C T IO N

because his attention was wandering, or because the passage was genuinely
difficult, he would misinterpret his exemplar, and write -am where he ought
to have written -a Naturally, this does not disprove the real existence of
a Magadhan ablative in -am, but it may be desirable to leave the possibility
open that the appearance of such a form in Pah may be due to purely graphic
causes Similarly, the syntactical construction of upeta with an accusative,
as in the Pali Dhp 280 ( = 113) alasiyam upeto> may be genuine, but equally
it could have arisen in the same manner from an original instrumental
In the verse quoted, manuscripts have sporadically emended to alasiya, and
this has been accepted by some of the editions

§ 21 In the final position in a word, (-t)1 regularly appears as -1, while (-«)
may be written either -e or -t, with a definite preference for the latter For
(-0), -u and -o are almost equally frequent Where a back vowel represents
an earlier -am, the writing -0 is much less frequent, but does occasionally
occur See also § 75
In other positions m the word, interchange of i/e and u{o appears very
seldom jenadi (jtnati), keca, but more often kica (krtya) , anoie'a (anuiaya),
but regularly anu-, droparamutho, but regularly dm- T he number of such
spellings may be slightly more or less than the transliterated text shows,
since occasionally the reading is uncertain Although there is usually no
doubt whether the scribe intended t or e, in some places the vowel-stroke
may be shorter than is normal for 1, and yet cut through the main character
enough to make the reading 1 at least as likely as e Similarly, m some
instances a basal triangle may be thought to result from an accidental closure
produced by an 0 stroke linking up with the frequent pen-drag at the foot
of many characters In such places, an editor’s choice between e and t,
and between 0 and u, is bound to be arbitrary to some extent But there
are enough certain instances to show that these fluctuations in spelling did
occur, but in any event rarely in non final syllables m a word 2
There seems to be a tendency for (hu) to be written ho for example, hoda
(hutam), bakolu (bahulo) and regularly b a h o but once bahu- Here also there
is more freedom in final position ahu, aho, (aham) , suhu, suho (sukho, -am)

§ 22 Other divergences from the vowel-system of the corresponding Pall

words are for the most part to be attributed to the phonetic environment
1 Here and in the following paragraphs mukha (C II u plate» X I 2 and X X IV 4) In
brackets are used to mark off grammatically both of these Konow argued in favour of
corresponding Sanskrit or Fall forms which reading the regular mu but this is simply an
however do not necessarily appear in the corre arbitrary disregard for what is clearly written
»ponding place in the parallel texts C f alio bramna m the Dham apada (242)
trom the inscriptions we may note dana where the Pah has brahmuna
mokho aanamokhe in place of the more frequent
 IN T R O D U C T IO N Sl

(palatalization, labialization), or to the ■weakness of vowels in unemphatic

syllables, especially in word-final position.
In non-palatal syllables (<2) may appear as 0: ajakamo (ajjhagama), monaso
(manaso), samohadu (samagata-); cf. Niya 524phalophala; sado (sadd); instr.
sg. gamesino, cedaso, and with the spelling -tt, ichadu. Similarly for{«) or (am)
in hudayino. It is possible that the same feature is responsible for the inverse
situation in spellings such as aya (ayuh), tamasanwdu (tawaso-), ¡ah {Joke) ;
but these are rare enough to leave it possible that the omission of the vowel-
sign is accidental.1

§ 22a. More frequent is the marking of palatalization of vowels in the neigh­

bourhood of a palatal consonant (although the consonant in question is not
necessarily still written): ccasari, precasari (P. accasarl, paccasdri); smne-
sabudha (samyak-sambuddha; Khot. samyc-sabaudaya2); ycd, pajc (panca), hici
{krtyam), katavi, bhayidavi (-tavya; Niya here usually has -dovo); ddchi
(desayct: for see § 39); a'i (ayam\ A^okan ayi, beside iyani); prc'anadi
(prajanSti). Regularly, compounds with (-carya): brama-yirya, -yt'ya, sama-
'irya, paiikirya'i. In the last, -k- is written for -y- < (-0) (§§32, 38); but the
palatalization also appears occasionally where the corresponding Sanskrit has
no palatal: ufhane’ala- (;uithdna-kalaradhe’aro (iraihahara). These spellings
clearly reflect the jy-llke quality of the glide developed between vowels in
the position of intervocalic stops of the older language (the ya-irnii of the
grammarians). It is thus possible that parica'i in verse 164 should be inter­
preted as a direct equivalent to the Pali pariccdga in the corresponding verse,
although a locative gives acceptable sense in the contcxt. Comparable here arc
A^okan mcnati (RE XIII Sh.); Niya rccya (Burrow, Grammar § 6). It is
possible that a few examples from other Prakrits should be brought under
the same heading: aimta < djanya (taken as a dcii-word by Shcth; see also
note on verse 173); sejja, P. seyyd < sayyd.

§ 23. Not infrequently, an etymological (/, c) is omitted in the writing, and

it is possible that a few such cases may be seen as counter-reflections of the
same situation. Thus, the spelling toyari (dfidri-) may be justified to the
extent that the -y- was felt to give sufficient expression to the palatalized
vowel in the first syllable. A similar explanation might pass for raspaia
82 IN T R O D U C T I O N

beside vtipaia (viivasa), daiana (P dassinani), dariano (dassino), deiada

(twice, P desentam) , udacha'i (P udacchida), and comparably, in the Taxila
silver scroll,1 pracaga (pratyeka) In a different way, the retroflexion in s
may perhaps have involved a difference in quality of an. accompanying (¿)
sufficient to allow us to attribute to this cause the occasional omission of the
written vowel symbol, as in sahu, if this is to be read for sehu in verse 307,
bhavasu (bhaiesu), and tasa (tesatn) In the inscriptions vasa (varse) appears
twice at least,2 but is corrected by the editor to vase
But while such linguistic factors may possibly have operated in some
places, it is more than likely that the senbe occasionally omitted the vowel
sign accidentally, much in the same way as we might sometimes forget to
cross a t The one occurrence of eata (atta) has indeed the excuse of the
initial palatal, but on fifteen other occasions the word is written ctta
Similarly, sabhr ana [eva) is doubtless a mere slip of the pen, and it would
be artificial to suggest that the i in the previous syllable was sufficient
written information to convey that eva was intended

§ 24 In unemphatic syllables, and especially in word final syllables, a differ-

ent factor ts involved, and m these we may reasonably see a tendency to
vowel weakening which is sometimes reflected in the writing3 An isolated
example such as panadat while elsewhere pamda is written, may be accidental,
and one occurrence of ttha (P ettha) leaves the decision doubtful in verse
96, where the scribe may have intended the same form by the spelling atha,
but may equally have taken over a form with a- which ultimately went back
to the Source-dialect of the Gandhan translation Against these, vtvhuda*
nanaht (P vtbhuti ttandi-) seems a definite example With navara'i («*-)
and vimvena'u (vinibandh ) we may compare numajjai and similar examples
from other dialects (Pischel § 118), and such spellings as Khot paramandale
(S pan ) * Optatives may be written without the vowel sign in the final
syllable jina as well as jtm, nditha, gaccha, cara pariyara, panvaya Some
of these, if they had been isolated, might have been referred to § 23 But
since in most instances the resulting spelling is identical with an imperative
(although often syntactically distinct), it is possible that there was here some
tendency for the two modal forms to coalesce
To these groups a few isolated examples can be added bhestda (bhamsyati),
kirta (kirti), and inversely, ttevi beside neva {natva)
* C l l u plate X IV Konow(p 7 0 corrected * For comparable phenomena in other
the mistake to pracega but it would be better Prakrits c f Pischel §$ 101 ff c f R L Turner
pokey to retan auch spelling features in the The Phonetic Weakneit ofTenrnruittonal Element!
text and to restricted tonal comment to a foot m Indo Aryan JRAS 1927 pp 297-39 for
note sim ilar tendencies in consonantal development
* C I I1 1 platea X I I and X I I I * * BBaxley B SO
li le r G S OAASSxt in«-*
1943 np m
904
u
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 8-

§ 25. Divergences involving non-final back-vowels are mostly, it would seem,

reflections of neighbouring syllables; but very occasionally there are in­
stances where an unusual spelling would seem to result only from a tendency
towards a ‘neutral’ central quality in weak positions: for example, in
sisavudu (susamvrtam). If yu is accepted as an equivalent of (ca), we mav
see in it a further sporadic spelling of this type, although ya and yi arc else­
where written. (See § 70, and note on verse 12; possibly the frequent
Aiokan at should be considered in this connexion.)
Adjacent syllables with it, v, or labial consonants are involved in examples
such as bhikhu du (twice for dt < iti); anuva- (att-ava-)and conversely.
a)ia- is written for (arm-) in aitaparyaya, sanayara. If it had been isolated
dukhusa (-asya) would be readily dismissed as a scribal error, and indeed
it probably is. But since the other examples cited at least suggest that a
feature of pronunciation may lie behind such a spelling, it is wiser to leave
it in the text. Similarly, we might hesitate to suggest that in sagharavoiamu
the scribe ‘ought’ to have written -rova-, and that he has merely attached
the vowel-stroke to the wrong character; since it is possible that the labializa­
tion affected both syllables, and the orthography may be reasonably adequate
as a notation of utterance, however poor it may appear etymologically.
The same type of reflection of vocalic quality is shown in spellings such
as udhvaradha, ttivari; Niya tttvaraSimilar phenomena have been familiar
sine« the earliest days of comparative linguistics (umlaut), and there seems
to be no good reason for the suggestion2 that, bccause Uv is written for f
in these words, the o-sound was ‘little pronounced'.-’
In final position, the nominal case-endings -o, and -a correlate reason­
ably well with the forms of the older language (see § 75); and such fluctua­
tions as appear are probably reflections of the weakness of final syllables.
Occasionally, however, phonetic environment may have played a pan (e.g.
dhamu, ibid.).
It is possible that in phusamu, karhamt, where the corresponding Pali
has the singular, the writing might represent a real historical development
of -mi; but this remains doubtful See note on verse 333. Beside jtratntt
and viharamu, Pali has the plural verb; in the Xiva documents the ending
-mi is common, and in the Dharmapada it is invariable in hrorr.i. We cannot,
however, denv the possibility of a tendency of -//// to move in the direction
of ~mu. In the sporadic spelling bhul&tsair.gasya (Niya 703. missinc from
the index-) it would be pleasant to see a trace of scribal rc?cntmi-n! at the
insatiable appetite of the monks; but doubtless the wrifinp h.r; no farther
motivation than the initial labial consonant of the word.
1 See 0
pp. ¡ . $!■
' K onow , C 1J ii, p. cviii.
84 IN T R O D U C T IO N

§ 26 It is probable that the same type of fluctuation in spelling should be

recognized in the inscriptions on the two Sirkap silver plates,1 which have
respectively Mumjukntasya and Mitnjukntasa As Konow recognized, the
two forms almost certainly represent the same name. But rather than see
in the variation a suggestion of an un-Indian name in which ‘the first vowel
was probably difficult to render’, it might be thought that there is no more
involved than divergent views on spelling between the two silversmiths
responsible The first part of the name would then be understood as manju
in which the ‘neutral’ vowel of the first syllable was interpreted in spelling
by one craftsman as «, having regard to the preceding m, while the other
considered that 1 was more suitable in relation to the following palatal group
Similar variations in the spelling of the name Manjuiri have been cited
from Khotanese 1 mamjuiri and (with later Gandhan assimilation) tnanuin,
but also mtjaitiri, majibri, tnajSsrn, and others Since in addition we can
cite the Dharmapada form kirta, it is possible (though admittedly not
certain) that the objects in question belonged to a man whose name in
Sanskrit would have been Manjiiktrit

§ 27 In addition to the normal Middle Indian developments of the type

-aya- > -e- (including nedi 267, against the metre), two examples have
been noted which might be due to a coalescence of syllables asa 169 (P
ayasam) and vtdi 277 (P vijite)3. If so, the suggested emendations given
m the footnotes to ayasa and viyidi may be misconceived But the syllables
might well hav& been accidentally dropped by the scribe, and a decision is
hardly possible without further evidence See also note on verse 343 (which
is outside the main text)

Consonants
§ 28 The consonantal system, m comparison with that of the older language,
shows many features similar to those familiar in other Middle Indian
languages—weakening of single intervocalic stops, assimilation of consonant
clusters— and these do not call for any detailed discussion here In contrast
to other dialects, especially characteristic features are the preservation of
three distinct sibilants, and the retention of certain consonant groups without
assimilation
Although the orthography does not in general mark a distinction between
single and double consonants,* the continuance of this opposition (or a
corresponding one as, for example, between lax and tense articulations) is
* C l i n pp 98-^9 plate X IX 3 4 see § 35
* ^SOAS z :g4z p 9 10 * For mm see § 14 T he interpretation of the
1 T h e apparent loss of a syllable in t a sign transcribed gg remains doubtful see § n
written for utd is a nther different matter
 IN T R O D U C T IO N S5

shown by the fact that the representation of single intervocalic consonants

in many instances shows spelling-variants, whereas for double consonants
the spelling is virtually stable. Thus, while may appear as -y-t or alif,
or -k-, the corresponding double consonant {-yy-) is not subject to these
variations, and except where the older unassimilated group is written in
full, -ry-, the only possible representation would seem to be -y-. It may
be observed that in non-initial position -c-, -p- invariably represent
double consonants,1 while -£-, -b- may be written either for a double
stop or for nasal plus stop, but not for a single intervocalic stop.

§ 29. Single stops in initial position in the word regularly agree with Sanskrit.
The juncture of compounds is ambiguous in this respect (§ 66); and other
apparent exceptions in die transliterated text can conveniently be considered
under the heading of enclisis (§§ 67 f., 72).

§ 30. In the representation of the sounds descended from the intervocalic

single stops of the earlier period, the manuscript shows rather more variation
than elsewhere; but it may be accepted that such variation is for the most
part a matter of spelling. In general terms, most of such spellings can be
readily understood on the assumption that a few of the written signs, which
in other contexts continued to act as a notation for stops, were also used in
intervocalic position for fricatives (§§ 31,43, 43a); while a palatal frequently,
and a labial occasionally, might be treated simply as a glide, and ‘disappear’,
that is, the word is written with alif, usually between unlike vowels, where
the spelling gives adequate information without the need to write -y- or -v-
explicitly (§§ 32, 34). In a few words a similar glide is expressed in the
spelling by -k- (§ 38).
From the writing it would seem that in this position the distinction between
voiced and voiceless stops was lost It is not impossible that real linguistic
differences are concealed here: for example, although (-k -g ~ ) both appear
as ~k~, it is quite conceivable that the symbol was written for [*] in the one
case, and for \y] in the other. But there seems to be no way of determining
this from the text itself,2 and we may assume, at least provisionally, that
1 A comparison -with the Pali shows up a written and in suitable contests alif, where
few apparent exceptions in the case of -f-, but the glide is implicit in the spelling. But, on a
these are so rare that they may be due either to rough count, alif represents (-£-) in 2S place*,
variant readings, or simply to miscopying. See (-£-) in 6, (-0) in 2, and (*/-) in 11. This may
notes on verses 75, 79, 237, 283. In 336 the suggest that the sounds which had developed
form liatv is regular. fro™ '/•) '« re decidedly more la* in
5 It is, perhaps, possible that a more detailed arficutetion than the other two; hut flic fmrcs
analysis ’of frequency and distribution would may be bias«ed to such an extent by the dis­
enable us to say that one answer was at least tribution of the four consonant* in die parent
more probable than the other. For example, languaec that it remains doubtful v,hctlier such
(.jti-, .g.i -c-, .j -) may all on occasion be a conclusion would be justified.
84 IN T R O D U C T IO N

§ 26 It is probable that the same type o f fluctuation in spelling should be

recognized in the inscriptions on the two Sirkap silver plates,1 which have
respectively Mumjukritasya and Mimjukntasa As Konow recognized, the
two forms almost certainly represent the same name But rather than see
m the variation a suggestion of an un-Indian name in which ‘the first vowel
was probably difficult to render*, it might be thought that there is no more
involved than divergent views on spelling between the two silversmiths
responsible T h e first part of the name would then be understood as tnanju-,
in which the ‘neutral* vowel of the first syllable was interpreted in spelling
by one craftsman as u, having regard to the preceding m, while the other
considered that t was more suitable in relation to the following palatal group
Similar variations in the spelling of the name Maiijusn have been cited
from Khotanese 2 matnjusn and (with later Gandhan assimilation) wanuSn,
but also mjasuri, majtsrn, majabri, and others Since m addition we can
cite the Dhaimapada form kirta, it is possible (though admittedly not
certain) that the objects in question belonged to a man whose name in
Sanskrit would have been Manjukirii

§ 27 In addition to the normal Middle Indian developments of the type

-aya- > -e- (including nedt 267, against the metre), two examples have
been noted which might be due to a coalescence of syllables 169 (P
ayasarn) and vidt 277 (P vijite)3 If so, the suggested emendations given
in the footnotes to ayasa and vtytdi may be misconceived But the syllables
might well have been accidentally dropped by the scribe, and a decision is
hardly possible without further evidence See also note on verse 343 (which
is outside the main text)

Consonants
§ 28 The consonantal system, in comparison with that of the older language
shows many features similar to those familiar in other Middle Indian
languages— weakening of single intervocalic stops, assimilation of consonant
clusters-—and these do not call for any detailed discussion here In contrast
to other dialects, especially characteristic features are the preservation of
three distinct sibilants, and the retention of certain consonant groups without
assimilation
Although the orthography does not in general mark a distinction between
single and double consonants/ the continuance of this opposition (or a
corresponding one as, for example» between lax and tense articulations) 1$
’ C II u pp 98-99 P^tc X K 3 4 see § 35
* Bwley BSOAS x 194a p 910 ♦For mm see § 14 T h e interpretation o f the
* T he apparent los* o f a syllabic in t a s gn transcribed g g remains doubtful see § H
«htten for uia is a rather different matter
 IN T R O D U C T IO N Z$

shown by the fact that the representation of single intervocalic consonants

in many instances shows spelling-variants, whereas for double consonants
the spelling is virtually stable. Thus, while {-y-) may appear as -y-, or alif,
or -k-, the corresponding double consonant (-.yy-) is not subject to these
variations, and except where the older unassimilated group is written in
M l, -ry-f the only possible representation would seem to be -y-. It may
be observed that in non-initial position -c-, -t-, -p~ invariably represent
double consonants,1 while -b- may be written either for a double
stop or for nasal plus stop, but not for a single intervocalic stop.

§ 29. Single stops in initial position in the word regularly agree with Sanskrit
The juncture of compounds is ambiguous in this respect (§ 66); and other
apparent exceptions in the transliterated text can conveniently be considered
under the heading of enclisis (§§ 67 f., 72).

§ 30. In the representation of the sounds descended from the intervocalic

single stops of the earlier period, the manuscript shows rather more variation
than elsewhere; but it may be accepted that such variation is for the most
part a matter of spelling. In general terms, most of such spellings can be
readily understood on the assumption that a few of the written signs, which
in other contexts continued to act as a notation for stops, were also used in
intervocalic position for fricatives (§§ 31,43,43«); while a palatal frequently,
and a labial occasionally, might be treated simply as a glide, and ‘disappear’,
that is, the word is written with alif, usually between unlike vowels, where
the spelling gives adequate information without the need to write -y- or
explicitly (§§ 32, 34). In a few words a similar glide is expressed in the
spelling b y -ft-(§38).
From the writing it would seem that in this position the distinction between
voiced and voiceless stops was lost. It is not impossible that real linguistic
differences are concealed here: for example, although {-k-, ~g~) both appear
as -k-, it is quite conceivable that the symbol was written for [*] in the one
case, and for [y] in the other. But there seems to be no way of determining
this from the text itself,2 and we may assume, at least provisionally, that
1 A comparison w ith die Pali shows up a written and in suitable contexts alif, where
few apparent exceptions in the case of -i*, but the glide is implicit in the spelling- P ut, m a
these are so rare th at they m ay be due either lo rough count, alif represents (-*-) in aS place«,
variant readings, o r simply to miscopying. Sec (-£-) in 6 , (*c-) in 2, and (•/*) in tt . This may
notes on verses 75 , 79 , 237 , 283 . In 336 the suggest that the sounds 'vluch had developed
form katu is regular. from (•/;-, ->) were dccideJly more lax in
1 I t is, perhaps, possible that a more detailed articulation than the other two; but the fipjres
sna?5Tw o f frequency and distribution would may be biassed to such an extent by the dis­
enable us to say that one answer was at ¡east tribution of the four comon-ints in the parent
more probable than the other. For example, language that it remains doubtful v.hethersudi
.g jnav on occasion be a conclusion would be justified.
86 IN T R O D U C T IO N

the voiced and voiccless single intervocalic stops of the older language had
in fact coincided by the time when the Dhaimapada manuscript was written

§31 In a number of the inscriptions, and in the Niya documents, both

(-A-) and (-g-) are not infrequently represented by g (§4), and it has been
generally accepted that this character, formed from g by the addition of a
diacritical stroke at the base, is to be understood as a notation for a fricative
[y] The Kurram casket, for example, has ioga (¿oka) and bhagavadaj and
the writer of the verses scribbled on the outside of the Dharmapada manu­
script used the sign in the same value in sparga-gatmyu (verse 344) A much
less common notation, appears in the Mathura Lion Capital inscription»*
where a similar diacritic is added to the base of k, as in nakarakasa (ttdgarfl-
kasya) The Dharmapada orthography, however, uniquely among KharosthI
writings known so far, uses the differentiated sign g only m contexts involving
a nasal (see § 46), and employs k in those positions where the other sources
have g , but m contrast to the usage of the Lion Capital, this function of
the character is not marked by a diacritic The difference, however, is only
one of spelling convention, as is shown by the additional fact of the occa­
sional alternation between k and y f parallel to the alternation gjy m the other
convention (§ 38) This use of the symbol k is certainly not evidence of
devoicing cf note on verse 129

§ 32 On the basis of individual words, a possible description of the develop­

ment of (-£-, -,/•) would be that these simply disappear in intervocalic position,
and that »nthe writing the place is held by ~y- m certain positions, particularly
between like vowels This y would then be comparable to the laghu-
prayatnatara yal ¿Ira or ya iruti of the later Prakrit grammarians3 (tran­
scribed as y), which may be considered as marking only the separation of
sjlhbles, presumably without glottal closure It would seem, however,
that y < (-f-) has a slightly greater tendency to persist in contexts where
(-J-) is almost invariably represented by alif for example, brama yirya
(brahmacorya), although satna'trya, cha'tya also occur (See also footnote
to § 30) The instances observed arc rather few, and may have no linguistic
significance, but there is at least a hint here that the history of these sounds
maj be better represented as (->-) > [y], (-c-, -j-) > [j], with a tendency
subsequent^ towards the identification of the two

§33 The development (•<•, - d ) > d is almost universal in the manuscript,

although there arc indications of a further weakening to [5] in some places
' Cl I « p 1« J P u ch el I 187 VV S A llen F h tm th a *
Ibt J , p 48 A nnrnt India pp 6SW>g
 IN T R O D U C T IO N $7

(§ 43a). The complete disappearance of the old intervocalic dental is rare,

and an apparent instance which has been frequently cited, avlia'i, may not
have been intended by the translator as a third person singular verb (see
note on verse 50). The forms ca’uri, ca'tdha, beside cadu-, can be accepted
as genuine in the dialect, since the Niya documents have ca’ttra as well as
catu-; and the use of the written symbol t in Khotanese as, in effect, a
notation for ya-sruti,1 possibly reflects a tendency towards still further
weakening of the intervocalic dentals in Gandhari.1 The examples in the
Dharmapada, however, are rather few; and while it is indeed probable that
they indicate the beginnings of a change which later was to spread mudi wider,
it is possible that in any given instance, in a translated text, the form presented
by the manuscript may have been influenced by that of the source-dialect.
It may also be observed that although udachaH (P. udacchida) is isolated,
the majority of such words, or closely related forms, are written elsewhere
in the manuscript with the expected d:
anini'tz ninido
upaya upada
ko’ia vidu
bahosukena bahosiida
pranuyu midadi
bho-va'i nigHa-wadi

§34. The regular development (-p-, -6-) > v hardly calls for comment,
other than to remark that in certain contexts the glide may not be explicitly
written, as in stipra’udhu, ala’vm, padhdi (prthtvi): cf. §30; and that in a
number of places it may interchange with -m- (§36). In both of these
respects, the behaviour of the derived v appears to have coincided with that
of v < (-fl-).

§ 35. In initial position in the word (and possibly in the interior of a com­
pound) va- may be written in place of teva- (tipa-), the vocalic onset being,
it would seem, implicit in the v-. Both spellings occur, however, and wc
need hardly consider that the phrase in verses 2 4 , 2 5 vaiada varada (P.
npasanto uparato) had become metrically defective, since the spelling uvasadu
occurs in 180, and other instances of uva- are not unduly rare. Beside vavoti
(upapatiim) in verse 4 4 , uvedt (P. vedi) might be thought of as in esscncc
a reflection of the same phenomenon (or, in other terms, a misplaccd attempt
by the scribe to correct a tendency in his spelling habits of which he was to
1 For example, nata (S. nSga), atala end preting sadi (ftiyam) in 151 rw an early cismplc
agaia (S. akala) : Konow, Saka Studies, pp. 9» of the same type of spelling.
10, 26. There would be no difficulty in inter- * See also Dailey, BSOASxi,
f¡8 IN T R O D U C T IO N

some extent aware); but it is equally possible that the word here and in verse
5 was understood to be the equivalent of S. upaiti. See also notes on verses
310, 321. It was nevertheless possible for a form with va- to be considered
as metrically short by a scribe; and sa- has been added as a repair in 194
vadhi-saksaya (P. upadht-kkhayam).
Where, as in verse 216, the preceding word ends in -u, the decision
between sukadtsuvakadhadi (equivalent to S. -süpiI-) and stikadisu vakadhadi
(i.e. -su uva-, with the sandhi resolved) is arbitrary, but unimportant.

§36. The alternation mjv is not uncommon in other Prakrits,1 but is rare
in Gandhari sources other than the Dharmapada. From the inscriptions
Konow reports no examples at all,* and in the Niya documents the only
instances so far observed are gamesati (gavesate)— a word which is shared
with other dialects: Pischel § 261 gamesai— and ema, emu, beside evam.3
The Dharmapada also has gamesino, but in addition shows a decided prefer­
ence for -m~ in place of -p- (both original and secondary) in a number of
other words. In general, such words have a nasal, normally in the following
syllabic, although this nasal is not always explicit in the writing; and it is
clear that this -m- has originated as an allophone of ¡vf in nasalized contexts.4
In the examples given below, the extension of nasality is indicated, by italics
in the interpretations in square brackets, only so far as is relevant to the
question under discussion, and this notation is not meant as an assertion
that the nasalization was necessarily limited to the part of the word marked
m this manner:
bhemana'i [bháfcná-]
bhametsu [bhat^Msu] (§ 17)
sabhamti 'sambhatiam]
{ramarja ■¿ratawam]
vadamada VadazJii/rtdam] (P. vatavantam)
amuiia lavufitia] (apttnya)
pramuni [praiwm] (P. psptme)

1 Pischel §$ 2 48,250, 2 5 1,2 6 1 («h ere, how ­ cloth in g lu te d in th e docum ent

ever, examples »re not p m tp e d m *nj syste­
matic manner, and it it difficult (or th e reader to
obtain a clear picture o f the itnu tio n)
* C t l u . p <n
* T IJurrow, fatiguoR* o f tht Kharoffht
Dotvmtntt.l 50, B SO Svm , 1936, p 417. TTie
n»o further fcouf* there cited should probably
be deleted ‘*tv*p f4’ it almost certainly • mis*
retding (we note on ten« 271), and the inter*
preutton of nn>M in 149 as equivalent to
flttira teem* tmprohalile, monsitic rags beinc
I 'w w lu t out of place among the items of
* Incontrasttothesituation here, m any c f
th e * ords recorded b y P isch el fo r other dislect»
h a\e n o reason, h istorically, fo r showing
nasalization B u t th e t n o sounds are phoneU'
eally \ e r y sim ilar, and a laxly articulated [m]
mould readily b e interpreted as [ ') ; e jr Hindi
gSi {grSnta) T h e D harm apada essropk*
illustrate the tendency fo r nasality to spread
w ith in a w ord , a characteristic \ 'h ich has been
frequently o b s e n c d m m odern Ind**Ary*n
languages.
 IN T R O D U C T IO N Sg
nama \iiavam]
■vinamani \yimlavan\xa\ (P. vinnapamm)
. amedi \amvz6i\ (anveti)
samajadi [scwyajjadi] (sampadyate: § 66«).

Similarly in enclitics; aivano mana, va vmno (T. patm, puna); and deva mi
na (P. deva p i nam), where the operative nasal is in a second enclitic.
It will be seen that the majority of these examples involve the anticipation
of nasality, in this respect inverting the situation in the other Prakrits, where
it would seem, such a process is exceptional. If it may be assumed that
Pischel’s examples are, if not exhaustive, at least a representative selection,
anticipatory nasalization is rarely shown in the orthography. We may recog­
nize it in sitmina (mvina, S. svaptm) and hamandha (havandha), and later in
Ap. jama (yavam). But in general the other dialects show m in place of v
less frequently before than after a nasal: AMg. manama (P. mandpa); or,
in the absence of a historical nasal, either before or after a retroflex con­
sonant : AMg. cimidha (S. cipita) ; vidima (S. vitapa).> These two categories
account for most of the examples cited byPischcl; and the few which remain
are doubtless analogical extensions. (If so, such sporadic developments may
not be genuine in the language, since their production would seem to require
knowledge of an equivalence between v and m in other situations; but there
would be nothing surprising in artificial interference in this manner by later
authors or scribes.)
Examples such as vadamada, vanamada (P. vatavantam, ‘camavantam)
are reminiscent of the problems raised by the Indo-Iranian distribution of
the suffixes -mant, -vant, and other info alternations; and to the extent that
these oppositions in the earlier period may (in part, at least) have resulted
from divergence in differing phonetic contexts,- we may be justified in
9o IN T R O D U C T IO N

seeing a parallel here But we should not expect the Dharmapada forms
with m to represent optional alternatives to -vant which have been directly
inherited from the Vedic period, and such a suggestion is in any event
excluded, not only by their fitting a phonological framework which con­
tains besides quite different formations, but also by several declensional
forms
nom vadava itlava (P silavtI)
acc vadamada iilamada (silavantam)
instr iilavada (stlavata)

Although complete paradigms are not attested in the extant text, this is
ample illustration In contrast to this, words in which -mant was already
established in the older language do not show this alternation in their para­
digms instr sg hinmada, nom sg svadtma, gen sg svadimado, nom pi
szadimada (S hrlmantsmrttmanU) In 112 uihanamado (P -vato) we may
perhaps suspcct the influence o f the preceding » , but the word may be
onl> a literary assimilation to the following word in the verse, svadimado
There are nevertheless many words where, in apparently similar phonetic
contexts, v is still w ntten in the manuscript In some of these the older form
ma) be due to an awareness of related words, as for example jtvano, beside
jtva, jivtda, or, in more general terms, to the survival o f established spellings
in a literary tradition But from examples such as sevamana beside mam
fra, or iravadtna beside iramatia, vadamada, it seems possible that m words
of the t) pe already quoted, m is still to be interpreted as a notation for a
[\] which, although approximating to [m], had not become identical with
the inherited m In such circumstances, a fluctuation between m and v in
the spelling would be readilj understandable
Tor tv, sv representing (/m, sm), see § 53

§ 37 A contnst such as that between kaya (kaya) and ka'ena illustrates the
regular treatment of {-y-), and m such words it would seem that -y- is
wnttcn onlj as a sjllable-dn ider Where the glide is implicit in the succession
of the two \owels, ahf is wnttcn instead {ayarietta, but tdrt’a, idn'esu
(1ndrtya~)%anoie'a (anuiaya) As this last shows, there was equally no need
to wntc -y- where a secondary palatalization was noted in the spelling m
an adjaccnt >ov.cl (§22a) Tor the inflexional ending •a't is almost
universal, md where (->-) belongs to the stem, -aya- is the preferred
spelling for (■<?)<*•) But occasionally the scribe displays the rarer option
• tlmre ta avotd repetition of t This doc« ment we incur n t n c t obht^uon to explain why
not wltire th« problem but mmljr «rrate* urn the «petition o f v w ti tolerated in a h a ta n t,
ftm lif » funher problem, for by luch a ttate- d tw e n t
 IN T R O D U C T IO N pi

for the instruction of the reader: 106, 107 pranaya, prana'i (P. paimayd);
243, 244 vimyadu, vitii’adu {vitiaya-).
For secondary -y- < (-c-} see § 32.

§ 38. Although -k- is written for (-ft-, -g-) with fair constancy, a further
weakening is to be seen in many places: mruya, muya (virga) ; kaya (haka) ,*
ksira-vayo (P. -pako); yo’a-, ro’a, beside yoka, roka; as'oka so'ino. This is
especially common in stem-final position— frequent therefore for the suffix
(.-ha), although not limited to it— and in the inscriptions this furtherweakening
would seem to be limited to this position in the word.1 In the Dhannapada
this is still the most frequent position; but in addition we find: tifhane'ala-
{utthdna-kdla-); radhe'aro (ratha-karo); anu'abadi (P. anukampaii); ain'oma
(anikama-); sn'aro (siikaro); sagarduda (sankara-kida); kid'ali (krtya-Mle).
In contrast to stem-final position, where both -g-) are subject to this
behaviour, the additional examples, so far as has been observed, concern (-£-)
only, and in particular (-k-) at the position of compound-juncture.
Conversely, -k- appears sporadically for (-_}>-); udaka (vdaya); dhoreka
(idhaureya); yoiieka (see note on verse 17); vayaveka (vajapeya)', sabaraka
(samparaya); also in place of secondary -y- in parikirya'i (paricajya-);
babaka (balbaja); bakostikena (-smteiia); vikadi (vitaie): see also §§ 31-33 and
note on verse 149.
This use of -k- for (-^-) is very rare in other Kharosth! sources, but isolated
examples have been noted both early and late. The Bajaur Casket inscription
has vijaya-mitra and viyaka-mitra;2 and the Niya documents twice have
r K onow , C I I ii,pp. xcviii, xcis: ‘ In a few Indian in structure, and it is therefore not sur*
cases -k- is replaced b y y .. . . More frequently, prising that Konow’s correction in N i p CGr
however, the -k- has apparently disappeared.’ vijida-simhasya (ed. avijida-) met with resistance
(Such a statement may be misleading uniess it (F. W. Thomas, BSO S viii, p. 790). A learned
is made clear that the discussion is strictly con- commentator might perhaps have explained
fined to the orthography: -aye and - a’e, for tiiat'Vijita-sitnha’ was a 'L ion in the Kingdom’,
example, are merely alternative notations, and or even ‘Conqueror o f Lions'; but the rest of
there are no reasons for supposing that they the world would take it for granted that such
represent two different 'forms'.) a king was a ‘Defeated Lion’, and no Mng is
* Epigraphia Jndica, xxiv. 1 ff. It has been likely to have risked this. The difficult)- dis-
objected that it is ‘most unlikely that the same appears when it is realized that the form is
person should be referred to by two dearly merely a Prakritic spelling of <1 name which in
different names’ (A. K. Naiatn, The Indo- Sanskrit would have been vijnya-simha (cf. § 37
Greeks, 1957, p. So n.), but the argument is vinaya-tvini'o-). In later times the coalcsccncc
erroneous. Whether the reference was to one of the two Sanskrit forms allowed the family
person or to two, the two foims are merely name to enter into compounds in either sense,
alternative spellings of the same name. The and beside impeccable names such as Vijaya-
later use of tjd as a spelling substitute for sennbhava wc find the meaninrfeis SansfcritfM-
led to a more embarrassing alternation vijayai tion Vijaya-sn»!f?Hw.a (Attested by Tibetan),
vijita in the names of the kings o f Khotan where the intention of the name must have been
(H. W . Bailey, Asia Major, n,s. ii, 1951, p. 8; Vijita-smr.^anui. The Khotanc'e spelling
vii, 1959, p. ¡b). Although the name was ttjelta-, lijitta- (unless due to spelling
accorded an indigenous etymology, the com- pronunciation) surccst iha; the scribe* were
pounds in which it is known arc completely aware of this.
92 IN T R O D U C T IO N

apramtha 1 {aprameya) On the other hand, the phenomenon itself is common

in the documents, with the spelling -g- (cf § 31) apramego, vyaga {vyaya),
and doubtless the ^alue [y] is to be understood in many places •where g
is written as the second member of a conjunct group Similarly, pracaga is
written for (pratyaya) in the Kurram Casket inscription2
Konow suggested’ that such spelhngs pointed to ‘a strongly fricative sound'
for^ , but this is to look at things upside-down Since the alternates include
alif (in effect zero) as well as y[k, the situation could hardly be due to an
increase of tenseness m the utterance associated with -y- (which would be
an unexpected rev ersal of the tendency of other single intervocalic consonants
in the language) Rather, it reflects a further continuation of the normal
tendency towards weakening in the descendants of (-fe-, -g•) The written
signs for these, being associated with a very lax utterance [ya-iruti) in
cmam positions, would then be readily adopted by scribes in -words con
taming (->-)4

§39 Morerarclj, -/1- is written in place of alif or -y- as a syllable divider5

\Vc might be tempted to interpret deieht 236 and ramaht 259 as imperati\e
forms, which in both \erses would be syntactically possible, but since the
comerse spelling is well attested (see following paragraph), it is more
probable that these two words should be understood as an optative and a
present participle respcctivelj, m agreement with the parallel Pali 'version
deiehi written for deia 1 {deiayet see also § 220), and ramaht for rama't
(Pali version, damay am) In three places/» is written where the correspond­
ing Pah has ca, and since m two of these at least the sense of P In would
be inappropriate, it would seem that hi should be accepted here as merely
an alternative spelling of the enclitic particle 1, yi {ca § 70) In 201, 202,
hi represents P ce ‘if1 Tor seho, sciha, sebha {¿reyas ), see §44
Cornered), It is dropped m the spelling m suhava'u {sukh&taho),
sabaraka tda't (samparaya htiüya), vay art 6 (n/jon/j-), phaha (P pah°ha)
It is thus possible that jada't in verses 1 and 2 corresponds directly to the
Pali plural jatshi although a singular would be perfcctl> acceptable
* Khareifhl Inuttptwm no» 399 511 (the (implywK *metraka) These may be purely
latter m literary borrow ing mechanically transcribid
1 CU 11 p *55 but it »» o f course possible that e>tn -within
* Ih J p 0 1 C ln dh lr! t ie written form* may hase subte
* A » * furth erconsequence b o n w c J forms q u en tly in d uced pronunciations w ith (k) if
k
»••pear « i l l in p U re o f O ) m C enrni oiU> as • reading s t j lc adopted b y th e Ir a
A t in * tr t m o f 1) « n i w Vf<2itro<* (M t I I V. lít e n t e monk* fo r use m th e r e a u ti o n o f t u m i
l l u l r f IN O A S t i p p A cn n n tett*
M r a i l u d ^ A r u o d t S n p lm n y t r k 1 Tor oil t t d u k c ti c f Puche! | 206 aho
(a1 cl I n kf p n t r y m cht in itself be xlAo |A « ItllS G H 8 88 9 100 10 19
«f ( r n t< n ch, C r a m d r «/ 5
* * « also note *>nintroductory vene lUtley
M jt. S t- ’- n ( •/«) C W m Ft { W loc.cit pp "91 j
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 93

Similarly, parvahi’a could be interpreted as an absolutive (^pravrajiya),

but not necessarily so: see note 021 verse 16.
There are sufficiently many certain examples to establish that this inter­
change is not merely a graphic confusion between alif and k; but the graphic
similarity between the two characters does on occasion lead to uncertainty
in the reading. In verse 323, where Senart read bhoha, it is almost certain
that the scribe intended bho’a, but in 324, although dhami’o seems probable
(P. tihajmtiko), it is conceivable that Senart’s reading dhamiho should be
kept: see notes on these verses. In the manuscript there is a tendency for
an o-stroke to run into the tail of a following h, and it is possible that such
an h was sometimes written continuously without lifting the pen, that is,
from below upwards: see, for example, lolia line v, oka 130, broha'i m.
It is thus not always easy in cursive writing to distinguish between -ofio
and -o’a, and in verse 294 we might hesitate between vialio’a and mahoho.
The latter, however, is unambiguously written in the same word in 85.

§ 40. Among the aspirates of the older language there are, not unexpectedly,
no examples of (ck, jh, dh, ph) as single intervocalic stops; > -dh- in
sadhti; and the remainder, in varying frequencies, appear either as -h- or
with spellings which indicate an intermediate stage of weakening. Within the
text, no examples of -h- < (-tk-) have been observed; but the Niya docu­
ments have taha (taihd); and in general there would seem to be the same
tendency for the earlier voiced and voiceless stops to coincide as has been
remarked in the case of the single unaspirated intervocalic stops.
In the earlier Gandharl sources the development to -A- is rather infrequent.
■Aiokan lahuka, which is shared with the other versions, may be suspected
of being a borrowing; and the later inscriptions have suha, muha beside
sukha, mukha. The Niya documents show some extension of this feature,
which now appears in about twenty words, many of them being of frequent
occurrence. It would seem therefore that the further weakening to -A- was a
development still in progress, and it is thus probable that some at least of the
examples in the Dharmapada are due to the influence of the source-dialcct.

§ 41. Occasionally -kh- remains in the spelling, as in lihhtda in the intro­

ductory verse, and in a few places stikha, although suha- is much more
frequent. For (-gh-), the same two spellings are attested, in cka-kham
(P. -gheno), beside Mm, oha, aniho. In atva-kana'i (P. alla-ghaiinaya) and
makanha (cf. § 12), the fact that k is written, together with the sporadic
use of kh for (h) in Niya 511 makhi (mhi),' suggests that wc have here
varying notations for sounds such as (jf, y].
‘ Bailey, toe. dt., p. 792.
94 IN T R O D U C T IO N

§ 42 (~ih‘ , -dh‘ ) are both normally represented b y »d h and it is reasonable

to assume that the occasional retention of -th~, as in yatha beside yadha,
yada (yatha), is merely a survival of a historical spelling, and should not
be interpreted as an indication of a difference in pronunciation This con­
clusion is reinforced by the writing of -th- for {-dh") in kothu, akothena, beside
the more frequent kodha
In the case of {-dh-) the further weakening to -h- appears from time to
time niha’t {mdhaya), udavahi (P udabbadhl but here the dh may not be
original, see note on verse 83), mahoru (madhura) This treatment is in any
case rare, and in the last quoted example at least must be ascribed to the
source dialect, the inherited form masura being well attested

§ 43 The writing of -s- for -dh- < {-dh-, ~th-) appears sporadically in the
earlier inscriptions, and by the time of the Niya documents had become
the accepted spelling in masu {madhu), while in other words we find fluctua­
tions such as a d hia si-, a zi-1 It has been generally recognized that this
spelling indicates the development of the intervocalic stop to a [z], through
the intermediate stage of [8] The Dharmapada has masura- {madhura),
and savran (if in fact the latter is equivalent to P sabbadhi see note on 176),
and, with assimilation to a neighbouring palatal, sihla (jhthtla), and vanastfa
(P vanathaja) see also note on 306 Conversely, prodhu is written for
poso (240)
Further examples have been quoted from Khotanese * bhagirasau
(bhSgtrathi-), vtstnyau (vtdhtjna-), maystla {mithld) It is dear that {-th-)
and (-dh-) share this development, but although the examples are sufficiently
numerous to establish the fact, they are still rare in comparison with the
spelling dh m the majority of words for {-dh-, -ih-) It is possible therefore
that the development to [z] occurred only in specific circumstances, for ex­
ample, before the vowels -1 and -u Most of the examples which are well
established, and repeated, would fit such a formulation, and if this were so,
it would be possible to interpret occasional spellings like mahazana (§ 6b)
as intending [S]

§ 43a The corresponding unaspirated stops {-t-, -d-) are almost always kept
distinct from the old aspirates; but here also the inscriptions show sporadic
spellings which suggest a development to a fricative One of the oldest of
the post Agokan inscriptions, the Swat vase of the xnendarkh Theodoros,3
has a past participle where a subscript diacritic, similar to that m g, is added

1 L.«idtn SBA.W 1933 P ioco Konow, * Buley loc cit

BSOS viii 1936 p 606 F W Thomas ibid » C II u plate I
p 791 Eailey BSOAS xi pp 776-7
 I N T R O D U C T IO N 95

to the final character. The word in question may then be transcribed

pratithamSa.1 On the Bimaran vase2we may likewise read HvaraksiSasa and
bhagavaSa. The Mathura Lion Capital inscription3is unusual in showing this
treatment virtually throughout: praSefo (p-adese)—although karita* appears
twice— and we may assume that this inscription represents either a somewhat
divergent dialect or an eccentric school of orthography.
The situation in the Dharmapada strongly suggests that the development
of the earlier unaspirated dental stops to fricatives followed that of the
aspirates, so to speak, one stage in arrears. In two instances it seems likely
that the aspirate-character appears as a result of the aspiration spreading from
a neighbouring sound in the same word: ghadhedi < *ghadedi {ghdtayati),
and ghahaihehi < *gdha(hehi (grhastha-). In sagadhi’o (P, sangdiigo) it is
possible that the translator thought of adhika: we might in any ease suspect
that adhi- and adi- (ati-) would tend to coalesce, the more so since even in
Sanskrit the significance of the two, though for the most part distinct, is
fairly close, and there is occasional overlapping, for example adhividtra,
athnatra, which in practice are virtually synonymous. In verse 329 adhhadida
may represent adi- < (ati-); and 119 yadha (P. yada) is balanced by 293
yada (P. yatha), In addition, dh is written for -d-) in the following
words:
asamanadha (asravanaia)
husidha (kiaida)
tranadha (tranata)
viscsadha (piiesatah)
iamadhare (irnitr-)
samidhi (samilim)
samadha (sampdda- ?).
In these, as in the words with $ already quoted from the inscriptions (except
the Lion Capital), the replacement of the normal development (-/-, -d-) > d
appears in stem-final position, where it would seem that a further weakening
of the intervocalic consonantmade it possible forthewriterofthc Dharmapnda
manuscript to conceive the sound as equivalent to one which he was accus­
tomed to write with dh. This equivalence dearly did not hold for the
writers of those inscriptions who found it desirable to use a character
96 IN T R O D U C T IO N

formed with the diacritic stroke, but in both cases the most probable
hypothesis is that the same sound [8] was intended
It would make a reasonably consistent picture if we suppose that the
single intervocalic ( th-, -dh-) was at this stage in the language a fricative
[8] represented normally in the writing by dh, but that before the vowels
i and u, and (less often) in the weak position of stem-final syllables, an alio-
phone had developed which was sufficiently close to [z] to be written with
-s on occasion, although complete identification with the sibilant may have
taken place only in a few words such as masu and sisila Similarly ~d),
normally written d [d], was doubtless in any case a very lax stop, tending
towards [S] and under conditions of further weakening could occasionally
be written dh This last might then continue a stage further, and coincide
with the development of (-dh-) > [z], as is seen m Khot siysa (Sita) ,l but
this would appear to be very rare for original (-t ) In the Dharmapada the
only example is saghasa (< samkhyata, not samskrta), and here the analogy of
ghadhedt suggests the possibility that the form is due to an earlier *samghadha,
before the further weakening to [z] took place

§ 43i In praverayadi the weakened intervocalic dental appears as -r- (see

note on verse 160), and the same spelling replacement may perhaps be
seen in initial position in ramahi 2 5 9 , and the converse in ruyida (P ructram)
290 C f also aktdana 77, beside Khot atarana (S akrtajna) This situation
could be interpreted phonetically either in terms of a continuant r (untrilled)
as an approximation to [S] or a single-tap r as a substitute for a very short
intervocalic stop The latter interpretation could be utilized to account for
iadvan (S sarvari), Khot urydna (udyana), but alternative explanations
are possible (The Khotanese spelling may reflect a Prakrit uyyana, with an
‘intrusive r attracted by the double consonant cf saryathiva P seyyaihtdam
For sadvan see note on 2 5 6 ) See also § 64

§ 44 For ( bh ) there are four possible spellings -bh , -vh-, -v , and -h-
Sometimes two of these, and occasionally three, may appear as alternates
in the same or closely related words, as in the following examples (where
the additional items in brackets are taken from the Niya documents)
abhintardadi (avhtnanuf avisai3 ahivadana
{hlaprahha) pravha (hlaprava) ohasedt
mvhuda abhivuyu ana-hodt
labha lavhu lahadt
(ubheja) uvha’i i&ia't
* Bailey loc c t p 777 and writing
* I r o n document 661 which diverges from * P abhisaje c f also K h ot ovmya (S
th« remainder of the collection in its language abhtfeka)
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 97

It seems probable, however, that these spellings reflect at the most an

opposition between, -h- and an intermediate stage of weakening, -vh- [ft]
(§ 12); and that -bh- in such words is merely a historical spelling for the
latter, and -v- an alternative notation, or possibly a contextual variant.
Some of the forms with -h- may be due to the source-dialect: ahivadaija,
for example, is the only word in which the prefix is written thus, while abhi-
appears a number of times both in the Dhannapada and the Niya documents.
On the other hand, lahadi is upheld by the documents; and the evidence of the
sibilant in suha (¿ubha) and the conjunct in prahodi (prabhavati) is in favour of
these words being genuine developments within the dialect— unless the}' are
thought to be hybrid forms; but this seems unlikely.
Whether or not a feature which could be described as aspiration was
still implicit in the symbol vk (cf. § 12), an alternation vhjv is obviously
capable of representing the historical opposition of aspirated to unaspirated,
it would thus seem possible to interpretgadhavo (*'gardhabha- < gardabha
abhivuyu (abhibhUya), Khot. avidharma (abhidhama), as showing a dissimila­
tion of two successive aspirates; but the appearance of -v- for {-bh-) in other
contexts leaves the possibility open that dissimilation is not necessarily
involved. It may also be noted that, except for the single instance in
avhifianu, the symbol vh does not seem to occur before the vowel -i. The
examples, however, are hardly sufficient to establish definite contextual
conditions for the alternates.
The same alternations appear in the somewhat bizarre spellings seho,
sehu, sevha, sebha (S. ¿reyas-). The occasional writing of -h- in place of -y-
or alif has already been noted (§ 39), and seho can readily be taken as a
further example of the same phenomenon, differing, however, in the fact
that the expected spellings *seyo, *se'o have not been recorded. It is then
probable that the co-existence of two possible alternative expressions of the
intervocalic glide, sehoj^sevo, has led to sehojsevha; and once this latter
alternation has been established, it is a simple matter for a scribe to produce
a more ‘learned’ spelling sebha.

§ 45. The distribution of the dental and retroflex nasals, as Konow demon­
strated,1 shows a consistent pattern to which there are very few exceptions
in the manuscript. Initially, («-) remains as n, while single intervocalic
-«-) both appear as n. The negative na is thus clcarly distinguished
from the enclitic pronoun na (P. vant: §67). Where historically a double
nasal is represented, whether original, as (-««-) in Sanskrit, or resulting
from assimilation, the retroflex group (nd > tw) remains as n, while in
general an original dental group appears as n:
1 See above, p . 5.
H
98 IN T R O D U C T IO N

ptna(ptnda) sana (sanda)

pamâa{pandita), hunala {kundala)
but
satsana (samsantta) nanadi {nandati)
mana (manda) pranodi (prâpnoti)

It is only in this last category that exceptions occur, inprakltamno (praskandin-),

where the retroflex may be due to a fancied etymological connexion with
kJiand-, and in the past participles of two verbs, da- and pad- The former
appears only once, in adtna, but the latter several times, always with n
pana-bhara, sabatio, sabama, samavama (samSpanna) , and this consistency
shows that the spelling is not a scribal error Konow tried to account for
these anomalies by saying that advna represented aditina, not adtnna (which
is of course no explanation, but merely a repetition of what the orthography
already tells us), and that in sabamo 'an anorganic r has been inserted before
nn, cerebralizmg the following nasal1 1 This would seem to be an inversion
of the process It is much more likely that the ‘anorganic r* was written merely
to emphasize the fact that the nasal was already retroflex, and this additional
warning m the spelling may have been used because [nn] was felt by the
writer to be unusual in a past participle
The most probable answer would seem to be that these two participles
did not exist in the dialect, and that the forms with the retroflex were
therefore taken over through the translation from a dialect in which the
development -««- > -fin- occurred (cf Pischel §§ 276, 566) This is to
some extent supported by the fact that the Niya documents have only the
participle m -ta for ‘given’, dita The form pa(r)nna-blwra (where Pah
has pama-bhSra) is also responsible for the astonishing corruptions in
MàhSvastu 111 315, 316 pümna-bhâra, and Lahtavistara 397 prajmkara2

§ 46 The development of nasal plus stop is virtually constant throughout

the manuscript, contrasting in this matter with the Niya documents, where
the same developments are indeed attested, but are more frequently disguised
by the retention of historical spellings The general pattern may be illustrated
by the dental series
(-«/-) > [-md-] iadi (ianti)
(-nth-) > [-mdh-] sadhava (P santhava, S samtava)
(-nâ-) > [-nn-] itnadi (vindati)
(-ndJh) > [-nnh-] gaiiava (gandharvd)
‘ AO m 1943 p 18 50 1) It should be added that ‘■kara for -bkara
Quoicd by Hetmer Smnh Les Deux although perhips assisted by the interpretation
rrosoditi du m b ¡xnuJdJnjue pp 38-39 (Bulletin of ponna as projet could easily have originated
e la Société Royale des Lettres de Lund 1949- from a graphic confusion of the two characters
 IN T R O D U C T I O N 99

No separate symbol was invented to express the nasal accompanied by aspira­

tion, and the diacritical stroke (§ 7) is not always written; but this is merely
the normal fate of diacritical marks, and it would hardly be legitimate to in­
fer that the scribe intended gam and gana (gandba) to convey two different
pronunciations for the word.
The labial series follows the same pattern, except that (-mbh-), which is
in any case rare, appears as -mm-: gammira (gambhira). The analogy of the
dentals and the occurrence of the same conjunct in brammana might tempt
us to revert to Leumann’s transcription of the conjunct as mb (§ 14); but
the palaeographical argument and the words brommi, sammasadi, where no
aspiration is involved, are decisive against this. As in the case of gana, the
absence of an indication in the orthography does not in itself prove that no
feature of aspiration was present in the pronunciation of a word such as
gammira; but the examples of Central Asian borrowings quoted by Bailey1
suggest that in Gandhari the aspiration in such positions was ultimately
lost, or at least was weak in comparison with Sanskrit.
For the velars^ the normal situation is represented by the following
examples:
(-nk-y.sagapa (sankalpa)
(-nkh-):saghara (P. sankfiara; S. samkdra)
{-ng-):saga (sanga)
(-7\gh-)-.sa$a (sangka).
For the nasal with the unaspirated voiced stop all the remaining vargas
regularly show assimilation: kuiiarn (kunjara); kunalcsu (Itmjdala-); nanadi
(naitdati); udwuarem (udmnbara-). It is therefore probable that the character
g, which is used in other KharosthT sources with the value [-/], and laicr
alternating with -y-, is used in the Dharmapada orthography as a symbol
for fo] (cf. §§ 4, 31). As in the case of the dentals, the aspirated counterpart
may be indicated by the superscript diacritic stroke (§ S); but here also
the diacritic is often omitted. i\7or is the manuscript consistent in the use
of g; but although the latter alternates with g and g for (-tig-) (§§ 10, io<i),
it occurs nowhere in the extant text in situations comparable to those which
it occupies in the inscriptions and die Niya documents. See also

§47. Similar developments are attested here and there in other dialccis:
Mg. antlalf (aitjali); Saur. Mg. mahanda (mahant-)\- P. uranimnna (/¡lamb-),
Channa (Chanda, Chandaka).* Such forms in Pair, as Liiders sfje^ied, urn:
100 IN T R O D U C T IO N

presumably taken over from a source-dialect of the Pali translation (and may
possibly belong to the dialect of the ‘Urkanon\ though this is as yet not
proved beyond possible doubt) In the Dharmapada, on the other hand, the
regularity of the system excludes any such explanation, and although the
inscriptions show very few traces of the changes in question,1 there is
further confirmation that the developments occurred within Gandhan from
the Niya documents gamdavo (gantavya), ckintda, chimmda (*chmdita) ~and
from numerous borrowed words m Khotanese samdusti (samtusti), punaunda
(punyavant-), vaysambata (upasampadd) ¿prana (pajna), manusrt (manjusri) *

§ 48 In the enclitic particle gu (-m khu) (§ 68) only the unaspirated stop is
attested The forms of the verb yuj- regularly have -j-, where the corre­
sponding Pali baseyuiija- might lead us to expect (see note on verse 238)
Apart from these, the few exceptions to the developments exemplified in
§ 46 suggest a sporadic weakening or loss of the nasal before voiced con­
sonants, under conditions asyetundeterrruned kummovamu, kubho (kumbha-),
sadana (samdana) , same-sabudha (samyak sambuddha) ,jabodana (jdmbunada)
A similar sporadic omission of anusvara in Khotanese could naturally be
independent of this, but it seems likely that a direct connexion is to be
recognized in instances such as samye-sabaudayas and jabiivana, beside
jambuna6 In the manuscript duduki (dundubhi) may be considered as less
than certain in the writing, but the form without the nasal might be sup­
ported by Khot daudube’svara, daudavesvera, beside the Sanskritic spelling
dundubhisvara7 (See also note on verse 2 3 5 )

§ 49 In addition to the examples noted in § 43 of -rfA- written for -d- <

-¿-), which are sufficiently systematic to allow the possibility that a feature
of pronunciation underlies them, there are a few instances of interchange
between the written signs for the aspirated and unaspirated stops, suggesting
the beginnings o f the loss of this distinction in the spoken language. In
some words both spellings are attested saradhi, saradi, dkunatha, dunadi,
tttsedhe, ntsedara, bhatsadi, hatsadi (§63), drugadi beside drugha, yatha,
yadha, yada Parallel with this last is akadaggadi (P akathamkathi) In
two consecutive verses sosa'ttha and dala'tiha appear as absolutives (-itta
see § 80, and note on verses 84, 85) In some places, therefore, the informa­
tion given by the spelling may be historically ambiguous sakhaca (P
sakkaccam, Khot sakaca8) may reflect only the same type of scribal vacilla-
1 U ** a v * B a ile y A sia M a jo r, n s u 19 5 1, p 28
C l B urrow , Language of the K hato tfht ♦S e e also p 50
Doaonentt §§ 45 46 » B a ile y B S O A S * p 908
K on ow S aha Studies (vocabulary) * B a jle y K hotanett Buddhist Texts p 15S
4 Bailey, BSOAS x, p 912
 IN T R O D U C T IO N xo,

tion as is seen in Niya uth.Ua (uddiiya), but it is not impossible that the aspirate
is inherited. I f so, the form znay be analogically induced by purasbiya (cf.
AMg. purekkhada beside purekada: Pischel § 345), or, as Iionow suggested,
may represent an older *satskrtya.1 Similarly, aheda'i may be connected with
the older root hid- rather than directly with the Pali chethayam.

§ 50. The three sibilants remain distinct, and are for the most part dis­
tributed as In Sanskrit. In the locative plural, however, -su has been taken
over in pajasu, and in feminines, as ktchastf, and by a similar process of
analogy the retroflex appears after secondary e < (aya) in royest. A few differ­
ences from Sanskrit can be attributed to assimilation: sasana (Khot. Haiana) ;
viipaia. The source-language of the translation is probably responsible for
nisedhe, nisedura; tasina beside tasa (with a corresponding doublet in Pali);
visada, if the word is to be connected with the root Iat- (see note on verse
82); soya {iayya), although related forms, sayana, sayadi, ie’adi, appear as
expected. The palatal is written in hiyi (siici) in only one occurrence of the
word, the normal spelling being suyi.
To account for the anomalous initial in saga (sanga), which also appears in
Khotanese,2Burrow suggested a connexion with a verbal root *sraj-, surviving
in Sanskrit only in thenounsrtf/-<garland’, and otherwise replaced by a'dialecti-
cal variant5saj-J It is naturally hardly possible either to prove or to disprove a
conjecture based onanisolated instancesuch as this;andalthough theraregroup
(sr) may have coincided with (¿r) > s (§ 57), only one example of this has been
observed within the dialect, manuvasiida. On the information at present avail­
able, therefore, it seems more probable that in saga the retroflex has been
generalized from common compounds such as manga, nihsanga, mrvhanga.*
In chada (s’abda) also we may see a sandhi-dltevmte; but since the word
occurs only once, it remains uncertain whether the form is due to the specific
context of the verse in question (37), or whether, like saga, it had become
the normal form of the word within the dialect. Cf. also P. chdpa, AMg.
ch&va (S. iava); cheppa (S. iepa).s

§51. Consonant groups, insofar as they undergo assimilation, follow in

general the lines of development familiar in other Middle Indian dialccts.
* C II it, p. cc. Cf. also P. -kltattum, AMg.
•i
Viutto (S.
-Itrlvah), and hybrid forms to m the
Mahdcastu, DHSD s.v. -krtca.
i Bailey, BSOAS xi, p. 776.
> Ibid. xii, p. 650.
4 Ibid. xiv, p . 429, quoting also Buddhist
Sanskrit encionsah (.Mvy. 5570).
* Pischcf § s i» ; Geiger §40. T he account
given by Pischel of these forms is hardly an
cxplnmtion. The '«pirated yihil.tnts1 involved
are invented only to exphrn if»-- situation. and
the argument is thus in effect circular. There
would seem to be still lc« justification for
sccJa'nc oa Indo-Furopem explanation of t!i:<
development Prakrit, (he alternation Vth
brine a commonplace feature of •.vn:d-junet:'r*n
in Snmlmt. (RV j . 2 .7 Ivr.al cit
102 IN T R O D U C T IO N

Many of those groups which are attested without assimilation, or with a

development different from that of other dialects, appear also elsewhere in
the manuscript with the assimilated form, and it is self-evident that the
latter is either due to the influence of the source-dialect, or else reflects a
real assimilation in Gandhan, in which case the alternative is merely a
spelling archaism While it is not always possible to decide with certainty
between the two alternatives, there can be little doubt that the genitive
singular m -asya, for example, belongs to the second type, since it is written
only a few times in the opening lines of the manuscript, after which the scnbe
has forgotten this affectation, and for the remainder of the text has settled
down to write -asa On the other hand, groups such as ir, pr, are reflected
in the modem Dardic languages, and there is therefore a fair presumption
that paymadu, payesidi, and similar forms, may have been affected by the
source-dialect In contrast, the distribution within the text suggests that
the tendency to assimilation was more marked in the case of the velars gr
is written once only, m gradhadi (where the r may not be historically justified
see note on verse 107), and although akrodhu appears twice, the assimilated
form kodha is frequent Familiarity with the correspondence between p<t~
of the source dialect and Gandhan pra- has occasionally led to the intrusion
of r as a ‘learned’ spelling, as in pruju (pujya), prodhu (P poso), prantna
(panina)

§ 52 h There are no examples of (ks) > ch, those which have been quoted
from time to time being due to Senart’s transcription of the two signs
indiscriminately as *ch’ The Kharosthi character transliterated ks is the
regular representation of earlier (ks), and in inherited words has been
observed in no other function (See also § 16 ) A few instances of kh < (ks)
are doubtless to be attributed to the source dialect The technical word
(bhiksu) normally appears as bhtkhu, although the vocative plural is written
bhtksavi, and the related verb as bhiksadi In the Niya documents the spelling
is regularly bhiksu, although in document 322 the word is written twice
as bhtghu
The occurrence of aveksa, aveksidi (apeks-) as well as aveha, anavehino,
suggests that the latter are also borrowed forms, with the simplification of
(kkh) to (kh) > h after the long vowel

§ 53. The frequency of tv for (tm) leaves no doubt that this is the regular
development for the dialect of the manuscript atva- is written throughout
for (atman ) except for one instance of the historical spelling atmanar and
one of apana
Parallel to this, (jot) > sv, but in the weaker position of the declensional
 IN T R O D U C T IO N I03

ending (-smin), except for the pronoun asvi, the text normally shows die
assimilated form, as in parasa (P. paramhi), or the historical spelling -jot-,
as in vanasma (P. -mim).
(s?n) remains unchanged in vesma; while rasvi may be taken to represent
the Middle Indian form seen in P. rasmi rather than a direct descendant
of S. rasmi.

§ 54. In the root (spr/z-) the development of (sp) coincides with that of
(sm): svihadi (P. piheti), sviha’o. In [spand-) and \sprs-), on the other hand,
the ph characteristic of other dialects appears: phatiana, phtsadi, phased.
It will be seen that in this matter Pali also shows a contrast, although a
different one, namely, between the unaspirated and aspirated initial, piheti,
phusatu

§ 55. (iv) appears as sv or s, both spellings being sometimes attested for the
same words: sadta (svacitta), saHgada (svayamkrta), beside svaghari; saga
beside svaga (svarga). For this last, the additional verse written on the outside
of the manuscript has sparga; but the spelling sp for {sv) does not occur
within the text itself.
(fa) is represented by sv in sasvada; b y # in vispasa, aspa-veka (asvamedha);
and by s in avalasa (abalasva), bhadrasti (bhadrdsva). A development parallel
to the second of these also appears with the retroflex sibilant in dispa, dispam
(P. disv&j disvanam , S. drstva).

§ 56. (sr) > f is well attested in other Gandhari sources also. In a few in­
stances the historic spelling is retained: sramana, but normally samana. In
ietha (srestha), on the other hand, the r is not written, and it would seem
that in this word the assimilation took place without the alteration of the
sibilant, in contrast to seho, sevha {sreyas-). it may be relevant to observe
here that in the older language the sequence s-s is rare in comparison with
S’ S, and that the common words visista, visesa, frequently carry a conno­
tation of ‘excellence’. Either or both of these factors may have assisted in
the conservation of the palatal initial in [¿esta]. This, however, can hardly
be more than a conjecture. A farther exception, solri'a (.irotriva), likewise
diverges in this respect from ctymologically related words, which show the
regular development, stida, siitva, or occasionally the historical spelling,
sramana (sravana), snidi.

§ 57. The evidence is scarcely sufficient to establish with ccrtziniy the

development of (sr) within die dialect. In two instances the group appears
as sr: visravadena (visravant-), sravadina (sravaniituim); and oncc as s, in
io4 IN T R O D U C T IO N

cmtmsuda (on ava snita) The related words sodu (srotas) and asava{tisrava),
being Buddhist technical terms, may have been taken over from the source
dialect, but anasrvu— where sr is doubtless to be interpreted as [sra]— and
sahasa (Ni>a sahasra) suggest that the retention of s was not foreign to the
dialect fo r sasaga (samsarga) it is possible to conjecture an intermediate
form such as *samtragga, but it is equally possible that the retroflex, in this
w ord is due only to a fancied etymological connexion with saga (sanga) (§ 50)
Smcc the manuscript is broken at this point, and the base of the final character
is missing, there is no means of telling whether the scribe did in fact write
sasaga or sasaga

§ 58 (r/) > J, in phasa (sparia), phusadi, satnmasadi (-mriah) In the denva*

m cs of (dri-), on the other hand, s appears only where Sanskrit also has s
dtspa (drstva, P disviT), dithi [disti] (drjii), but daiana, darSona.

§ 59 Oy) > ^ This is regular also m other Gandhari sources manuia

(1manusya), beside manusa (martusa) In the Dharmapada, however, the future
does not show this development, and where Aiokan and Niya have -1A1/1,
-tiadt, the forms attested here all show the retention of the retroflex
bhaitsadi, fa'tndt On the other hand, the palatalization takes place in the
passnc vtitiadi (-iisyate)
A further exception may be recogmzcd in pusa (beside which the
Sanskritic puspa is twice written), if we may assume that the assimilated
form represents S pusya An alternative explanation would admittedly be
possible puspa > *pusva >pussa, but in the absence of other examples
of (jp) m the dialcct, there is no means of confirmation In the modern
languages the palatal is widely attested 1 Waigali PQ$, DamcU pul, Torwah
palu, I’oshai puStk (nnd also pOspa) , but the retroflex is retained in Kalasha
pustit, Gawarbnti pusA The simpler hypothesis would thus seem to be that
this North-western forms represent pusya rather than puspa, and that those
with the retroflex show a sporadic (presumably dialectal) assimilation of
f) > ft without palatalization, as in the Dharmapada futures

1 60 The lustor) of the groups consisting of sibilant with dental and retro­
flex stops is to some extent complicated by problems of interpretation, of the
Klnro^h! signs m\oKcd, but it is \irtuallj certain that the group (st)
remained unissimilatcd, and it is \cr> probable that the same applies to
(f() If the latter supposition is m fact correct, the conventional transcrip­
tion //», which has been retimed in the present edition, should be replaced
' Set aim th* duCUHion in II^OS i p 41 for information conccmmg the modem Dard c
1 7 II. Turner lo «>tom I am ilto indebted form» quoted
 IN T R O D U C T IO N , 0J

throughout by st, and instead of ditha [drsta), ¿etha (ireslha), we should write
dista, ¿esta. See also § 18.

§ 61. (hy) > ¿ This is exemplified in aruiu (Srtdiya), vikaia {vigrhya), nigiia
(nigrhya), and probably samuéa (sammuhya: see note on verse 243). Of these,
only the first was accessible in the previously published facsimiles, where
the word was read aruyu, although Senart in a note suggested that -su might
be possible. Now that the other examples can be compared, the consonant
can be seen to be s rather than y. (On the graphic distinction between these,
see § 5.) This is confirmed by dajamaw {dahymana), where j is doubtless
to be understood as a notation for jz] (cf. § 6).

§ 62. The equation of Sanskrit fv with Gandhari dv rests upon the single
«ample vikada-dvara, where the Buddhist Sanskrit tradition has -jrara.
It is possible, however, that this is a reintcrpretation made by the translator
responsible for the Sanskrit version of the phrase. The Pali in this matter
is closer to the Prakrit, with vita-ddara. At the same time, it should be
observed that the modern languages preserve forms which point to dvñU
rather thanjW- in the verb ‘to bum’: see also note on verse 35, and R. L.
Turner, Nepali Dictionary, s.v. balnu.

§ 63. While (dv, iv) remain unchanged in the Dharmapada, with one excep­
tional occurrence of p instead of secondary tv in apatía- beside the regular
atvatia- (atinan- : § 53), the Niya documents show also the development of
these groups to labial stops, in words such as badaia (dvadasa), aipuriia
(calvawniat).1 The existence of these forms allows the possibility that Miat-
sadi, batsadi is the directly inherited verb representing (dhvamsaic), ami the
Pali parallel text has diiams- in both places where the word occur*. The form
could however equally well have been taken over at an earlier period troni
a Middle Indian bhamsati < (bhrauiiatc); and it is not imponible that the
Dharmapada form is a compromise between the two verbs of almost identical
meaning. The same consonant group persists in adhratm, udhva {Ordhva),
and is assimilated in dhaya (dkvaja).
 IN T R O D U C T IO N loy

the same half-verse, dhamacari is written in HO, and dhamayari in 328.

Formally, it might be possible to include under this head the treatment of
discussed in the preceding paragraph; for if a compound such as ud-ymm
has open juncture, then the disappearance of the d, which is in effect a word-
final consonant, is the regular Middle Indian development. The maintenance
of syllable length in uyyrna could then be seen as a compromise whereby
the compound remains a single syntactical word.
Comparable variations in the behaviour of compound words are familiar
enough in related languages,1 and it seeins unlikely that any method of
classification could be found which would provide a general explanation
to permit us to forecast whether a given compound would show open or
close juncture. In Pali, the feature shows itself in alternations such as
akodha-, akkodha-; and while some instances may be due to arbitrary
alterations in the course of scribal transmission, it is difficult to avoid the
impression that composers of verses in Middle Indian languages were
only too ready to see in this feature an excuse for a general licence which
made it much easier for the less skilful majority to meet the requirements
of their metres. We might therefore hesitate to see evidence here for the
real existence of alternatives in any given word in the spoken language,
except where the two types of juncture, as in the Dharmapada examples
listed, produce forms which are metrically equivalent. In classical Sanskrit,
it certainly seems to be the case that standard usage, at the time when the
Paijinean grammar was compiled, was ready to accept either alternative in
certain words, while in others one form was rigidly determined. It would
be expected that, as in other matters of junction (Vedic as opposed to
classical sandía, for example), usage might vary considerably according to
place and time.
A comparable pair of classes of compounds is readily recognizcd in
Sanskrit, where retroflexion in the second member can be used as a diagnostic
character: pürvahtiak, but duralmah, without option, whereas in other
examples the option may be permitted: mrapSnam, sorSpmam. In spite
of the struggle to reduce this complicated situation to a series of rules,: the
junction of upasargas seems to have been particularly resistant to systematic
formulation.

§ 66a. It seems probable that the curious discrepancy in the Dharmapada

between the indicative somajadi and the participle sobano (perhaps no
longer recognized as related) is a result of this type of variation in junction.
' Pischcl § 196. the adn ct piven to «e/iootíjoyr. in rlcrrcw ry
8 P'inini viii. 4. 1 IT. Many of the rules Were textbooks o f Latin, that ‘in '": n \ m f of riven
doubtless valid, but it may be suspected that and many n:nic< o f mrruntsin*. arc nweitline'.
some of them arc useful to the same extent as
10$ IN T R O D U C T IO N

The appearance of -n- in the participle suggests that this form was a literary
borrowing (§45), and the word can be taken as a close-junction form
(sampantia-), borrowed at a period early enough to allow for the subsequent
development of (mp) > b [mb] The indicative samajadt, on the other
hand, can be accounted for as an earlier open-junction form, sam-padyate,*
with a subsequent shift to close junction leading to the regular inter­
vocalic development of p > v, m *savajjadt On the writing of -tu­
tor -v- in nasalized contexts [v], see § 36
The word, however, is isolated in the text, and this explanation remains
conjectural A t first sight it might be thought that the evidence of other
verbs suggests a preference for close-junction forms with sam- where the
root initial is unvoiced, and open-junction where it is voiced But such a
distribution can hardly be maintained with reference to other verbal prefixes,
and words such as kubho,jabodana (§ 48), where the phonology is comparable,
but not the morphology, suggest that we might hesitate to classify oppositions
like sabaSu (sampaiyari) sabudha (sambuddha) as definite illustrations of the
contrast between the two types of juncture

§67 A number of particles and other words which may be classed as

enclitics (for convenience wntten separately in the transliterated text) form
with the preceding word a single unit which, phonologically, is m effect a
compound Here also both types of juncture are exemplified, although
the close juncture is considerably more frequent In some of the words in
question, only the latter occurs in the extant text for example, du (tu),
dt (P /i)
The enclitic pronoun of the second person singular appears in ki di
(ktrn te), m contrast to the nominative plural of the third person, te, and the
third person singular na (P nam), is regularly so mitten, while the negative
na alvajs has the dental initial

§ 68 A few enclitics show a characteristic variation in form according to the

presence or absence of a final nasal (*m) in the preceding word Thus, the
particle corresponding to Pali kho appears as hu, ho after a vocalic ending,
and as gu (not ghu, as might have been expected §§ 48, 49) after the (-«)
of the accusative singular 276 ya gu na prasahadt kudhu so hu raksadt
atvana Similarl), the Pali pi, 1 a after vowels are matched by vj, ta , while
1 In the \ edic linguagc u n K t l l k n m n « \e d ic forms Tlu> feature o f \e d ic grammar
compound \etb it treated as one nonl or as does at least give direct evidence for both types
twa under conditions which i n syntactically o f juncture but the reasons for the choice of
determined and it may be suggested that the one rather thin the other 1 4 * p 'e n verb in the
situation in the later lansuasrs is the result o f a post-\ edi« penod remains an open question.
Cmcrmlixstion of one or other of the two possible
 IN T R O D U C T IO N 109

bi, ba occur where the corresponding Pali has -m pi, -« va.1 It should be
noted, however, that the simple converse of this last proposition does not
hold; and it is hardly safe to argue that avahsa va 118 must be understood
as plural merely because the manuscript does not have ba here.2 In approxi­
mately one-fifth of the occurrences of va in the text, the Pali parallel version
has -m va, and it would be difficult to force throughout an interpretation
which would allow an accusative singular only where the manuscript has
ba. The phrase s'ela va in verse 218 is exactly parallel to rahiiha ba in 217;
and in 275 a plural rendering risks the transformation of the charioteer in
the simile into a circus-rider. Similarly, vi instead of bi appears in verse
237 mana-bhani vi (-bhanimpi; P. -bhaninampi).
jRather than apply here a rule of thumb, it is probably better to recognize
that, as with compounds, there was always a certain degree of fluctuation
between close-junction forms, with ‘internal sandhV, and open-juncuon,
where both components behave as separate words. Or otherwise expressed:
it is not remarkable that the non-nasalized vi, va, as the basic forms, should
sometimes spread by analogy.

§ 69. It has been generally accepted that it is convenient to separate the

Middle Indian descendants of Sanskrit punar into two lexical items, an
adverb, and a connective or adversative particle.3 For the latter, Paii normally
has pana; but the editions occasionally give puna in this sense, for example,
Sn. 677, 876 (noted in PTSD), and Dhp. 271 (= verse 65 of the Prakrit).
Geiger ignores these, and it is of course possible that the editors may be
wrong: in the three passages cited; pana is given as a manuscript variant.
But no variant was given by Fausboll for puna in Sn. 995, and there is at
least a suspicion that the distribution of the two forms between the two
grammatical functions may not have been as strictly determined as the
grammarian's statement implies.
In the present text, the adverb as well as the particle is capable of enclitic
behaviour. In contrast to 161 na punu, the close-junction form appears in
197 ttvavaja va mum, where the sense must also be ‘again’, as well as in
the unemphatic mana, warn (on m for v here, see § 36). This material is
' An apparent exception in 154 afo'imi ba although the argument in itself is thus in<uffi-
doubtless docs not «present directly a San- cicnt as proof, the conclusion is very probably
skritic plural -tint, but rather a Middle Indian correct in the contest of this particular veme,
-untm, where the nasal, from being simply a where a plural jrivcs a better balance with the
reflex in the neighbourhood of the preceding n, two preceding phrases which the simile illin-
has (so to speak) achieved potential consonantal irascs. T h e eorTtsjwndinff Pali ehalauan t-a
status. might therefore be added to the riim p lt? of
* Konow, A O x ii, 1943, p. j 8. On the basis 'accusative plurals tn collected by
o f our present information, it would seem that Beoiachiur.^m ubrr die S ; tc <!‘.c da bvdihitt*
¿•3here would have excluded the piursl, whereas uthrr. Urkaw.r, $5 v / rii* ).
ca allows the plural but does not compel it. But * Pisebcl f 342; Geiger f 34.
no IN T R O D U C T IO N

admittedly scanty, but, for what the observation is worth, it may be noted
that the forms with the vowel a in the first syllable both appear in contexts
of the type where Pali would normally have pana (although, as already
indicated, puna has become the vulgate reading of the Pali editions in the
verse corresponding to 65 mano) 1

§70 In virtue of its palatal initial, the commonest of the enclitic particles,
(ca) ‘and’, is capable of an almost bewildering variety of shapes It occurs
in at least eight different forms, and possibly as many as ten ca, ci, ja, jt,
ya, yi, 1, hi, and perhaps yu, yo For yut see § 25, and note on verse 12 It
is possible that yo in this sense might be justified under the heading of § 22,
but the palatal initial raises a doubt This form of the conjunction occurs
only twice, and in verse 208, where the reading is certain, the scnbe or
translator may ha\e construed it as the relative pronoun, while m 335 it
might be simply a miscopying for ya, or indeed a misreading of the over-
conscientious editor
The remaining forms fit without difficulty into the phonological pattern,
the main features of which have been described in the preceding pages The
normal close-junction forms are regular ya after vowels (§ 32), and ja after
(-m) (He > j § 46), and beside these appears the open-junction form ca1
(of, if we prefer, the older literary form reinstated) In all of these, the
palatalized \owel may be noted in the orthography (§ 22a), giving respec­
tively yt, j i , a The initial m yi, treated as a glide, may then be ignored in
the writing (§37), or expressed by h (§39), whence the forms 1 and hi
respects ely
As with the other enclitics, the voiced stop appears only where the
preceding word ends in -tn m the Pah version, but again the converse
relation does not hold 5 svagavaya ya, 42 valatra ya, in both of which
\erses the Pali has -am ca And a certain degree of arbitrariness may be
seen in 19 drtgha a rasajt, or in 146, where ye ya and jye ca occur in con­
secutive phrases, or in the antithesis between 207 pavaja and 2 0 8 puna ca
(In the last example, the word corresponds to Pah ce ‘if’, which— at least in
w nting—'has coincided m its forms w ith the representativ es of ca see indev )

§71 In addition to the fuller form n a beside za (as also in Pali), the
alternate c spelling tit a occasionally appears in the same sense In the
1 In the description o f pana as the enclitic represent a close ju n ctio n fo rm after « final
fo im o f fund ( V T S D an d D ® es Andersen s to p o f th e old er langu age fo r exam ple, tat <9
Pal RtaJer,
i C I m s u j) th e term enclitic is vrould b e exp ected to appear aa tata (and m *io
apparently used in quite a different aenseal a lte m a tn c m anner) B u t the text its e lf F ' «
though the rraJer i* left to guess « h a t that n o ju stification f o r a theory that su ch form s were
sen se m tk h tb e d irectly responsible fo r th e s u n iv a ] o f the
* 1 hofiolopca!!}, ta cou ld equ ally w e ll in itial in r a n
 IN T R O D U C T I O N nr

previously published part of the text, this occurred only after singular
accusatives: P. jinnam iva, puppham iva. Senart1 therefore assumed that
the Prakrit versions of these, jinaviva, pusaviva, showed the same change
as hhamana (bhavana)— admittedly in the contrary direction. This view has
been generally accepted by subsequent writers, who have sometimes written
jinav iva, pusav iva.
The replacement of intervocalic m by v [vj is familiar enough elsewhere
in the later period of Middle Indian, and it is not inconceivable that a similar
trend may have been involved here in some measure. But the situation in
the present text suggests that this was, at most, an adjutant factor. In the
case of the single intervocalic consonant, the contrary change of v > m, in
definite phonetic contexts, is common enough {§36); but except for this
one presumed contest (final -m before the particle iva), the weakening of
the labial contact resulting in the change m > v is not attested within the
text in single intervocalic position, and occurs only in conjunct groups:
im, stn> tv, sv (§ 53). These facts by themselves may not entirely forbid
the hypothesis; but they raise a serious doubt. And tlu's doubt is increased
by an instance in the new part of the test where the word follows a nominative
plural, 256 amara viva. Senart’s hypothesis may thus remain intact if we
think that the scribe or the translator might have conceived a nominative
plural masculine amaram. Rather than so contemn the standards of ancient
scholarship, we might prefer to agree that the alternate -viva (whatever its
earlier history) was fully enfranchised by the date of our text. Accordingly,
it seemed better to divide in the transcription pusa viva rather thanpusav iva.
The theory that viva is a simple descendant o f -in iva meets a more
formidable objection in the isolation of this phenomenon in the text. Not
only does intervocalic {in) remain undisturbed in the interior of words,
but final -in is retained in the writing quite frequently: some fifty-eight
times,2 if we exclude a few possible instances which arc doubtful in inter­
pretation or broken in the manuscript, in general, wherever -m remains
before an initial vowel, the corresponding Pali text also has -m (not ->;/),
and in most of these places this is necessary for the metre. (On the other
hand, in many other words where Pali has -m, no final consonant is written
in the Prakrit version.) Most of the instances o f viva also have parallels
in Pali with -m iva. From the point of view of Pali, therefore, the two
groups of instances form a single homogeneous set. But in the Prakrit text
the contrast between them is startling, and in die parts of the manuscript
available no single exception in either group has been observed. In b r ie f,
nt IN T R O D U C T IO N

wc have the rather odd situation that, before a word beginning with a \ovvel,
and under certain rhythmical conditions, final -m (but not -t>) may be
written,1 prodded that the second word is not iva, and, under similar
circumstances, if the second word is tta, -v may be written (but not -m)
This hardly encourages us to see here the operation of a simple sound-
change
Among the 58 instances of -m mentioned above, 7 are followed by eia,
and 6 by tda, giv ing a sample reasonably commensurate w ith the 14 instances
of in a These numbers are indeed not large, but are large enough to have
been well nigh irresistible to our senbe, whose delight is to display at each
chance his repertory of spelling-altematives 2 Had it been legitimate within
the language, he could scarcely within this compass have neglected to
instruct his readers that one may write not only jmawrrt, but also jinamtva,
or bay avtda, or nicaveta The fact that he did none of these things is as
good as proof that he was ready to consider viva as a word in its own nght
I Ica\e it to others to discuss the nature of the connexion between this word
and P ttya, Pr vta

§ 72 In two words the manuscript appears to present the anomaly of y for

(j) m the initial position in the word 1, 4 nayaca (ttajdtyd), 198 tta yaia’t
(P tta japaye) Since this is the normal intervocalic development of j , it
would be possible to bring about phonological conformity by the inter­
pretations nayaca, nayaia't, that is, the negative with the equivalents of
S djdtyd and ¿SjSpayet respectively But although the words Gjati- and
d~jt- are in themselves acceptable in sense, this solution leads to a rather
awkward breach of the metre in 198
Alternatively, the negative particle m these phrases may be described as
a proclitic, whereby normality is restored without the introduction of
variant readings w ith d- It must of course be recognized that such a designa­
tion merely classifies, and is not in itself an explanation The desirable
procedure would be to seek a correlation between occurrences of ‘proclitic
tta' and some contextual factor, but the instances are too fen to allow
more than a conjecture (See also note on \erse 1 ) A similar treatment
of j- is widely attested in the other Praknts in the verb ‘to know’ jSnOtni,
tta ittSmi * But the attntton of a formulaic phrase such as this is casil}
understood, and the literary examples here are certain]) not comparable ui
this rcspcct It may be added that the Dharmapada preserves the initial)’
in ita janadi (verses 43 , 243, 282)

1 There it • rathef Crtatcr chance that u will ctm inljr not • n « m * r y condition
b * 10 written If at le*»t one o f the word* 1 See the example« quoted in { tt
invoiTcd I* * panicle or » pronoun, but thii u * Pischcl f t 170,510
 IN T R O D U C T IO N „3

§ 73. In the "Vedic language, compounds of tie type dive-dive, tnast-masi,

are protected from misinterpretation by the pada-text and by die preserva­
tion of the written accent In later tests such fimr«frta-compounds have
frequently gone unrecognized, and Pali editions regularly separate the
components. The spellings in die present manuscript, masa-mase, masa-
masi, kkana-khani, suggest that these continued to function as compounds.
It is therefore probable that the method of printing in the Pali editions
is not. simply a less satisfactory option, but a definite error. In Dhp. 106,
239, where the editions give mdse mase, and khane khane, it would at least
be safer to print mase-mase, khaiie-khane.

Inflexion
§ 74. The text of the individual verses corresponds for the most part so
closely ■with the Pali that the two versions might be described more appro­
priately as word-for-word transpositions of their original rather than as
translations in the usual sense. We cannot of course tell how well or ill
these versions reflect the real languages, or to what extent contemporary
critics, had there been any such able to judge unbiassed by the religious
prestige of the verses, might have felt that the diction was stilted and loaded
with foreign turns of phrase. We can, however, see immediately that the
translation involved— whether it was done in one or more deliberate stages,
or simply happened through imperceptible gradations in different lines of
descent—is scarcely more than a mechanical transposition between the sound-
systems of the dialects. A detailed account of the morphology of the
Gandhari version would therefore be of little interest; but a few points
nevertheless are worthy of mention.

§ 75. a-stems. It has been suggested that the distinction between nominative
andaccusativesingular had already been lost at the time when the Dharmapada
manuscript was written, and examples were quoted of -0, -u, and -a used
apparently indifferently for nominative and accusative masculine and neuter.1
But to say that in this matter ‘there reigns complete confusion’ is an exagger­
ation. Samples taken at random from the text showed the following dis­
tribution of the three spellings:
-0 -u -a
Nom. sg. masc. 11S *9
Acc. sg. masc.
9? 107
4 35
Nom. sg. ncut. 6 23 7r
Acc. sg. neut. 4 45 S4
1 T . Burrow, BSOS viii, 1956, pp.
„4 in t r o d u c t io n

These figures suggest a very strong tendency for (-0) to be written as

-o or the choice between the two being virtually arbitrary,1 while -a
(i.e. the omission of the vowel-sign) is rare, appearing only in one example
in twelve. On the other hand (-am) is represented by both -a and -u, but
the former is two and a half times as frequent as the latter; and if we include
the very rare occurrences of -0 for (-am) as a variant for -u, the ratio of -a
to -uj-o is roughly 2:1. It will be seen that the ratio is almost identical for
the acc. sg. masc. and nom. sg. neut. (3:1), while the acc. sg. neut. has a
significantly higher rate for -u. To determine whether this is a matter of
linguistic significance would require a more thorough investigation, with
rather sharper statistical tools; but the figures listed above suggest that a
detailed examination of distributions of variants in spelling in these and
other grammatical forms might well produce interesting results.
It is at least certain that the forms in -0, -u, -a are not distributed at
random, as might have been expected if the scribe (or translator) had been
unaware of any difference between masculine and neuter, and between
nominative and accusative. But while these spellings are far from showing
a state of complete confusion, the minority spellings for a given case occur
sufficiently often to make it impossible to base an exegetical argument
simply upon the written form in any given instance. Masculine singular
nouns written with ~o have a very good probability of being nominative;
but in one instance out of forty they may be accusative. I f written with -u,
as many as one in four may turn out to be accusative.
In Dhp. 167 hmam dkammam na seveyya Luders* suggested that we
should recognize an acc. plural, and quoted in support the Uv., where
the phrase is rendered as hinan dharm&n. He considered that the Prakrit
version, with hina dharma 121, provided further confirmation; and similarly
in 127 bhavetha kuiala dhama, 'wo dkama nur die Pluralform sein kann’ ; to
which was added in a footnote, ‘die Form des Akk. Sing, ist dhamu'. These
assertions were based on insufficient data. It is very probable that in these
verses, and in many others quoted by Luders in the same chapter, the inter­
pretation as a plural is correct. But the Prakrit spelling dhama, while consistent
w ith a plural, can also represent a singular, and cannot therefore be quoted as
cvidcnce. The figures already cited suggest that in general the acc. singular
>\ith -a is roughly three times as frequent as that with *■«; and although

' In Mew of the nature o f the data, it 1»
hardly profitable to attempt to calculate the
•tatmical »'Cntficancc o f the »tightly g n tt tt
figure for The proportion* vur> considerably
»n different part* of the text, three o f the
»eetiMx* examined ihow ng ratio* of 11 17,34*
JJ. *«d 34 9 from 1K1» it can be teen that the
senbe’a practice varied from one pan o f the
text to another But for the text as a whole, it
1» t reasonable approximation to »ay that ( «
any gnen nominative singular m (-0), the
chances o f its being written -o or *u are equil.
» Becbatktungen Cher d,e Spracht dtt bitdSui'
Utehen Urkanons, §5 199, 200
 IN T R O D U C T IO N II5

this word diverges, and shows dhatnu approximately twice as often as

dhama for this case (perhaps in part due to the -m- : cf. § 25), it is impossible
to uphold the judgement that dhama can represent only the plural. There
are indeed some six or seven verses in the text where dhama is certainly,
or very probably, to be understood as an acc. plural; but in another six or
seven places, it is hardly possible to doubt that the same spelling is used
for an acc. singular.

§ 76. In the later period of Middle Indian, the nominative singular in -e

is so distinctively characteristic of Magadhi and Ardha-magadhl that it
has been customary to describe the occasional appearances of this feature
in Pali as ‘Magadhisms’ ;1 and these may well have been taken over un­
translated, if not from an ‘Urkanon’, at least from earlier versions of the
texts. The Aiokan inscriptions, except for the Gimar and Shahbazgarhi
versions, regularly have -e forms, and have been suspected of showing ia
this the influence of the Magadhan language of the Court, in which the
edicts were drafted, rather than authentic local forms,2 Such an explanation
seems reasonable for the more centrally placed versions; but it is hard to
believe that the man who, for the Mansehra version, found it desirable to
replace bkelighose by bherigho$e would have allowed -e to remain in his text
if it had been as foreign to him as bheti- apparently was. The post-Asokan
KharosthI inscriptions do in fact give ample evidence of nominatives in -e
as well as -0, and in view of the fairly extensive phonological adaptation of
the north-western versions, it seems likely that the Mansehra -e is a real
Gandhari form rather than a ‘Magadhism’.
The lata1inscriptions, however, attest ~e to west of the Indus, and -0 to
the east, with only sporadic exceptions.3 It would not be unexpected that
the river should mark a dialect boundary; but the curious fact that this
distribution reverses the Aiokan suggests that the contrast between the
two forms in Gandhari may have been less clear-cut than is suggested by
the writing (and suggested stiU more categorically by the transliteration).4
* Geiger § So. See also Ltklci?, op. at-, 4 So far as we can tell from the writing, the
§§ T- i ) vowel of the inflexional ending ultimately came
1 The classification o£ the Aiokan inscrip- to coincide with cither the o or the e (according
tinnal dialects under die headings ‘eastern’ and to period and dialect) which represent the older
‘western’ appears to be due chiefly to extrapola- diphthongs. This suggests the hypothesis ihar
tion from KngnigftV evidence of a much later at an earlier stage of Indo*Aryan, «he ending
period; and die distribution of -e/-o could might have been a vowel of mixed quality; a
hardly be as ¿»fining an iscgloss. On front rounded vowel [«:]. ora back unrounded
such a basis, we ™;ght be tempted to say that [»:]. Either of these qualities would be easily
tbe -whole sub-continent was 'eastern’» except understandable as a development from a rather
for the Kathiawar peninsula (Gimar) and the close central vowel [a:], winch would theoretic*
Peshawar district west of the Indus (Shahtoz- ally be expected as a sa/uRt^nriant beside •oh,
garhi). -as, [-ah, os], if the phonetic differentiation of
* Konow, CII ii, p. cxii. a, a [s, a:] had already taken place. If a diale«
„6 IN T R O D U C T IO N

§77 The Dharmapada shows a decided predominance o f -o forms, but

occasionally has -ej-t, corresponding to (-am) as well as to (-o) In the
vocative plural bhtksavt, where Pali has bhtkkhave as well as bhikkhavo, it
seems probable that the inflexion characteristic of an earlier version has
survived In words such as a't (ayarri), kta (krtyatn), katavi (kartavyam),
the ending may well have developed within the dialect, a similar palataliza­
tion of vowels being not infrequent in other positions in the word in com­
parable phonetic contexts (§ 22a) But in many places it would seem that
we have little more than faith to guide us if we attempt to decide whether
a given instance of -ej-t is a ‘Magadhan’ survival, or a Gandharl palatalization,
or an occasional intrusion of the Gandhari -e seen in some of the inscriptions
Thus, words such as ye in verse 258 (P yo), ktche in 263 (for both masculine
and neuter, P kiccho, -am)t and the present participlej’u/r (*yujyam ?P ynnjam
cf § 48), considered in isolation, could without difficulty be allocated to any of
these explanations But the last can be grouped with a few other participles
188 bhant (P bhanam), 81 viyitn (P vtcmam in Sn 5, but probably the same
original form was mistranslated elsewhere by the Pah optative mane see note
on verse 244) It is thus at least possible that such participles have survived
from -e forms of the originals of the verses in question Beside these, parti­
ciples in -of-u occur amisvaro, tcho, apaiu, dahu
Other examples for -e are 20 andkare (P anSgaro), 1 1 bramant (brah-
piano), and see also note on brahtdare, verse 1 Corresponding to P -am
bahtre (bdhiram) , 3 5 pan avare ca, 4 6 pune capave ca Occasionally the situa­
tion is ambiguous 55 Stiiiakarepravtthasafi sunnagaram) , and conversely 68
caradi lokti (P loke) In both of these, -e was doubtless an accusative singular
for the authors of the verses, but might well have been understood as a locative
by the redactors of the existing versions which retain the form In Sn 9, on
the other hand, the Pah locative loke seems to give the more likely sense,
while m the corresponding Prakrit 87 (if the fragment of the manuscript is
rightly restored to this place) the word has been replaced by the accusative loku

§ 78 -in stems In three instances in the text these appear to have been
transferred to an -1 declension 128 apramada-vihan'o (P vthSntto), 247
vaiama-kami’a (upasama-g&minam), and see also note on verse 176 can'u
Thtt ttUmonaV verse written on the outside of the manuscript (344) shows
the same feature in sparga-gamiyu (svarga gamtnah) The acc sg -kamt'a,
which otherwise might be taken as a textual variant (-gamtkam), is doubtless
formed on the analogy of the plurals C f also BHSG § 10 63
b id H ill preserved * n endin g su ch as [cc * , t o b e reasonably adequate notations (F or an
o r a ] « h t n it « a ) f ir a t reduced t o w n tin g there alternative conjecture o n th e developm ent o f
is n o inherent difficulty in supposing that citn er th e o variant in Sanskrit, «ee W S A llen ,
o f th e tw o signs o o r t , m ig h t h ave been fe lt Phonetics in A n ctm t India, p 68 n )
 IN T R O D U C T IO N n?

§ 79. The verbal system likewise presente little which requires special
comment The inflexional forms agree for the most part with those of the
corresponding Pali verses, differing only in respect of the divergent develop­
ments of the sound-systems of the w o dialects. Differences which go beyond
this are usually of 'die nature of variant readings; but here and there some­
thing more akin to translation may be involved, rather than merely textual
corruption. Fomas unfamiliar in the receiving dialect can be simply accepted
as part of the language of literature, but may sometimes be replaced bv others
better known in local usage. An example of the latter process may be seen
in the systematic manner in which the Prakrit text shows third person
singular optatives in -e’a (-eya) corresponding both to the Pali forms in
-eyya and to those in -etha: for example, in verse 11, prahare'a, viuje’a,
where the same verse in Pali has pahareyya, muncdha. Both types were
presumably living formations in the dialect on which the literary’ Pali was
based, or were at least sufficiently intelligible to be absorbed; while the
constant rejection in the Gandhari version of the -etha forms implies a
levelling in the verbal sj’stem in this respect.

§ 80. The absolutives in the text illustrate the contrasting situation where
a greater diversity of forms in the Prakrit version has probably arisen
subsequently. Corresponding to the three types vidilva, itpafiti, sosa'itha,
the Pali has only the single form -tva. The third type occurs only twice,
in two consecutive verses ($4 , 85) of the poem which in Pah* forms the
first section of the Sutta-nipata, and it seems probable that the form has
come through a version of the poem in a dialect which had -tita, and that
this has simply been taken over untranslated. The anomalous aspirate (§49)
may even suggest the possibility that the translator failed to understand the
syntax.
The 3.bsolutivein-iiisonlyshghtlymDreirequent:pramajcti (P.patvajjilca),
parivajeti, vpajiii (P. uppajjitzG), aseva’ili. But the form is attested within
the dialect both in the As'okan inscriptions1 and in the Niya documents,2
and the examples in the Dharmapada verses can thus be seen as definite
translations into the dialect. Since the form in -tza is frequent, and was
obviously generally acceptable in the literary language, it remains uncertain
u8 IN T R O D U C T IO N

whether the relatively few occurrences of -ti are more or less haphazard
encroachments of a form more generally in use in the spoken language, or
whether this had become the preferred form for certain specific verbs. The
former explanation is to some extent supported by the fact that brahetva
and bdhett (P. baketva) both occur in the text.

F o r ease o f com p arison b etw e en th e transliterated te x t an d th e m a n u scrip t, th e verses are

num bered serially, w it h sm all su p erscrip t figu res r e fe rrin g t o th e m a n u scrip t lin es a n d fragm ents,
w h ich a re also n um b ered s eria lly in th e p lates (A s fa r as v ers e 3 2 , th e tw o sets o f nu m b ers coin­
cid e ) F o r th e con verse reference, see C on cord an ce I . F o r th o se p arts o f th e te x t previously
p ublish ed , th e e arlier references (b y ‘leaves’ an d lines o f th e m a n u scrip t) are g iv e n a fte r th e verses,
th e equivalences b ein g :
A '= 12 8 -13 5 B - 4 4 -9 4
A »= 12 0 -12 7 C ~ - 3 0 1 -3 4 0
A ? = 10 6 -12 0 C w = 14 0 -18 1
A «= 9 7-10 5 O - 1-3 0

V erses w h ic h ca n n ot b e p ro ved t o b e con secu tive in th e orig in al te x t a r e sep arated b y a line.

In th e P rak rit te x t, g iv en in th e le ft-h an d colu m n , ita lic le tters in d ica te th a t p art o f th e akfara
in q uestion is m issin g, altho u gh th is d oes n o t n ecessarily m e an th a t d ie rea d in g is d ou b tfu l. In
a fe w places b rok en akfants h a v e b e e n allo w e d to s ta n d in rom a n ty p e w h ere en ou g h survives in
th e m anuscript t o ju s tify con fid ence in th e read ing Ita lic le tters m s q u a re b rack ets indicate
conjectural restorations o f w o rd s o r syllab les com p letely lo s t b ecau se o f th e b rea k in g o f die
m anuscript S u ch con jectures, h ow ev e r, h a v e b ee n m a d e rath e r sp a rin g ly, a n d in m o st places it has
seemed b etter m e rely t o in d icate lacu nae b y dots
In the right-hand colum n, e xcep t w h ere other texts are s p e cifica lly in d ica ted , s im p le num bers
before th e verses are those o f th e P a h D ham nupada, an d referen ces a fte r th e verses are to the
corresponding verses o f the UdSnavarga.
 D H A R M A PA D A
budha-varmasa samanasa
budhanadi-sardhavayarisa
id a dharma-padasa postaka
dharm uyanc likhida atañí.
I. BRAMMANA
1 na ja da’i na gotrena
na yaca bhodi bramano
y o du brahetva pavana
anu-thulani sarvaso
brahidarc va pavana
brammano di prarucadì. (r)
O. 2
2 ki di jada’i drumedha
kì di ayina-áaái’a
adara gahana kitva
bahirc parimajasL (2)
0 .3
3 yasa dharmo v i’ane’a
same-sabudha-deáida
sakhaca na namase’a
agi-hotra ba brammano. (3)
O.4
4 na yaca brammano bhodi
na trevija na àotri’a
na agi-parikirya’ì
udake oruhancna va. (4)
0 .5
5 purve-nivasa yo uvedi
svnga avaya ya pasadt
atha jadi-ksaya prato
abhiñíi-vosido munì, (5)
0.6
6 cdahi trihi vijahì
trcviju bhodi brammanu
vijncnnna-sabnmo
brammano di pravucadi. (6)
393 na jatàhi na gottena
na jacca hoti brahmano.
265 yo ca sameti papani
anum -thùllni sabbnso
samitattà hi pàpànarri
samano tí pavuccati.
267 yo dha puññam ca papam ca
blh etva brahmacariyava.
Üv. xxxiiì. 11 ; xi. 12
394 kim tc jatàhi dommcdha
kim te ajina-sStiyS
abbhantaram te g ahanani
bàhiram parimajjnsi.
rodti. $, 9
392 yamha dhammam vijàncyya
sammà-sambuddha-dcsitain
sakkaccam tarn namasscyya
aggi-huttam va brahmano.
sxn ii. 77 (R. 75)
Sn . 650 na jaccS brahmano hoti.
423 pubbc-nivàsam yo vedi
(Sam. i. 167) saggnpàynm ca passati
atho jati-kkhay.im patto
aI)hiñiiS*vosito mimi
sabba-vosita-vosiinam
tam nhnm briimi briihm.innm,
xxxiU. 57 (R .js )
Sam. i. 167 età}» Uhi vijjàln
tcvjjjo hoti bràbmnno
• vijjàcarana-sampnnno.
sxxiiì. s$ (R. 56)
 THE GÄNDH ÄRI DH ARM APADA

7 trih i vijahi sabam o S n 65606 tih i v y jä h i sam panno

áadu ksina-punarbhavu santo khlna-punabbhavo
asido sarva lokasya I t 9 7 asitam sabba-lokassa
brammano d i pravucadi (7)

8 tavena bram m a-yiryena T h g 6 3 1 , tapena brahm acanyena

sañamena damena ca S n 655 sarmamena dam ena ca
edena brammano bhodi etena brahm ano hoti
eda brammaña u tam u (8) etam brahm anam uttam am

9 china sodu parakamu Sam 1 49 chinda sotam parakkamma

kama pranuyu bramana käm e panuda brähmana
na apraha’i m u nì kama nappahaya m u n i käme
ekatvu adhikachadi (9) ekattam upapajjati

U v x i I chindh i srcrtah patäkram ya

käm äm pranuda brähmana
näprahäya m u m h kamän
ekatvam adhigacchati

10 china sodu parakamu 383 chinda sotam parakkamma

kam a pranuyu bramana käm e panuda brähmana
sagharana ksaya ñatva sankhàranam khayam ñatva
akadaño si bram m aña (10) akataññu si brahmana
O 11 xxxm 71 (R 69)
11 na brammanasa prahare’a 389 na brahm anassa pahareyya
nasa m uje’a bramani nassa m uñcetha brähmano
dhi bramanasa hadara d h i brahm anassa hantaram
tada v i dhi y o na m ujadi ( ix ) tato dhl y ’assa muñcati
O 12 xxxm 74 (B 7i)
12 madara pidara jatva 294 mätaram pitaram hantvá
rayana dvayu éotrt’ a räjäno dve ca khattiye
ratha sanayara* jatva rattham sänucaram hantvá
aniho yadi brammano (12) am gho y ä ti brähmano
O 13 2956 räjäno d ve ca sotthiye
xxxm 73 (R 70), xxix 24 (R 23, P 34)
13 rayana pradhamu jatva
pansa ja anadara
do§i sa-señaka jatva
aniho yadi brammano (13)
O 14
14 ja d a dva’e§u dharmesu 384 yadä d va je su dham mesu
parako bhodi brammano paragu hoti brähmano
athasa s a m sañoka ath’ assa sabbe sam yogá
astt.gachadi janada (14) attham -gacchanti janato
xxxm 83 (R 80)
 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R I D H A R M A FA D A
2 5 na brsmanasedina kiji bhodi 390 fn 2 bràhmagass' etad akìffd scvyo
y o n i nisedhe manasa pri'ani vada nisedho manaso piyehi
ya d o yado y=asa mano oivartadi ynto ra to hiuisamano m a tta ti
tado tado sam udim aha saca. (15) tato tato sammati-m-eva
0 . 16 dukkharo.

U v . 3s s 2L S 7 j i l ü r m l sdug pa las yid Idog pa

de hdrs bram ze mams la con zad
med
j i Ita j ì Itar de y i yid Idog pa
de Ita de Itar kun rdzob bden par
zad.

16 brahetva pavani brammano 38S bahita-pàpo ti brahmano

sama’irya ¿ramano di Tucadi samacariyä samano ti ruccati
parvahi’a atvano mala pabbäjayam attano malam
tasa parva’ido dl vucadi. (x6) tasmä pabbajito ti vuccati.
O .1 7 sì. 15 (T. 16)

17 na aho brammana bromi 396 na cäham brlhmartam brümi

yoneka-matra-sabhamu yonijam matti-saipbhavarp
bho-va’i namu so bhodi bho-vadi näma so hoti
sayi bhodi sakijano sace^ hoti sakificano
akijana anadana akincanain anädänam
tarn aho bro romana.1 (17) tam aham brüm i brahmanam.
O. tS TT-riii. iS (R. 17)

18 niha’i dana bhude§u 405 nidhaya dandam bhütesu

trasesu tbavaresu ca tasesu thävaresu ca
y o n a badi na ghadhedi yo na hanti na ghäteti
tarn aho bromi bramana. (iS) tam aham brümi farähmananj.
0 . 19 xsxxii. 47 (R. 45)

19 yo du drigha c i rasa ji 409 yo dha digham v a rassam vä

ano-thulu áuhasuhu anum-thülarn subhasubham
Ioki adina na adi’adi Ioke adinnam nädiyad
tarn aho brommi bramana. (19) tam aham brümi brähmanam.
O. 20 mein. 29 (R. sS)

20 yo du kama prahatvaria 415 yo dha käme pahatväna

a^akare parivaya anlgaro paribbaje
kama-bhoka-pariksina kama-bhava-parikkhlnam
tarn aho bromi bram ala. (20) tam aham brümi brahmanarp.
0. zi xxxiü. 46 (R. 44)

21 vari puskara-patre va 401 vàri pokkhara-patte va

arage-r-iva sarsava äragge-r-iva säsapo
yo na lipadi kamehi yo na lippati kümesu
tam ahu bromi brammana. (21) tam aham brümi brähmanarrt.
O . 22 xxxiii. 35 (R> 34)
i.e. brom i brammana. 1 S d . 6ao, und D hp. A . ed. t r .
 THE GÀNDH ÀRI DHARM APADA

22 akakaia vinam am 408 akakkasam vm ñap ánim 1

gira saca u dira'i giram saccam u diraye
ya i navisa i kajt yS ya nàbhisaje kam ci
tam ahu bromi brammana (22) tam aham bru m i brâhmanam
0 *3 xxxui 20 (R 19)

23 ja s y a ka'ena \a ya 1 391 yassa kàyen a vàcaya

manasa nasti drukida m anasa natth i dukkatam
savrudu tn h i (banchi sam vutam tih i {hàriehi
tam aho brom i brammana (23) tam aham b rü m i brâhmanam
0 24 xxxiii 19 (R 18)

24 v a ia d a \ arada c f 363 y o m ukha sanñato bhikkhu

mana bham anudhada m anta bh am anuddhato
artha dharm a ja deéedt attham dham m am ca dipett
tam aho brom i bram m ana (24) m adhuram tassa bhasitam
O 25 T h g 2, lo o ó a i upasanto uparato
m anta bh am anuddhato

25 vaáada varada
mana bham anudhada
utam atha anuprato 386cì/, 403 ed uttam attham anuppattam
tam aho brom i bram m ana (25) tam aham b ru m i brâhmanam
0 26

26 ja s ja rako ca doso ca 13, 165 yesam ràg o 03 doso ca

avija ca u r a ida avijjà c a viràjita
k$ina$avu arahada khlnàsavà arahanto
tam ahu brom i brammana (26) \10 cd khm asavam arahantam
O 27 tam aham b ru m i brâhmanam

27 p s j a rako ca doso ca 407ab yassa rògo ca doso ca

manu m alsu pravadido m ano m akkho ca patito
pana bhara visanutu 402CJ panna bh àram visam yuttam
tam ahu. bracai, bnm m ivo {1 7 ) tiTti ahiTn brSrrii bïïhîVÆTiim
O a8 zxxiu 49be (R 47)

28 a ls té a vadha baila ca 399 akkosam vad ha bandham ca

adujhu >0 tidiksadi adufjho j o titikkhatt
ksadi baia bataneka khanti balam ballm kam
tam ahu bromi brammana (28) tam aham brüm t brâhmanam
O 29 m m 21 (R 20)

29 avim dìiu u rud hesu 406 au ruddharp M m ddhcsu

ata dane«u m vudu atta dandesu mbbutarp
iudane<u anadana sâdâncsu anádlnarp
tam aho bromi brammana (29) tam aham brü m i brâhmanam
O 30 xzxiii 48 (R* 4®)
Sn 632
 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R I D H AR M A PA D A *23
30 y o idhcva prc’anadi 402 yo dukkhassa pajânâu
dukhasa ksaya atvano idhcva Idiayam attano
vipram utu visañutu panna-bhâram visamyuttani
tam abo brom i brammana. (30) tam aham brumi brâhtnnnarn.
O.31 xxxiti. 30 ah (R. 29) ; xxrîi. 3$eb (R. 33)
31 navajn’i navijapu xxxiii. 63 sdig can m am par mi sems ¿m
pavaka na vicida’i m i bsgom smra bar mi byed par
sadaiam atha-daàavi (hdug nas rdul bra! sems pa de)
tam aho bromi bramana. (31) bram ?.e yin par nas gsuïis ?o.
32 asatsitha ghahathchi 404 nsamsauham gahatthchi
anakorchi y=uha’i anâgârchi c’ûbhnynm
anova-sari apicha anoka-sârim appiccham
tam aho brommi brammana. (32) tam aham brümi brâhmarnm.
je a i« .S 3 (R . ; î )
33. a
33 aradi radi ca yo hitva 4180 hitvâ ratim ca aratim ca
sabrayano pradisvado T h g . 607d sampajâno patissato
sarva-bhava-pariksina 4150/ kiima-bhnva-pnrikkhînafn
tam alio brommi brammana. (33) tam nharp brünii brâhmanam.
xxxiii. 53« (R. 51)
«
3 4 yasa pure ya pacha ya 421 yas?a pure ca pacchâ ca
majjhc ca natlhi kiücanam
akiiicnnam anâdjnam
akijana anadana tam aham brûmi brâhmanam.
tam ahu brommi brammana. (34) xxxiii. 33C& fil. 3 :)
«}
35 yasa pari arare ca 385 yassa pârnm apâmm vâ
p a r a ................................. pânipiiram na vijjati
vitaddaram rôaiiiîuttnm
vikada-dvara visanota tam aham briimi brâlijnannrn.
tam aho brommi brammana. (35) X M iii. s;«!1*( I t.r C )
a. i6
3 6 chitvana paja samdarta
 TH E GÄNDH ÄRl DHARM APADA
«»
3 9 cnc-ja¿a kiia vira Sn 165 em-jangham kisam dhiram5
}9 appähäram alolupam
apahara alolubh|u
M 11 197 . appattham appa-kiccam
apafha apa-kica ji
tam ahu brommi brammana (39)
?o
4 0 akrodhu anuvayasam D u j 1 5 g akkodhano ah osi anupáyasa-
viprasana anavila bahu lo
« 4135 vippasannam anävilam
cadra ba vimali áudhu
413a candam va vimalam suddham
tam ahu bromi brammana (40)
xxxm 37 (R 36)

41 . ra d k r a (?) 422 usabham pavaram viram

h tijrdavino mahesim vijitävinam
arnha nadaka bu d hu
anejam nahatakam buddham
tam ahu bromi bramana. (41) Cam añam òrtìmi bcáhmsnam
xxxm 61 (R 59)
72
42 chetva nadhi valatra ya 398 ch e tv a nandhim varattam ca
sadana samadtkrammi sandánam sahanukkam am
42
uksita phali’a vira ukkh itta paligham buddham
tam aho brommi brammana (42) tam aham brü m i brähmanam
x x xm 69 (R 67)
«
4 3 yasagadinajanadt 420 yassa gatim na jananti
deva gañava-man . deva gaodhabba-mänusä
4J
tadhakadasa budhasa khinäsavam arahantam
tam ahu brommi bramana (43) tam aham b riimi brähmanam
z x x iu s s ( R 53)
M
4 4 yo cu di u\edi satvana 419 cutim yo \edi sattänam
410 44
vaxati ca |vi sa|rvaáo upapatUm ca sabbaso
budhu adima ¿anra asattam sugatam buddham
tam aho bromi bramana (44) tam aham brQmi brähmanam
B i 400c dantam antima-sánram
♦5 x z u u 5 9 ,43e (R 57»4 *)
4 5 akrodhu anuvayasa
vipramutu ptmarbhava
4$
budhu « d a mala dhira 261c sa \e \anta malo dhlro
tam aho bromi bramana (45)
D *
n
4 6 j o du puñe c a p a t e c i 412 ) o dha puññaro ca pápam ca
uhu *af*i uvaca’i ubho sangaip upaccagá
44
a?a£a Mraya budhu asokam virajam suddhaip
Um ahu bromi brunana (46) tam aham brGmi bnüimaiüip
B 3 xxxm 32.2jc(R 3». a*)

’ W tffow
 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R l DH ARM APADA 12$

4 7 ja ’i para-kada budhu 41421/ tinno para-gato jh âyï

jidaviafeadaggadi anejo akathamkathî.
47
pruju deva-manuéana S n . 527c deva-manussehi pùjiyo so.
xxxiii. 50 (R. 48)
tam ahu brom m i bramana. (47)
B.4
4 8 ja ’i para-kada budhu 286ab jhäyim virajara àslnam
kida-kica anasj*vu kata-feiccam anasavam.
xxxiii. 43ab (R. 41)
budhu daiabaloveda
tam ahu bromi bramana. (48)
B .S
99
4 9 gamm ira-prana m edhari 403 gambhîra-pannam m cdhlvim
4*1 maggàmaggassa kovìdain
margamargasa ko’i’a
*9 uttamatthsm anuppattam
utamu pravara vira tam aharp brumi brâhmanam.
tam ahu brommi bramana. (49)
B. 6 422a usabham pava ram vîram.
100 xxxiii. 44 (R. 42)
5 0 diva tavadi adicu
radi avha’i cadrimu 387 d iv i tapati Sdìcco
50 rattim àbhàti candimä
sanadhu kiajtri’o tavadi
sannaddho khattiyo tapati
ja ’i tavadi bram alo
jh âyï tapati brahmano
adha sarva aho-ratra
atha sabbam aho-rattim
budhu tavadi teyasa. (50)
buddho tapati tcjasà,
B. 7
xxxiii. 85, 86 (R. 82, 83)
(in margin) 20 20 io.
126
5 1 ka ena savrudo bhikhu
(tte)
atha vaya’i savrudo
si
xnanena savrudo bhikhu
s a n a druggade’o jahi ( i)
52 l a ’ena safiamu sadhu
sadhu vaya’i safiamu
manena sanamu sadhu
« sadhu sabbattha samvaro
sadhu savatra sanamu
sarvatra safiado bhikhu
s a n a dugadi’o jahi (2)
53 hasta-safiadu pada sanadu
\aya-safiadu saYudidri’o
si
ajatva*|rado samahido
cko sadustdo tam ahu bhikhu
54
IMmuhena sanado bhikhu
mana-bham anudhado
34
artha dhar|ma ci decedi
masuru tasa bhasida (4)
55 iunakarc pra\i{hasa
¿ada*cit»sa bhikhuno
ss
amanu?a radi) bhodi
sam i dharma \ ivaiadu
56 yado ja d o sammasadi
kanana udaka \a\a
a labhati plti-pàmojjam
lahadi pndi*|pramoju
amudu ta \ l’ansdu (6)
IO*
(563) ¿uiiakarc pra\j(hasa
iada-citasa bhikhuno
n
•m a'n tna n d i bhodi
u r n e dharma \ivaiadu
II. B H IK H U
234 kayen a sam vuta dhlra
atho vacàya sam vuta
manas2 sam vuta dhlra
te ve su p an sa m vu ti
Itiv 34 sabba d uggatiyo jahe
361 kayena sam varo sàdhu
sadhu vacàya samvaro
m anasà sam varo sàdhu
sabbattha sam vuto bhikkhu
sabba-dukkhà pam uccati
vu 7,M v us 4*3
362 hattha sarinata pada-sarinato
vacàya sannato safinatuttamo
ajjhatta-rato samàhito
eko sam tusito tam Shu bhikkhum
(3)
rrTn 8 ,M \ hi 423
B 10
363 y o m ukha-sannato bhikkhu
m anta-bhànj anuddhato
attham dham m am ca dipcti
madhuram tassa bhàsttam
vm IO(«Vili 8i)
373 sunnagaram pavifjhassa
santa-cittassa bhikkhuno
amànus! rat! hoti
sam mà dham m am «passato
(5) XXZ1I io
374 yato yato sammasati
kh and hlnam uda)a-bbayam
am atam tam vijanatarp
zxzìi it
n 13
(S)’
n 14
1 Vene ttp ttttd in «nor by thè *cnbt.
 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R l DH ARM APADA 127

57 pajagi’ena turi’ena Thg. 398 pañcañgikena turiyena

na radi bhodi tadisa □a rati hod tâdisî
58
ya\tha ’ibaga-citasa yatha ekagga-cittassa
same dharma vivaáadu. (7) samraä dhammam spassato,
B. is axri. 50

58 nastija 372 natthi jhänam a

praña nasti ajayado panna natthi ajjhayato
yasa jana ca praña ya yamhi jhänam ca pañña ca
59
so hu I nirvanasa sadi’i. (8) sa ve nibbâna-santikc.
xxxj'i. 25 (T. 30, R. 28)

no
59 tatra’i adì bhavadi 375 tatrayam id i bhavati
tadha prañasa bhikhuno idha paññassa bhikkJjuno
idri’a-goti saduthi indriya-gutti samtutthl
pradimukhe i . patimokkhc ca samvaro.
]ro. (9)
m ai. 26cd, z~ab (T. 31, 32, R. 29, 30)

60 mitra bhaye’a padiruva 375ef mitte bhajassu kalyanc

sudhayiva atadWdi suddhâjîvc atanditc
(479) 376abc patisanthäia-vuttysassa
padisadhara-gtitiesa
äcära-kusalo siya
ayara-kuáa . . .
112 tato pämojja-bahulo
tadu ayara-kuáalo 379d sukham bhikkhu vihâhisi.
suhu bhikhu vihaçisi. (10)
B. 18,19

61 salavhu nadimañe’a 365 saiäbham nátimaññcyya

nañcsa svjha’o si’a náññcsam pihayam care
añcsa sviha’o bhikhu aññcsam pilinyam bhikkhu
samadhi nadhikachadi. (11) samâdhim nadhiçaccîiati.

62 apa-Iabho du yo bhikhu 366 appn-làbho pi ce bhikkhu

salavhu nadimanadi s.ilûbîmm nâtîmaflnati
ta gu deva praáajadi tam ve dc\ü pmmsanti
áudhayivu atadrida. (12) Riiddhâjïum atanditnm,

63 kamaramu kama-nidu
kamu anuvicida’o
kam» anusvnro bhikhu
Ï4-7Ï
Mdhnrms panhayadi. (13)
 T H E G A N D H A R l D H A R M A PA D A

86 yo e casari' na prccasari Sn. 8 (?) yo naccasàri na paccasiiri

sart’a ’ ¡ita (?) . . . . sabbam accagnnü imam
so bhikhu jaha . ora-para papañcam
urako jina viva tvaya purana. (36) so bhikkhu, &c.
B .4 7
139
87 yo nccasari na precasari Sn. 9 yo naccasilrT na paccasliri
t34a
sabbam vitathatn idnm ti ñatvn
sarv u vid a d h am id a d i ñatva . |ku
139 Iokc
so bhikhu jahadi ora-para so bhikkhu, S:c.
urako jina viva tvaya purana. (37) rxxii. 57 (7Í. 56)
B. 48

88 yasa anoéc’a na sadi kcyi Sn. 14 yassànusayà na fanti kcci

oru akamana’i pracc’a i 15 orarp àgamanSya paccny."«c
so bhikhu jahadi ora-para 50 bhikkhu, &c.
urako jina viva tvayo purana. (38) « s ii. 77 (R .7 S )
B. 49

89 yasa vanase’a na sadi kcyi Sn . 1(3 yassa %*nnnthnjà na santi kcci

vinavana’u bhava’i hcdu-kapa vinibaníüiáyn bhavávn i¡c;u-
so bhikhu jahadi ora-para toppa
urako jina viva tvaya ptirnna. (39) so bhikkhu, ire.
B. 48, 50 socxii- 7 5 « (R . 7 J )

90 Sn. 17 yo nivnrane pahàya panca

anipho tinna-kathamtotho v is ito
. /i«fl-kadaka . riialfl
so bhikkhu. Scc.
so bhikhu jahadi ora-para
x a i i . 7 - ( R . 7«)
urako jina viva tvaya purana. (40)
(in margin) 20 20.
*3* T H f G Ä N D H Ä R l Dh ARM APAD A

132 apramada rada bhodha 327 appamäda-ratl hotha

sadhami supravedide sacittam anurakkhatha
drugha udhvaradha atvAtia duggä uddharath’ attänam
paga sana va kuña (23) panke sanno va kuñjato
A f5 IV s-¡cd(T a j) , xxxu 3

133 na 1 kalu pramadasa U v IV 13 näyam pram ada kälah syäd

aprati asava ksaye ■ipñpJAbsi Ses&fsrlxxçft
pramata duhu amedi pramattam niara anveti
siha ba mroya madi’a « 4 ) simham \ä [lie] mpga-matrka

134 na 1 pramada samayu

aprati asava-ksayi ¿ p atto äsava-kkJiayam
apramato ¿1 jayaau mpamatto ht j&äyanto
pranodi paiamu su] fcppoti vipulam sukham
' IV l i e d , T h g 884a / param aip

gazo 4 1
140 t h e GANDHARt d h a r m a p a d a
4M
138b kummovamu Vaya 40 kumbhupamam kayam imam
viditvá
nagaruparaam cittam idam
thapetva
yodhetha mararn panñavudhena
jitam ca rakkbe amvesano siya
________ o n 35
44«
138c sa[md\dfu Uv xxxi 51 (?) gan yid tin hdzin la dgah ba
de dag hdod pas rtse mi byed
gan zig cun zad gdun med pahi
skyob pa bde bar ñaj bar hgyur
447
138d samadhi muci . Uv xxxi 52 (?) gan yid tin hdzin la dgah ba
de dag hdod pas rise mi byed
gan zig cun zad gdun med pahi
thubpakye mahodgah barhgyur.

138e [ri]tena vajida (?)

yo dw v; pro, (?)

tayo (?)

[The remainder o f the chapter ts lost ]

IX. BALA
[Lest]
 TH E G A N D H A R l DH ARM APAD A

14 4 yam eva padhama radi Jat iy 494 yam ckarattim pathamam

gabbi vasadi manavo gabbhe vasati mSnavo
482 abbhutthito va sayati
aviíhidu |so vayadi
sa gaccham na nwattati.
so gachu na nivatadi (8)
C’ s

145 yasa radi vivasma J lt Vi 26 yassa ratyá viv&s&ne

ayu aparado si’ a ayum appataram BiyS
483 appodake va macchanam
apodake | va malsana
kim nu komarakam tahim
ki tesa u kumulana (9)

U v 1 33 yesam ratridivápáye
hy Syur alpataram bhavet
alpodake va matsyanam
ka n u tatra ratir bhavet

1 4 6 y e vrudha ye ya dahara Jat v i 57a y e ca vuddha y e ca dahara

ye ca majima-porosa y e ca m ajjhim a-ponsá
402 484 "Uv 1 xo ( T 8) ye ca vyddhá y e ca dahara
anupova [pra va ya ]d i
499 y e ca m adhyam a-purusah
p h a |la paka v a banana (10) anupürvam pravrajanti
phalam pakvam iv a bandhajüt

1 4 7 yadha phalana pakana Sn 576 phalánam iva pakkánam

m ee padanado bhayo pato patanato bhayam
emú jadasa macasa evam jatanam maccánam
nica marañado bhayo (11) meeam maranato bhayam
». « ( ? 9)

248 yadha nadi pravadi’a jSt vi 26 yathá vanvaho puro

raksa vahadi kulaya vahe rukkh’ üpakülaje
«mu jara ya mruca ya evam jaráya maranena
aya payedi pramna (12) vuyhante vata panino.
i3$c¿ evam jará ca maccu ca
ayu pácenti pámnam
1 15, i 7 « f ( T 13 ,15

149 yadha vi tadn vikadi Jat vi 26 yatha pi tante vítate

ya yed e\a odu opadi yam yad ev* Qpaviyati
apaka bhodi \otavi appakam hoU vetabbam
cHaranaseva sadi’i, (13) evam maccana jUrtam
C*io

* E d } á t jl) a r ¡t da>*.
 T H E G À N D H A R l D H AR M A PAD A
197
150 emam eva manusawa
[)’ì] y=atle sadi pranayo Sn. 201 v e c ’a n n c s a n ti p a n a v o .
:o7
ya ya i vivasadi (radi
197
mara|nascva sadi’i. (r4)
C 'ii
198
151 sadi cki na diradi JSt. }v. 127 sàyam ckc nn disfami
pradu ditho babo-jano pàio dittila bnliujjanà
pradu eki na diradi palo ckc na dissalili
sadi ditha baho-jano. (15) savain di'tUìà Iwlniijanà.
C ’ 12 i . ? ( T . 5)
¡99
152 taira ko vtépasi maco Jat. vi. 26 daharà pi Ili miranti
4S9 nani ca ruba nàriyo
daharo si di jividji
195 tattha ko vis^asc pa-o
d.iha[ra vi miyndi daharo militi jivitc.
nata nari ca ckada. (16) i S ( T . (.)
C’
»3

153 ayircna vada’i kayu 41 acirnrn vai’ ayam kùyn

490. «oo'.jio patlinvini adliijcs'ati
padha’i N'ari éa’isidi
500 ’ i» chuddhn npcta-viùfiàno
tuchu (ijt'fi/icda-vifiaria ninmliani va knlin^.imrji.
niratiia ba kadigara. (17)
CTi4
154 jiiniiwmjrii avathani 149(7/1 y.ln1 ¡mani apatjJi.Tni
nl'piìncvn ;.'r.idc
ala’tini ba ¡sarnda

ii7g}i,T-''i7rfw[n/ .Mirini
tsni dispani ka radi. (iS)
C ’ :s
144 TH E G AN D H AR l D H ARM APADA

1 5 6 ín u n a p ud i-k a’ena TherI 140 ímina püti-kayena

adurena p ravhaguna áturena pabhanguná
m casuha-v ym ena
566
ja ra-d h a m en a sa[vaáu
203o
m m efdha p aram a áodhi Tfig 32 mmmissam paramam santim
yoka-ksem u an u tara ( 20) yogakkhemam anuttaram
C'17 > 37
205
1 5 7 im m a p ud i-ka’ena
vidvarena . .
494
m caáu ha-vijm ena
jara*d h am en a savaáu
205
mm|edha p aram a áodhi
yoka-ksem u anu tara ( 21)
C Ti8
206
1 5 8 ím m a puch-ka’ena U v. 1. 36 kim anena áamena
viáravadena pudm a sravatá pütina sada
m caáuha-vyinena nityam rogabhibhütena
495 jará marana-bhiruni
jara-d h ajm en a savaáu
m m ed ha p aram a áodhi
206
yoka ksem a |anutara ( 22)
C?i9
208
1 5 9 ayara jiyam anena T h g 32 ajaram jlraraanena
daiam anena nivrudi tappamanena mbbutim
495 nunmissam paramam sanüm
m m edha [param a áodhi
yogakkhemam anuttaram
yoka-ksem u anu tara ( 23)
C'zo
210
1 6 0 j\yadi h\ raya-r&dha e u citia 151 jiranti -ve rája-ratha suertta
adha á a n n b i ja ra uvedi atho sariram pi jaram upeti
497 satam ca dhammo na jaram upeü
sada du dharm a n a |jara uvedi
sio santo ha ve sabbhi pavedayaoti
sad oh isasab h ip rav eray a| d j (24) 1 28
C*ai
211
16 1 m uju p ura m u ju pachadu 348 muñea puré muñea pacchato
m ajadu m u ju bha\ asa parako majjhe muñea bhavassa páragü
s a n a tn i vmuta-monzso sabbattha vimutta manaso
311 441 4 n
na punu ja d t-ja ra uvehis* ( 25) na punam jíti-jaram upeñisf
x a x 66 (T . 66)
C ’ 22

ga 20 4 1.
 145
XI. SUHA

162 aroga parama Iabha 204 ürogyaparamü láMw

saduthi parama dhana sam:u;thip.if2mam dhanam
vaápaáa* parama mitra vissasaparamá fiati
nivana paramo suha. (1) nibbanam pnramam pjfchnni.

163 . Aitsa parama roka 203 jigacchH parama roja

213
saghara parama duba famkhará parama du!:h;T
cda ñatv*a yadha-bhwdu ctam fiatva yatha-bliútam
nivana paramo suha. (2) nibbanam panimam sukhatn.

4J6 J0¡
164 . tra-suha-parica’i 290 mstta-suklin-pariecáirü
y o pasi v iru lu suha] passc cc viptilam sukham
214
eajc mattñ-<iik!i.im dhíro
c ayi matra-suha dhiro
sampassam vimilnm sukhani.
sabaiu viru la suha. (3)
rxx. 30 <R. 3s)
2IJ.4S7 ;o j
165 . h a 'i vada ¡jivamu 199 susukham vat.i jivjm .i
u^itkcíu ami^'u!;.*!
wsju'csu anusu'n
usMikcttl m anu^cni
íisi/’esii maniiícsu
viharamu anusu'a. (4)
3
viharáma anir*u!: .

166 sulia'i vada jivam u 197 suMikham v,ua y.

vcmncsu nvcrnnn ¡ verme mi a v e r ia
verincíu mnnu’ ■
vcrancsu mr.'nuícsu
vih.ir.1ma avrrifn
vili.imrmi avcrana. (5)

167 stihn’ i . . jivamu

I;ijanc<u nkijann
kijanc<u m am i.fu
v/Ti.iramtt akijann. (6)
C'.-T
 T H E G À N D H À R I D H AR M A PA D A i4 7

176 fida-saghada^cari’u 207 bSIa-sangata-ciri hi

drigham adhvana éoyisu digham addhàna socati
226
dukhu balehi iajvasu dukkho balehi samvàso
amitteneva sabbada
amitrehi va savrasi.
sie dhiro ca sukha-sarpvàso
. ra dii suha-savasa natlnam va samagamo.
nadihi va samakamo. (15) xxx. 26 (T. 27 and 28ed)\cf. alio xxv. 24
C 7 38,39
jia ( t 227
177 dhira hi prafia i ¡bhaye’a pariido 208 dhiram ca pannam ca bahussu-
dhoreka-lila vadarnada ari’a tam ca
519 dhorayha-sìlam vatavantam
. icdiéa sapurusa sumedha
ariyam
bhaye'a naksatra-patha va
tam tadisam sappurisam sume-
cadrimu. (16)
dham
bhajetha nakkhatta-patbam va
candìma.
xxv. 25

ra|dhe’aro va J lt. iv. 172 rathakiro va cammassa

parikica uvahana parikantam upahanam
225 520 yam yam cajati kàmanam
ya ¡ya jahadi kamana
tam tam sampajjatc sukham
ta ta samajadi suha
229 sabbam ca sukham iecheyya
sarva ca suhu jichi’a sabbc kame pariccaje.
sarva kama parica’i. (17) iì. 1 1 ,1 20b

179 p a ..............................ijen a 291 para-dukkhOpadhàncna

\yo atvaìna su . teha . yo attano sukham icchatì
¡21 ' 230 vcra-samsagga-samsattho
. ra-sa?aga . [t]rìfha
vera so na ppamuccati.
so duha na parimucadì. (18)

180 jaya vera prasahadi 201 jayam vcram pasavatf

dukhu éayadi parayidu dukkham seti parafilo
uvaladu sohu éayadi upasanto sukham seti
hitva jaya-paraya’o. (ig) hitvà jaya-parajayajp.
sxx. r ; AvS. i, 57
2J3
181 anica vada saghara D . ii. 157, &c. anicca vaia sarpkhàrà
io* uppàda-vajM'dhammino
upada-vaya-dharmino
uppajjit\'à nirujjhanti
upajiti nirujadi tcsnm vùpasnmo sukho.
tc?a uvaéamo suho. (20)
 T H E G À N D H À R l D H AR M A PA D A
avradu ali’ a bhani
ss
icba-loha-sa|mavamo
samano k i bhavisadi. (7)
ls y . . . . va pavam
ta vìnu Iramana vidu
87
samadhare va pa[t-a]ni
¿ramano di pravucadi. (8)
236 15
190 baho bi ìda sahida bhasajmana
na takaru bhodi naru pramatu
86
govo va ga’u gana['u paresa
na bhakava §amanathasa bfaodi.
(9)
191 apa b i ida sah
a«
dhamasa bhod* anudha»iacari
anuvadianu id ha va horo va
so bhakava samanathasa bhodi.
(IO)
192 aoikasayu kasaya
yo vastra parihasidi
avedu dama-soraca
na so kasaya arahadi. (11)
193 yo du vada-kasayu
silcsu susamahidu
uvcdu dama-soraca
so du kasaya arahadi. (12)
194 yu* mctra bhavayadi
apramana nirovadhi
tanu sanovano bhodi
pasadu vadhì-saksaya. (13)
195 cka b ì ya prana adutha-citu
mctrayadi kusata tcna bhodi
san e ya prana manasanu’abadi
prahona ari'a prakarodi punu.
(■
4)
264 na mimdakena samano
abbato aiikam bhanam
iccha-Iobha-samàpanno
samano kitn bhavissad.
265 yo ca sameti pàpàni
aijuin-tiiQlani sabbaso
sarai tatta hi pàpànam
samano ti pavuccati.
s i. 14
19 bahum p i ce sahitam bhàsamano
na takkaro hoti naro pamatto
gopo va gflvo ganajrajp paresam
na b h lg a v l sàmanriassa hoti.
ÌV. 22
20 appam p i ce sahitam bhàsamano
dhammassa hot! anudhammacàrì
ragamcadosam ca pahayamoham
sammappajàno suvimuttacitto
anupàdiyano idha va huram
sa bhàgavà sàmafinassa hoti.
9 anikkasavo klsàvam
y o vattham paridahessati
apeto dama-saccena
na so kasivam arahati.
10 yo ca vanta-kasàv’ assa
silcsu susamahito
upcto dama-saccena
sa ve kasavam arahadi.
A ng. iv. 150 yo ca mettam bhavayatì
appamanam patissato
tanu sannojana homi
passato upadhi*kkhavam.
A n g. iv. 151 ckam pi ce pànam adutthacitto
m e tta g li kusali tcna hoti
sabbe va pane manas-jnufcampi
pahutam arìvo pakaroti puniiam.
r o i . 47
 XIII. Y A M A K A
20 1 mano-puvagam a dhama 1 mano-pubbangamà dhammà
mano-setha mano-java mano-settha mano-mayà
manasa hi pradutheaa manasa ce padutthena
bhasadi' karodi va bhàsati va karoti va
tado na duhu amedi tato natn dukkham anveti
cako va vahane pathi. (i) cakkam va vahato padam.
x xxi. 23

20 2 mano-puvagama dhama 2 mano-pubbangamà dhammà

mano-setha mano-java mano-settha mano-mayà
manasa hi prasanena manasa ce pasannena
bhasadi va karodi va bhasati va karoti va
tado na suhu amedi tato nam sukham anveti
chaya va anukamini. (2) chaya va anapàyinl.

203 pava ma kada di s'oyadi 17 idha tappati pecca tappati

bhuyu soyadi drugadi gado papakari ubhayatdia tappati
so soyadi so vihañadi papam me katam ti tappati
dispa kamu kiiitha atvano. (3) bliiyyo tappati duggatim gato.
xjrviii. 34 (R . 37)

204 puña m a kida di nanadi 18 idha nandati pecca nandati

bhuyu nanadi sugadi gado kata-punno ubhayattha nandati
so nanadi so pramodadi punnam me katam ti nandati
dispa kamu viàudhu atvano. (4) bhiyyo nandati suggatim gato.
xxviii. 36 (R. 39)

205 idha soyadi preca áoyadi 15 idha socati pecca socati

pava-kamu duhayatra áoyadi pàpa-kàri ubhayattha socati
so soyadi so vihañadi so socati so vihannatì
dispa kam u kiiitha atvano. (5) disva kamma-kilittham aitano.
xxviii. 30 (R. 33)

206 idha nanadi preca nanadi 16 idha modati pecca modali

puña-kamo duhayatra nanadi kata-puñño ubhayattha modati
so nanadi so pramodadi sa modali sa pamodnti
dispa kamu viàudhu atvano. (6) disva kamma-visuddhim attano.
xxviii. 32 (R. 35)

207 pava ja purusu kuya 117 pápañ ce puriso kayira

na na kuya punapunu na tam kayirà punappunam
na tasa chana kuvi’a na tamiii chandam kayiratha
dukhu pavasa ayayu. (7) dukkho papassa uccayo.

1 Read bhasadi va.

 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R I D H AR M A PAD A

2 1 5 ¿am y 3 11 fcuso yathä duggahito

hasta anuvikatadi hattbam evanukantatí
a droparamutho samaññam dupparämatthaxn
a uvakadhadi. (15) nlrayaya upakaddhati.
U v . s i. 4 ¿aro yathâ durgrhito
hastam eväpakrntati
srämanyam dusparìimrstain
narakän upakarsati.

216 áani yadha sugahido U v . xi. 5 saro yathâ sugrhíto

hasta nanuvikatadi na hastam apakrntati1
samaña suparamutho srämanyam suparämrstam
sukadisu vakadhadi. (16) nirränasyaiva säntikc.

217 suhanupasi viharadu 7 subhanupassiip viharantam

idri’esu asavudu indriyesu asamvutam
bhoyanasa amatraño bhojanamhi amattaññum
kusidu hina-viryava kusítam hína-víriyam
ta gu prasahadi raku tam ve pasahati maro
vadu rakhksa ba drubala. (17) v ito rukkham va dubbalam.
sxix. 15

218 asuhanupasi viharadu 8 asubhünupassim viharantam

idri’esu sisavudu indriycsu susamvutam
bhoyanasa ya matraño bhojanamhi ca mattaññum
çadhu aradha-viryava saddham âraddha-vîriyam
ta gu na prasahadi raku tam ve na ppasahati maro
vadu sela va parvada. (18) v ito selam va pabbatam.
KXLT. l6

219 yadha akara druchana 13 yathä agäram ducchannam

vuthi samadibhinadi vutthi samativijjhati
emú araksida cata cvam abhävitam cittarp
raku samadibhinadi. (19) rägo samathijjhati.

220 yadha akara suchana 14 yathä agäram succhannam

vuthi na samadibhinadi vutthi na samativijjhati
emu suraksida cita cvatp subhävitam cîttam
raku na samadibhinadi. (20) rägo na samativijjhati.

2 2 1 sujivu ahiri’cna 244 sujivam ahirikcna

kaya-surina dhaksina käka-sürena dhamsinä
prakhanino prakabhiria pakkhandina pagnbblicna
sagilithena jadupa. (21) samkiiiuhcna jiviwm.
 [XIV. P A L P I T A ]

2 2 4 dham a-pridi suhu sayadi 79 dhamma-plti sukham seti

viprasanena cedaso vippasaimena cetasà
ari’a-pravedidi dharmi ariya-ppavedite dhamme
sada ramadi panidu. (i) sada ramati pandito.

225 yatha v i rada ganuniro 82 yatha pi rahado gambhiro

viprasano anavilo vippasanno anavilo
emù dhamu sunitvana evam dhammani sutvlna
viprasidadi panida. (2) vippasldanti pandita.
xvii. 11 (T. 9)

226 sarvatra ya sapurusa vivedi 83 sabbattha ve sappurisà vajanti

na bama-kama lavayadi dhira na kama-kama lapayanti santo
suhena phutha adhava duhena sukhena phutthaathavà dukhena
na ucavaya panida dasayadi. (3) na uccavacam pandita dassayanti.
«c s. 52 (T . 5 3 )

227 atmanam eva pradhamu 158 attanam eva pathamam

pradiruri nivesa’i patirùpe nivesaye
tadani anusase’a ath’ aniiam anusàseyya
na kilise’a panidu. (4) na kilisseyya pandito.
xxiii. 6

228 asadhehi kradavehi T h g . 1018 pisuncna ca kodhanena (ca)

phisunehi vivhuda-nanahi maccharina ca vibhGti-nandina
sakha na kari’a panido sakhitam na karcyya pandito
sagadi kavurusehi paviya. (5) papo kapurisena samgamo.

U v . xxv. 1 dad pa med cin hjuiis pa dan

dbyen bycd phra ma can dag dan
mkhas pas bscs par mi bya ¿in
sdig can mi dan hgrogs mi bya.

229 sadhehi ya pesalchi ya T h g . 1019 saddhena ca pesalcna ca

èilasaàz y i bahosudehi ya panfiavatà bahussutcna ca
sakha kuNÌ’a panido sakhitam hi karcyya pandito
sagadi sapuruschi bhadi’a. (6) bhaddo sappuriscna samgamo.

U v. xxv. 2 dad Idan sfi3n par smra ba dan

thos mari tshul khrims Idan pa
daii
mkhas pa vis ni mdzah bya ¿in
mi mchog dag dan hgrogs par
bva.
 IS 7
T H E G A N D H Á R l D H A R M A PA D A

237 poranam ida adura 227 poranam etam atula

na ida ajetana iva ríetam ajjatanlm iva
ninadí tufi-bhaveaa nindanti tunhim asinarn
ninaHi baho-bhanino nindanti bahu-bháninam
mana-bhani v i nimdi mita-bháoinam pi nindanti
nasti loki aninfa. (14) natthi loke anindito.

225 45 (P- 55»T. 49)

238 prasaja sasvada nasti
nina nica na vijadi

na sammijadi panida. (15)

239 selu yadha eka-khano 81 selo yathá eka-ghano

vadena na s vatena na samlraü
emú mna-prasajasu evam ninda-pasamsasu
na sammijadi panida. (16) na sanññjanti pandita.
xxk- 49 (P- 59»T . 53)
240 ehada ninido prodhu 228 na cahu na ca bhavissati
ekada ji praáajidu na c'etarahi vijjati
□a i aha na i bhesida ekantam nindito poso
na yi edarahi vijadi (17) ckantam va pasamsito.
x x ú . 46 (P. 56, T . 50)
288
241 yo nu ho viña prasajadi 229 yañ ce viññü pasamsanu
anu’ija ¿uha¿uhu anuvicca suve suvc
achidra-vuti medhavi acchidda-vuttim medhñvirp
praña-áüa-samahida (iS) parma-siia-sarriahitám

242 níkhu jaboáanaseva 230 nekkham jambonadasseva

ko ija nintdu arahadi ko tam ninditum arahati
deva mí ^a praáajadi devá pi nam pasamsanti
bramona vi praáajidu. (19) brahmuna pi pasamsito.
c. 47, 48 (P. 57. 58, T . 52); xxii. locd (P. 11)

ga 10 4 4 x.
 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R I D H A R M A PA D A

251 yadha akara suchana U v . xxii. 3 ji Itar khyim ni legs g ’yogs pa

pravisi tam asam udu m un pa khebs pahi nañ ¿ugs na
vijamana v i ruvesu gzugs mams yod par gyu rkyan ni
cakhksuma v i na pas'adi (9) m ig Idan báin du mi mthoñ ba
308
25 2 emam eva id h = e k acu de bzin hdi na rigs skyes pahi
jadim a v i ca yo naro m i ni blo gros ldan gyur kyañ
asutva na v i’anadi sdig pa dañ ni dge bahí chos
dhama dhama1 kalana-pavaka. ma thos par du ses m i hgyur.
(10)

253 pradivcna nu2 ruvani raig Idan mar me yod pa yis

yadha paáadi cakhksuma gzugs m am s mthoii ba j i Ita bar
emu sutva v i’anadi de bzin dge dah sdig pahi chos
dhama kalana-pavaka. (11) thos pas m am par ses par hgyur.
Jàt. v. 493 sutvà dhammam vijananti
nara kalyana-pàpakam.

25 4 susuda suda-vadhana T h g . 141 sussusà suta-vaddhanl

suda prañaya vadhadi sutam paiinaya vaddhanarn
praña artha viáodhedi pannaya attham jànàti
artha sudho suhava’u. (12) nàto attho sukhàvaho.
311
255 so artha-Iadhu medhavi T h g . 740, 746 so atthava so dhammattho.
praña-áila-samaiiidu D hp. 229d pannl-sìla-samahitam.
suda-dhamu suyi-draksu Jàt. vi. 296 appamatto suci dakkho.
panodi paramu suhu. (13) T h g . 884^ pappoti paramani sukham.
(C f. also T h g . 7406 so dakkho so vicakkhano.)

256 nica hi avi’anada U v . xxii. 2 byis pa mi mkhas pa dag ni

caradi amara viva hchi ba med pa Ita bur spyod
sadhama du v i’anada mkhas pa datn pahi chos dag la
aduraseva áadvari. (14) mtshan mohi nad pa bzin da

257 kim anatra asamanadha U v. xiv. 4 anyatra ¿ravanàd asya

dhamaseva adasane saddharmasyävijünakäh
eva apasa jividi äyusy evam paritte hi
vera kuyadi kena’i. (15) vairam kurvanti kenacit.
314
2 58 ye sasana arahadu 164 yo sàsanam arahatam
ari’ana dhama-jivirio ariyänam dhamma-jivinam
padikoàadi drumedho patikkosati dummcdho
dithi nisa’i pavi’a ditthim nissâya päpikam
phalani kadakaseva phalâni katthakasscva
atva-kaña'i phaladi. (16) atta-ghaññaya phallati.

ga 10 4 1 I.
1 Repeated in error. • Read du.
5
i 8
[XV. BAHUéRUTA]
2 4 3 ayo’a v a m janadi
m icha-vm ayadu iv a
367
avija’i v a samu|i<z
budhana v a adasarn ( i)

349 300
2 4 4 anuyo’a d u janadi
sam e v iiu ’ad« iva
36$ 300
yoniéa v iy im dhama M 111 262 yomso vicine dhammam
sevam ana bahosuda (2)

245 duha’ena 1 arthena

sevidavi bahosuda
suhina uyidathena
nica kicha-kadena ca (3)

302
24 6 prahodi duhino dokhu
avanedu bahosuda
katha’i padiruva’i
bhasam ana puna-punu (4)

2 4 7 suhidasa v i pramoju
janayadi bahosuda
decada am uda dham u T h g 309d d esentam am atam padam
dukha-vaéama-katm’a (5) T h g 1238c desentam virajam dhammam
D b p 19 i d dukkhupasam a-ganunam

24 8 éimada1 maha-prana U v x x v 6 tshu l kh n m s n e b a r z i b a dan

dhanrnkam a bahosuda ¿es rab ches m ch og ld a n pa yi
bhayidavi sapranena gtso b o gan y in d e bsten na
bhuyasa bh orun ìchadu (6) g ts o b o bas k y an c bes gtsor
hgyur

249 bahusuda dhama-dhara T h g 1030 bahussutam dham ma-dharam

saprana budha savaka sappanflam buddha-sàvakam
érudi-vinati akaksu dham m a-vm nànaqi akankham
ta bhaye’a tadhavidha (7) tam bhajetha tathSv ìdham
jotu ioab (R
306
250 sabhir ava2 samase’a Sam 1 18, 57 sabbhir eva sam lsetba
sabhi ku vi’a sadhavu sabbhi kubbetha santhavam
sada sadharrau aru ’i satana saddham m am annaya
sarva-dukha pramucadi (8) sab ba-d u kkh i pam uccati

R e ad hlarnada * Read et a
 T H E G A N D H Ä R t D H A R M A PA D A 159

251 yadha akara suchana U v . xxii. 3 j i Itar kliyim ni legs g’yogs pa

pravisi tamasarnudu m un pa khebs pahi nan ¿ugs «a
vijamana v i ruvesu g z u g sm a m syo d p a r gyurkyatvni
Cakhksuma v i na pasadi (9) m ig làan b ¿u i du m i mthoft ba
303
252 em am eva id h = e k a c u
d e b iin hdi na rigs skyes pahi
m i n i b lo gros ldan gyur kyafi
jadim a v i ca yo naro
sdig pa dañ nt dge bahi chos
asutva n a v i’anadi
m a thos par du écs m i hgyur.
dham a dham a1 kalana-pavaka.
(10)

253 309
pradtvena nu2 ruvani
ya d h a paáadi cakhksum a
em u su tva v i’anadi
d ham a kalana-pavaka. ( n )
a suda-vadbana
suda pranaya vadhadi
praña artha viáodhedi
artha sudho suhava’u. (12)
311
255 so artha-ladhu medhavi
prana-áila-saraahidu
suda-dhamu suyi-draksu
panodi paramu suhu. (13)
(Cf, atso Tbg. 7406 so dakkho so vicakkhano.)
mig ldan mar me yod pa yis
gzugs roams mthoñ ba ji Ita bar
de bíin dge dañ sdig pahi chos
thos pas roani par ¿es par hgyur.
Jat v. 493 sutva dhammam vijananti
nara kalyàna-papakafn.
Thg. 141 sussusà suta-vaddhanl
sutam paññaya vaddhanarn
pafmàya attham jlnàti
ñato attho sukhàvaho.
Thg- 740, 746 so atthavà so dhammattho.
Dhp. 229d paBñá-síIa'Samáhitam.
Jàt. vi. 496 appamatto suci dakkho.
Thg. 884^ pappoti paramara sukham.

256 nica hi avi’anada Uv. xxii. 2 byis pa mí mkhas pa dag ni

caradi amara viva hchi ba med pa ita bur spyod
sadhama du vi’aijada mkhas pa dam pahi chos dag la
aduraseva áadvari. (14) cntshan mohi nad pa bain du
byed.
313
257 kim anatra asamaiiadna Uv. xiv. 4 anyatra àravanàd asya
dhamaseva adaàaç.e saddharmasyàvijànakaK
eva apasa jividi lyusy tvam pantte hi
vera iuyadli keça’i. (15) vairam kurvanti kenacìt.
314
258 ye áasana arahadu 164 yo ftasanam arahatam
ari’ana dhama-jivino ariyanam dhamma-jlvinatp
padikosadi drumedho patikkosati dummedho
dithi nisa’i pavi’a ditthim nissaya pjLpikam.
phalani kadakaseva phalani katthakasscva
atva-kaña'i phaladi, (16) atta-ghaññáya phaUatì.

ga 10 4 i I.
1 Repeated in error.
 [XVI. P R A K IR N A K A (?)]
2 5 9 ekasana eka saya
eka-’iy a 'i savudu
eku ram ahi atvana
arañi eka'o vasa ( i)
2 6 0 yasa sadha 1 praña ya
v iya otrapi a hiri
so ho m aha-dhana bh od i
m oham aña baho dhana (2)
261 na sadi putra trana’i
na bh o’a na v i banava
adena abhidunasa
nasti ñadihi tranadha (3)
262 druprava’i dru'abhiram u
d ru’ajavasana gbara
dukhu samana-savaso
dukhanuvadida bhava (4)
2 6 3 kiche m anusa-pradilabhu
kicha m acana jivid a
ktche sadhama-áramana
kiche budhana upaya (5)
320
2 6 4 sukaram asadhum
atvano ahidana y i
y a du hida j i sadhu ji
ta g u parama-drukara (6)
321
26 5 apanatha parathena
na kudayino hava'i
atvatha paramu ñatva
svakatha-paramu si’a (7)
305 ekasanam eka-seyyam
eko caram atandito
eko d am ayam attanam
v an an te ram ito siyá
S n 432 atth i sad d há tato viriyam
pañ ñ á ca m am a vijjati
M v 11 3 57 so so m ahg-dhano bhavati
c f U v x 9 y o jlv a lo k e labhate
áraddham prajñam ca panditah
tad d h i tasya dhanam srestham
hln am asyetare dhanam
288 na santi pu tta tanaya
na p itá napi bandhava
antakenadhipannassa
natthi ñatísu tanatá
302 d up pabbajjam durabhiramam
d u r a r á s ! g h a ra dukha
dukkho ’sam ana-sam vaso
dukkhánupatitaddhagü
tasm a n a c ’ad d hagü siya
n a c a d ukkhanupatito siyá
182 kicch o m anussa-patilabho
kicch am m accana jm ta m
kicch am saddham m a savanam
kicch o bu d d hánam uppado
163 sukaram asid h ü m
attano ahitam ca
y a m v e h itam c a sádhum ca
tam v e param a-dukkaram
nnu 16
16 6 attadattham paratthena
bahú na p i na hapaye
attadattham abhiññaya
sadattha-pasuto siya
 T H E G A N D H A r I D H A R M A PA D A
26 6 ayo i yu ji atvana
yo aseva ayujadu
atha hitva pri’a-gaha
svihadi arthanupasino. (8)
267 nedi hi mahavira
sadhamena tadhakada
dhamena ne’amanana
ka y-asu’a v i’anadu. (9)
324
268 ali’a bhasamanasa
avakamadi devada
muha ji pudi’a bhodi
saga-thana i bhatsadi. (10)
325
269 abhuda-vadi naraka uvedi
yo ya vi kitva na karodi aha
uvha’i ami preca sama bhavadi
nihina-kamamanuyaparatri. ( n )
270 catvari fhanani naro pramatu
avajadi para-darovasevi
amima-labha ani’ama-saya
nina tridi’a niraya ca’ufha. (12)
327
271 na paresa vilomani
na paresa kidakida
atvano i samikse’a
samani visamani ca. (13)
328
272 supasi vaja añesa
atvano mana drudasa
paresa esu vajana
upunadi yatha busu
atvano mana chadedi
kali va kidava áadha. (14)
B 8411
x6r
209 ayoge yuñjam attanam
yogasmìm ca ayojayam
attham h'itva piya-ggàhl
pihet’ attànuyoginam.
Sam. i. 127 nayanti ve mahàvlrà
saddhammena tathàgatà
dhammena niyamananarn
ka usùyà vijànatam.
Uv. xxi. 8; Mv. iii, 90
J lt. iii. 457 alikam bhàsamànassa
apakkamanti devatá
pùtikara ca mukham vati
sagga-tthana ca dhamsati.
306 abhuta-vàdì nirayam upeti
y o vàpi katva na karomi càha
ubho pi te pecca sama bhavanti
nihlna-kamtnà manujà parattha.
309 cattàri thanàni naro pamatto
àpajjati para-dàrDpasevi
apuñña-labham nanikáma«sey-
yam
nindam tatiyam nirayam catut-
tliam.
iv. 14
50 na paresam vilomani
na paresam katakatam
attano va avekkheyya
katàni akaiani ca.
xviii. 9
252 sudassam vajjam aññesam
attano pana duddasam
paresam hi so vajjani
opunati yathà bhusam
attano pana chadeti
kalim va kitava satho.
M
j 62 TH E GANDH ARI DHARM APADA

27 3 alajidavi lajadi 3 16 alajjitaye lajjanti

lajidavi na lajadi lajjitaye n a lajjare
abhayi bhaya dar^avi m icchaditthi-sam adana
bhayi abhaya darsano satta gacchanti duggatim
331 3 1 7 abhaye bhaya-dassino
michadithi-samadana
bh aye cabhaya-dassino
satva gachadi drugadt (15)
m icchaditthi-sam adana
ga 10 4 I satta gacchanti duggatim
xvi 4
 [XVII. KRODHA]
332
274 kothu Jahi viprayahe’a mana 221 kodham jahe vippajaheyya
sañoyana savi adikame’a m an am
ta nama-ruvasa asajamana saññojanara sabbam atikkameyya
akijana nanuvadadi dukhu. ( i) tam nama-rüpasmim asajjama-
nam
akiñcanam nanupatanti dukkhá.
XX. I
333
275 yo du upadida kodhu 222 yo v e uppatitam kodham
radha bhada va dhara’i ratham bhantatn va dharaye
tam aho saradi bromi tam aham sarathim brümi
rasvi-ggaha idara jana. (2) rasmi-gglho itaro jano.
x r . 32
334
276 ya gu na prasahadi kudhu
no yasa kuradi vasa
so hu raksadi atvana
nineva navacithadi. (3)
335
277 akodhanasa vidi1 Ját. v. 222 akkodhanassa vijite
fhida-dhamasa rayino thita-dhaminassa rajino
suhu purusu ase’a sukham manussá Ssetha
áida-chade va sva ghari. (4) slta-ccháyaya samghare.
336
278 usavha viva go-sagi
áilamadu akodhano
baho na payuvasadi
rayana viva dhami’ a. (5)
337
279 hasti va muya-jadana
sela hemavañ iva
sakaro va áravadina
adico tavada-r-iva

khana-khani tídikse’a
kodhu rakse’a atvani. (6)
339
280 jiña kodha akothena 223 akkodhena jine kodham
asadhu sadhuna jiña asádhum sadhuna jine
jiña kradava danena jine kadariyam danena
sacena ali’a jiña. (7) saccenalika-vádinarn.
x x . 19
340
281 saca bhani na kuve’a 224 saccam bhane na kujjheyya
daya apadu yayida dajja appasmim yacito
edehi trihi fhanehi etehi tíhi thanehi
gacha devana sadi’i. (8) gacche devana santike.
XX. 16
1 Read viytdti
164
341
2 8 2 kudhu atha n a ja aad i
kudhu dham u na pasadi
anu tada tam u bh od i
ya kodhu sahadi naru
TH E G AND H AR l DH ARM APADA
A n g ív 96 k u d d h o atth am na jln á ti
k u d dh o dham m am na passati
an dh am tam am tada hoti
(9) y a m kodh o sahate naram

2 8 3 m a sa k o d h u pram uje’a
dukhu kodhasa avarana
m ahoru m añati sadhu
pacha tavadi kodhano
943
2 8 4 nakara athi pakara
m atsa-lohida-levana
yatra rako ya doso ya
m ano makso sam okadu
6 9a m adh uva m aññatí balo
(10) 3 146 p a ccha tap ati dukkatam
150 atth lnam nagaram katam
m am sa lohita-lepanam
yatra ja rá ca m accü ca
(11 ) m ano m akkho ca ohito

U v x v i 23 nagaram asthz prákaxam

m am sa áom ta-lepanam
ya tra ragaá ca desaá ( í ic ) ca
m ana m raksah p ra g á h a ti1

285 m aksi’a m atsan bhodi

prahata bhodi gadhavo
kodhano su ’aro bhodi
m a sa kuju kum araka (12)
J45
2 86 suradu b h od i bhadrañu
surado suho m odadi
suradasa a’i dham u
edha pasadha tadino (13)
346
2 8 7 soracasa phala paáa
tava kichasu jadisu
yatra edadiáo sadu
surado d i na hañadi. (14)
347
2 8 8 k i n u ja tva suho áayadi Sam 1 41 kim s u jh a tv a sukham seti
k i n u ja tv a na áoyadi kim s u jh a tv á na socati
kisa n u eka-dhamasa kissa ssu eka-dham m assa
vadha royesi godam a (15)
348 vad ham rocesi gotam a

2 8 9 kodhu ja tva suha áayadl Sam 1 41 kodham jh a tv a sukham seti

kodhu ja tva na ¿oyadi kodham jh a tv a na socati
kodhasa visa raulasa kodhassa visa-m ülassa
masuragasa bram ana m adhuiaggassa brahmana
349
v a d h a a n ’ a p r a ia ja d i vad ham a n y a pasamsantt
t a 31 j a t v a n a á o y a d i ( 16 ) tam h i jh atvá na soca ti
«3
ga 10 4 x 1

1 V ar ca bSdhate

290 yatha vi ruyída pusu
vanamalda agana’a
350
emú subhas¿|da vaya
aphala . . akuvadu. (r)
351
291 yatha v i ruyida pufu
vanamada sagana’a
emú subhafida vaya
saphala bhodi kuvadu. (2)
352
292 yatha v i bhamaru puslpa
352
vana-gana aheda’i
paridi rasam ada’i
emú gami muni cara. (3)
353 159
293 yada v i puspa-raái|sa
kuya mala-guna baho
«mu jaderja macena
k a t a a i ..........................(4)
294 pwsani yt\\& payinadu
vasita-mariasa nara
sutu gamu mahoho va
Í7l
.............. (s)
337
295 . . . . ¿rcdivada vayadi
na maíi’a takara canana va
sadana gano pradivada va'idi
‘ 373
ss/üc ¡diáa sapuruso pada’idi. (6)
3«
296 y a vi
. gana-ja[da]oA
sila-gano ¡ivutama. (7)
364
2 97 . . . ia n a-á ilan a
374
apramada-jviharuia
samadaña-vimutana
ga|di maro na vinadi. (8)
[XVIII. PUSPA]
51 yathapi ruciram puppliam
vannavantarn agandhaiam
evam subhlsita v ic i
aphaià Koti afcubbato.
sviii. 6
52 yathapi ruciram puppham
vannavantarn sagandhakam
evam subhasita vaca
saphala hoti sakubbaro.
xviii. 7
360
49 yathapi bhamaro puppham
vanna-gandham ahethayam
paled rasam adàya
evam game munì care.
xviii. 8
53 yathapi puppha-ràsimha
kayira malà-gune bahu
evam jàtena maccena
kattabbam kusalam bahum.
x v iii. 12
47 puppham heva padnantam
vyasatta-manasam naram
suttam gamam mahogho va
maccu adàya gacchati.
48d antako kurute vasam.
xviii. 14
54 na puppha-gandho pativatam eti
na caaàanam tagaram msìlika va
satam ca gandho pativatam eti
sabba disà sappuriso pavàti.
vi. 16
55 candanam tagaram v lp i
uppalam atha vassik!
etesam gandha-jàtSnarp
sila-gandho ammaro.
vi. 17
57 tesam sampanna-silanaiii
appamlda-viharinam
sammad-anfii-vimuttlnarp
maro maggarp na vindati.
vi. 19
i6 6 THE GÄN D H ÄR l DHARM APADA

2 9 8 vasi’a yatha pusana 377 vassikä v iya pu p pham

975 m addaväni pam uñcati
poranam pra|mujadi
evam rägam ca dosam ca
em u r a k a ji dosa ji
37« vipp am ufíceth a bhikkhavo
vipram ujadha bhiksavi (9) XVUl 13

36!
29 9 uchina sineha atvano 285 u cchin d a sineham attano
379 ku m u d am säradikam va pântnî
kum udu áaradaka b a prajnm a
sanù -m aggam eva brühaya
áadi magam e va broha’i
m b bän am sugatena desitam
luvana sukadena deáida (10) XVUl 5
361
30 0 phenovam u kayam id a vid itva 46'p hen Q pam am kSyam imam vidi-
389 tvâ
m ariyi M u d a'i
m attci d ham m am abhisambu-
chetvana marasa pa pa vu se’an a1
dhäno
a (11 )
c h e tv in a märassa papupphakäni
adassanam m accu-räjassa gacche
z n u 18

301 . 4 4 ko im am pathavim vijessaü

391 yam a-Iokam ca im am sadevakara
[yama loka ji] ida sadevaka
ko dham m a-padam sudesitam
ko dhama pada sudesida
kusalo p u p pham iva ppacessao.
kuáala pusa viv a payesidi (12)
rvrn. t
C 'i
382
3 02 budhu pradha sidi 45 sekho pathavim vyessati
yama loka j i id a sadevaka yam a-lokam ca im am sadevakam
budhu dhama-pada sudeáida sekho dham m a padam sudesitam
kuáala pusa viva payisidi (13) kusalo puppham iva ppacessati
C 'z XVUl 2
m
303 yadha sagara ’udasa 58 yathä sam klra-dhSnasm im
ujidasa maha pathe ujjhitasm im m ahl-p ath e
paàurnu tatra ja c a padum am tattha jäyetha
suyi gaña manoramu (14) suci gandham manoramam
C'3 xvw 10

304 e[mul sag/jasa-dhama « 59 evam samkära bhfltesu

384
andha-bhüte puthujjane
ana-hodi prudhijane
abhtroyadi prana’i atirocati paññáya
same sabudha savaka (15) sammä sam buddha sävako,
XVUl I I
Cf4
ga 10 4 1
Os
1 Read patu¡e’ana
 [XIX. SAHASRA]
385
305 y o ífihasa sahasani 103 yo sahassam sahassena
sagami manusa jíni samgame manuse jine
eka ji Jini atvana ekam ca jeyya attanam
so ho sagamu utamu. (i) sa ve samgámajuttamo.
C r6 xxiii. 3
3S6 41S
306 sahasa b i ya jvayana 100 sahassam api ce vaca
anatha-pada-sahida anattha-pada-samhita
eka vaya-pada sevha ekam attha-padam seyyo
ya sutva uvasamadi. (2) yam sutva upasammati.
xxiv. 1
C'7
415a 317
307 [yo ja ] t'aya-[sada bhasi
anatha-pada-sahida
414 387
e|ka vaya-pa[da] |sehu
ya sutva uvasamadi. (3)
C r8

308 . ¡tasa b i ya gadhana 101 sahassam api ce gáthá

anatha-pada-sahida anattha-pada-samhitá
eka gadha-pada seho ekam gátha-padam seyyo
ya sutva uvasamadi. (4) yam sutva upasammati.
Cr9
389
309 yo ja gadha-sada bhasi 102 yo ca gatha-satam bháse
anatha-pada-sahida anattha-pada-samhitá
eka gadha-pada sebha ekam dhamma-padam seyyo
ya sutva uvasamadi. (5) yam sutva upasammati.
C rio xxiv. 2

390
310 masa-masi sahasina 106ab mase-máse sahassena
yo ya’e’a sadena ca yo yajetha satam samam
nevi budhi prasadasa M v . iii. 435 yo jayeta1 sahasranam
kala avedi sodasa. (6) mase-máse satam satam
Cfn na so buddhe prasadasya
kalám arghati sodaálm.
53ÍV. 26

391
311 w asa-mase sahasena
yo ya’e’a sadena ca
neva . . prasa . sa M v . ibid. (dharme)
Traía avedi sodasa. (7) sxiv. 27
C rI2
1 Read, naturaUy, yajela.
i6 8 TH E GÄNDH ÄRI DH ARM APADA

31 2 masa masi sahasina

yo ya 'e ’a áadena ca
neva sa¿i prasadasa Mv ibid (sanghe)
kala avedi sodaáa (8)
C'13
393
3 1 3 masa-masi sahasena
y o y a ’e’a éadena ca
neva saghasa-dhamesu M v ibid na so sväkhyäta-dharminäm.
kala a vedi sod aia (9) c f 70 mäse-mäse kusaggena
CF14 bàio bhuñjetha bhojanam
na so samkhata-dhamnsänam
kalam aggbati solasim

3 1 4 masa-masi sahasena
yo ya’e a áadena ca
tesu
kala avedi sodaáa (10)
Cr:s
39s
3 1 5 masa-mase sahasena
yo ya'e’a áadena ca
eka-pananu’abisa
kala navedi sodaáa (11)

316 y a ja vasa áada jivi 112 y o ca vassa-satam jiv e

kusidhu hina-viyava kuslto hïna-vln yo
m uhutu jivid a sevha ekâham jïvitam seyyo
virya arahado dridha (13) v in y am ärabhato dalham
C '17
397
3 1 7 y a jiv a s a -á a d o jiv i 113 y o ca vassa-satam jive
apaáu udaka vaya apassam udaya-vyayam
muhutu jivjd a sevha ekaham jivttam seyyo
paéado tidaka-vaya (13) passato udaya-vyayam

3 1 8 ya ja vasa-iada jivi 1 15 y o ca vassa-satam jive

apaáu dhamu utamu apassam dham m am uttamam
«in ekaham jivitam seyyo
mohotu jm d a sehu
paáadu dhamu utamu (14) passato dham m am uttamam

319 y a ja vasa-iada jadu 1070b yo ca vassa-satam jantu

agi panyara vani aggim pancare vane
ksirena sapi telena
diva-ratra atadndo (15)
 T H E G Ä N D H Ä R l D H AR M A PA D A

32 0 eka j i bhavidatvana 107 ekam ca bhlvitattanam

muhuta viva puya’i muhattam api püjaye
sameva puyana sevha sä yeva püjanä seyyo
ya j i vasa-áada bodu. (16) yam ce vassa-satam hutaip.
CTz i zxiv. 17
401
321 ya keja yatha va hoda va lake1 108 yam kimci yittham va hutam va
«zvatnzra yayadi puña[ve]ksa loke
sava b i ta na cadu-bhaku vedi sarnvaccharam yajetha puñña-
ahivadana uju-kadesu siho. (17) pekkho
C r2Z sabbam pi tatp na catu-bl

abhivädanä ujju-gz 1 seyyo.

zxiv. 34

1 Read loke.
170
[XX. élLA (F)]
32 2 éilamadu suyi-drakso
dhama-tho sadhu jivano
atvano karako sadu
ta jano kuradi pn'u (1)
C r24
ttààVra ttburit>
yaia bho’a-samapidu
yena yeneva vayadi
tena teneva puyidu (2)
C r2S
405
324 yo natva-hedu na parasa hedu
pavam kamani samayare’a
413
na tchi a [ia]midfri aivano
405
so s\laza pamdu dhami’o si'a (3)
C26
406
325 sanadu sukadi yadi
drugadi yadi asanadu
ma sa viépaéa avaja
ida vidva samu cari (4)
O 27
326 savudu pradimukhasa
ìdn’esu ya pajasu
pramum anupmvina
sava sanoyana ksaya (5)
4M
327 éudhasa hi sada phagu
éudhasa posadhu sada
iìitìhasa suyi
tasa samajadi vada (6)
40»
328 dhamu cari sucanda
drucanda can
dhamayan suho éedi
asvi loto parasa y i (7)
410
329 aho nalco va sagami
cavadhivadtdi ¿ara
adivaka tuJiksanu
druéito hi baho-jano (6)
C?3i
217 stla-dassana-sampannam
dhamma-ttham sacca-vàdmam
aitano kamma kubbanam
tam jano kurute piyam
v 24
353 sa/d/iViC. •SÌASti. hvnQiva/ì,
yaso-bhoga-samappito
yam yam padesam bhajati
tattha tattheva pQjito
x 8
84 na atta-hetu na parassa hetu
na puttam ìcche na dhanam na
rattham
na yicche adhammena samiddhim
attano
sa silavS pannava dhammikosiyà
J it ìv 172 iti vidvà samam care
Sn 34006 samvuto pàtimokkhasmim
indnyesu ca pancasu
Jat 1 275, 278 papune anupubbena
sabba-sannojana kkhayam
iv
M N x 39, suddhassa ve sadà phaggu
D 1 139 suddhass’
suàdhassa suci-fc
sadà sampajjate va tara
x n 15
169 dhammam care sucantam
na tam duccantam care
dhammacan snkham seti
asmim loke paramhi ca
xx x S .A v S 122 ®
320 aham nàgo va samgame
capato pati tam saram
ativakyam titikkhissam
dussilo hi bahujjano
XXIX 2 1 (P 3»)
 TH E GÀN DH ARI DH ARM APADA

330 yasa acada-drusili’a 162 yassa accanta-dussiiyam

malu’a va vilada vani màluva salam iv ’ otatam
ku ya so tadha [ajtvana karoti so tath’ attanam
yadha na visarnu ichadi. (9) yathà nam icchati diso.
C r32 Sn. 272 màluvà va vitata vane.

412
331 . . [tf]yo-kudu bhuta 308 seyyo ayo-gulo bhutto
526 tatto aggi-sikhupamo
tata agi-si|hovamo
412 yam ce bhunjeyya dussllo
. . . . . [bhiijje’ a rattha-pindam asaniiato.
ratha-pina asanadu. (10)
C r33

ga 10.
(C'34)
17 2

[XXI. KRTYA (?)]

3 3 2 id a ja n u keca id a j i kari’a U t i 4 1 íd am k fta m m e kartavyam
id a k a n id am kjrv'ä bhavisyati
/»¿mphanamana ì t y e va m spandano m artyo'
a b h tm a d a d im u c u jw a sa s o ’a ( i) ja r ä r o fty u s c a mardatt
C’35

333 idha vasa kansam u 286 id h a vassam vasisslm t

ldha hemada gi id h a hem anta-gun hisu
iti b ä lo vicinteti
<*) an taräyam na bujjhati
O36

3 3 4 ta putra paáu sam adha 28 7 tarn putta-pasu-sam m attam

byäsatta-m anasam naram
sutu ga su ttam gäm am m ahogho va
3
( ) m a ccu äd äya gacchati
C'37

335 pu ve 1 kica f Jat IV 166 an ägatam patikayiratha kiccam

325 421 m a m am k iccam kicca klle
no yo I kici kica kale v ad e’a
v yad h esi
ta tadiáa padikam a kica-kari
tarn tadisam pajikatakiccakänm
no 1 kica kici-’ah vade’a (4)
na tarn k iccam kicca kil«
Cr38
vyad heti

336 y a puvt karam’ant T h g 225 y o p u b b e käraniyäm

pacha sa katu ichadi paccha so kä tu m icchati
athadu batsadi balu sukhä so dham sate thänS
suhadu panhayadi (5) p a ccha c a -m anutappati
C '39

42) Î
337 akida kuki|da jsehu
23 4»
3 x4 akatam dukkatam seyyo
pacha ta\adi drukida p a ccha tap ati dukkatam
kjda n u sukida seho katam c a sukatam seyyo
ya kitva nanutaparfr (6) ya m k a U ä nänutappati
O 40 TT1T 4ioh
4M 124
338 j a |gu k u ja ta 'a d i ’a T h g 226 y a m h i kayirä tarn hi vade
424 ya m na kayirä na tarn vade
’a
akarontam b hä samä nam
akaroda bha$ama[nd\
panjànanti panditä
(7 )
• MS
 TH E G A N D H A R l DH ARM APADA m
<6?, 425
339 y a kica ta a . 292 yam hi kiccam tad apaviddham
522
...........................fcyadi akiccam pana kayirati
im nallnani pamattanam
unadana prarna[iana]
tesam vaddhanti asava.
426 253cd asava tassa vaddhanti
asava tesa vadhadi ara so asava-kkhaya.
ara te asava-ksaj^'d]. (8) iv . 19 [the six padas forming a single stanza)
C?4i
417
34 0 yesa du susamaradha 293 yesam ca susamaraddha
nica kaya-kada svadi niccam kaya-gata sati
akiccam te na sevanti
kicce satacca-karmo

sadana sabrayanana
tasa ksayadi . . (g)
Cr42, 43 iv . 20

[ The end o f the chapter is marked,

but the figure giving the number o f
stanzas is last.]
174
[XXII. NAGA, or A$VA (?)]
341 322 varam assatara danta
ajanlya ca sindhava
ku njara ca m ahanaga
atta-danto tato varam .
atva-dada tada vara.
XIX. 7

342 ................................................ 323 na h i e ie fii ySnehi

................................................ g accheyya agatam disam
................................................ y a th ’ attana sudantena
[**]“ gachadi. dant0 dantena gacchati.
zix. 8

[The remainder o f the chapter ts

/osf.]

[XXIII-XXVI]
[Lost]
 TH E G ÄN D H ÄRt Ü HARM APADA 175
The following verses, loritten in a
different hand., do not belong to the
text :
355
343 adikradaya ratri
devada uvasagrami
vaditva muninu pada
im i prasaña pradiprocha.

Î5S
344 ki-áiia ke-samacara Sn. 324 kiin-silo kim-samacaro
ke-guna kena karmana käni kammäni brühayam
kehi darmehi sabana naro sammä-nivitth’ assa
ke jana sparga-gamiyu. uttamattham ca päpune.
 COMMENTARY
In tro d u cto ry v e rs e . ‘This manuscript of the Dharmapada, belonging to the sramana Bud-
dhavannan, pupil o f Buddhanandin, has been written in the Dharmodyana in the forest.'
From the very imperfect facsimile published by Oldenburg, Konow thought he could see the
figures 20 30 10 after budhanadi sa, and suggested that sa was for samvatsare, i.e., in the year 50
(AO 1943, 9). The new photograph is quite dear, and there is certainly no date given.
T he name Buddhavannan is, of course, a common one, and there is therefore no reason to
identify this Buddhavarman with the sramamna bttdhavarma who appears in the Niya documents
(nos. 416, 418, 419, 655). In the Kharosthl inscriptions from North-West India (CII ii, ed.
Konow) we meet budhavarumasa (p. 115), bitdhortimasa (pp. 108, 124), and bosavarumasa
(p. 115). (For the spelling s for dh in this last, see p. 94.)
The spelling budhanadi in all probability represents Buddha-nandin. (Cf. also dharmanadi for
Dharma-nandin, C II ii, p. 94.) For n, seep. 106. Elsewhere in the manuscript -tid- is assimilated
and is represented by -«-. T he writing here (for -namdi) presumably shows an older form re­
tained in a formal proper name. In the Niya documents, no. 690, the same name is transcribed
biidhanamti, but this may not be trustworthy, since in manyplaces in these documents the editors
have ii where di should be read.
sardhavayarisa: Pali saddhi{m)-vihdri, Buddhist Sanskrit sardkam-viharin. The bottom o f the
dh here is broken, but rdha is a reasonable conjecture. In writing dim the scribe has a tendency
to give a horizontal or slight upward direction to the second suing to the right, and the same
feature appears also in rdha later in the manuscript (vardhadi, 172, line 222); whereas in ¿¿a the
pen continues to slant downwards. It is of course possible that sadhu was written here, in which
case the -u will represent an earlier -am. A number of other curious spellings of this word have
survived. Konow identified it in four short Kharosthl votive inscriptions from Loriyan Tangai
(C II ii, pi. xxi, pp. 107 ff.), where it has the forms sadaviyarisa (no. 1) and sadayarisa (no. 3), and
quoted other spellings from Brahml inscriptions: sadevihdrisa, saddhycuiharisya, and sraddhacaro.
T his last apparently represents Sanskrit sardJiatncara, and Konow therefore suggested that the
forms with -y- instead of -h- are derived from a by-form -(vi)carin. But while sardhamcara (P.
saddhimcara) is known from Buddhist texts, *sdrdhamvicann is unknown, and could hardly have
carried the sense required. The hypothesis, however, is superfluous, in view o f the comparable
elision of -h- in the Niya documents in syabala beside sihahala {simhabala), and -vyarivala beside
viharavala (vihdra-pala): cf. pp. 92-3; Burrow, Language of the Kharosthi Documents, § 28. The
same feature has been preserved in the Agnean borrowed word vy'ar, ‘vihlira’ : Sieg and Siegling,
Tocharische Grammatik, index s.v. For -va- here, see p. 81. It is important to observe, however,
that ‘companion’ is a mistranslation. Whether the original usage denoted the novice as ‘living
with’ Ms teacher, or ‘living with (fellow pupils)’ of his teacher, the second person mentioned in
such contexts is the teacher and not a fellow student. This is entirely in accordance with the
regular Indian attitude towards the gum. The norice is designated as the Sisya or antcvasin of his
acarya, and the sardhamviharin of his tipadhyaya. (E. Lamotte, Histoire du Bouddhismc indien,
i, p. 61, gives this relationship, but still translates as ‘compagnon’.) See also Introduction,
pp. 39-41.
dhannuyane (S. dharmodyane): the form uyana occurs as early as the A/okan inscriptions
(Sixth Rock Edict). See also p. 106. Alternatively to the translation given above, the word may
be taken as the name of the aranya in question: ‘in the park (called) "Garden of Religion’
B Sill N
i 78 TH E G AN D H ARl d h a r m a p a d a

It seems probable that this introduction is intended to be a verse, and i f so, the metre would
seem to be a mixture of Vaitaliya and Aupacchandasilta, in w hich the author has allowed hunself
a fair degree of licence T h e nature o f the orthography, however, leaves too many quantities
doubtful to permit a detailed metncal anal)sis w hich w ould be better than speculative

1 U v s o u l io ( R 9) corresponds with the whole o f D h p 393, while x?ocm n ( R 10) with

the same opening agrees with the six-pada Prakrit stanza
jada'i s g , against jatahi, p i , m the Pah* (S e e p 92 )yaca, -with in itia l^ -fo r/ «anomalous,
single initial consonants regularly remamingunchanged, except in enclitics najada’ 1 nayaca
is paralleled b y 1 9 8 mjenadi nayava't, P n a jm U m ja p a y e , and we may pethaps assume that
na has the possibility of being treated as aproclitic (perhaps reflecting a difference o f emphasis in
the second member of «a na ) I f this is so, nayaca at the beginning of verse 4 will be
a reflection o f the present stanza Because o f the unusual development, Konow suggested that
yaea might be understood as *yacya having sacrificed’ (?) (A O 1943, 1 1 , 1 5 ) , but this is really
excluded b y the other versions, and 1$ now rendered unnecessary h y 198 (See also p 112 )
Irahtdare die break m die surface o f the batk might allow us to see ba~ here, as in bakeft (P
bahetta) in 6 8 , but the shape o f the upper part o f the character makes bra more likely, and
bra is in any case certain in brahetva (also in 16) T h is makes it probable that P bahett, Buddh
S bahayalt, are to be attached to brah’ , barh- (H W Bailey, JR A S 1955, 2 1 , D Andersen, Pah
Reader, Glossary s v ) T h e alternative explanauon o f the word as a denominauve from bah, S
bahs (Edgerton, B H S D s v ) seems intrinsically less likely, though the possibility remains open
i f we consider that br- may have been artificially introduced here to buttress the pseudo etymo
logy o f brahmana, i f this arose originally in a dialect which assimilated br- o f the latter word
The initial i - here excludes the possibility o f a causative o f ta h , which nevertheless was prob­
ably thought of by some of the Buddhist Sanskrit writers T h e U v has yas tu praidhate papant
and vdhttatiat ta papanSm (quoted in Tochansehe Sprachreste Sprache B H eft 2, p 198 n ) ,
s i 12 vahetvd (replaced b y prahdya in the revised version), xi 15 vahitapdpah T he Tibetan
regularly renders this by tpon ba, spans D h pA m 393 (on D hp 267) explains bdhetva (ed
iShtiva) by panuditva
T he form here appears to be an agent noun e g Hrahayntr-, and v, e have a choice o f under*
standing either brahtda r eva (with junction consonant as in tazada r n a , verse 2 7 9 ) or more
probably, brahdari va with an ‘old Ardha magadhi nominative (cf Pischel § 390) See also
note on verse 189, and p 116

1 \ 3v xxxiu 8 and 9 (the latter omitted b y Rockhill), may perhaps be alternative renderings
of this stanza, differing only in ihtbspor hdug 8 ,‘ dwelling in darkness' dn ma Idati 9 ‘possessing
impurity’
gaJianam D h pA iv 156 ragSdiktlesa gdhanam See also B H SD s w gahana, grahana (The
argument from 'domal n* in DhpA m 494 is unsatisfactory, since such a spelling could equally
w ill be due to the manner in which a late Sinhalese scribe understood the word )

3 T he long nght hand stroke m «no (written separately from the rest o f the character) suggests
that the scribe intended dhamo, but inadvertently omitted the r stroke
sakhaca s e e p 100 T h e T ib has bkvr sle, implying sat krtya for the SansVnt (M vy 1793
tatkrtya kann guspar byedpa )

4 N ow that oruhanena can be read, the only possible reading for the preceding word is vddot
T h is is the only instance in the manuscript o f ke with the vowel stroke attached to the bottom
 COM M ENTARY I79
instead of the head of the character; (but in ne both positions occur in the same line in 29; and in
two successivc verses, 5 1 ,5 2 manena shows the same alternation, facs, 51 and 102). It seems likely
that the reason for the unusual position here is a w inkle in the bark which has already caused
some difficulty to the pen in writing the head o f the letter. The downward tendency of the vowel-
stroke here is simply to avoid collision with the right-hand part of the character already written:
cf. nine, line 334.
parikirya’i, i.e. paricaryayS (or rather -aya)\ see pp. 8 i, 91.

6, 7 . sabarno (sampanno): see p. 98.

8. T h e editions of both Pali texts have brShmanant in d, and the word may perhaps be entrenched
in the Pali tradition at this point. A case could indeed be made for it, but on the whole it seems
more likely to be simply an error. (Dhp. 334 has hrahmannatS.) Curiously, the same oddity has
been noted once in Buddfiist Sanskrit, brdhmaimya (beside ¿ramttaya) in L v 245. 13, BHSD
s.v. brdhmana.

9 . In d, the P T S edition has nekattairi for ekattam, presumably due to a misunderstanding of

nappahaya (i.e. na aprahdya) as mprahdya. The Sinhalese manuscripts, however, have ekattam,
and both the Prakrit and the Uv. confirm this as the correct reading.

1 0 . In d the Tibetan has sdig medganyin bram ge yin] but this is a translation o f ¿ in the two
verses which follow in the Uv. (corresponding to Pali anlgho ydii br3hma\io, for which see below,
verBe 12), and has probably quite accidentally ousted the original ending of the verse, ganyin—
‘whoever is sinless is a Brahman', suggests that the Tibetan translator had before him yadi
instead of ySti. T he writing yaA' in the Prakrit text could represent either word, but we need oot
doubt that yati, as in the Pali, is intended. I f in feet the Sanskrit text had yadi, there would be
a strong presumption that it was due to a misunderstanding of a manuscriptPrakrit text similar to
the Kharosthl.

11 . Translators o f the Pali text, following the suggestion o f die commentator, have usually
taken the verse to mean, ‘One should not strike a Brahman, nor should the Brahman release
(his anger) against him (the striker).’ This is clumsy, and it seems better to take brahmano as
the subject of both clauses. This also produces a sense more in keeping with the contest o f the
Varga, which is not concerned with Brahmans as such, but with the moral qualities which can be
held to justify die title o f Brahman. We should therefore not expect to find here a verse which
merely prescribed rules for the behaviour o f others towards Brahmans. We may thus translate:
‘A (true) Brahman Bhouldnot strike a Brahman nor revile him.’ Indeed, the commentator seems
to have had this in mind, since, although taking brahmano as the one who has been struck, he
supplied a subject to pahareyya:— khinasava-brSkmano 'ham am iti jSnanto. There is no diffi­
culty in taking bramapi in the Prakrit as nominative: see p. 116.
While anger is naturally implied here (cf. also 283 ma sa kodhu pramuje'a), the sense of muc­
in such contexts may be little more than ‘uttering words’ : cf. Uv. viii. 8 kalyanikam vimunceta
(scil. vacant)-, viii. 9 nacamuktepratnttiieet tam (probably Sanskritizcdfrom pamuncetha, without
even the pronoun expressed); and see BHSD s.v. The Tibetan, however, in this verse has skrod
$ a ‘expel, exile’.
The second half of the verse is also much easier if the same person is taken to he the object of
both acts. The usual interpretation is that it is a sin to strike a Brahman, and a sin for the Brah­
man to retaliate. Butin the context, the word hantaramwould inevitably evoke the idea of murder
180 TH E GAND H ARl D H ARM APADA

(irakma ftatya), and the traditional interpretation would thus lead to the rather curious ides that
anger against die murderer of a Brahman was as bad a sm as the murder itself If on the other
hand ossa refers back to brakmanassa, we have merely a somewhat rhetorical expression of die
View that anger against a Brahman (to have ‘murder m the heart’, as it were) is as bad morally as
actual murder
The edition of die Pali commentary correctly prints y’ assa, against the misleading yassa of
some o f the editions, and the Prakrit yo m confirms this interpretation

12 ¿vayti Konow(AO 1943, 12 14) took this as dvayu, directly equivalent to the Pali dve ca,
and was prepared to accept dva as a dual (C IIu ,p cxi) Since, however, the spe llin g s does not
appear elsewhere for «* (though it is not impossible see also p 83), it seems probable that die
scnbe or one of his predecessors thought he had here a form from dvaya- Such a reading could
not be ordinal, since dvayamwould be notonlysyntactically
awlcward, but also unmetncal
sonoyata written for samyara see p 83 Konow read saoayara, but it seems certain that
what was taken to be the head stroke of a va is merely a natural mark on the bark A similar
assumption has been adopted here with regard to the following character, but in the latter case
it is impossible to decide from the photograph, and it may be that the reading ought to be
sanayura
For the Tibetan o f d, see note on JO

13 b partsam ca anantaram In e, the implictt reference is clearly to Mara cf Itiv 41 maram

sasenam abhibhuyya, U v 1 42 mSram sasmnyam h y abfnbhuya

14 T h e Tibetan has chos mams kyt, without a word fo r'tw o ' T h e s en se w a s p resu m ably taken
to be, ‘ when he has crossed over to the other side of the dharmas, 1 e of existence’ For the two
dhammas, the P a li commentator gives samatha-mpassana

15 T h e Pali commentator tries to explain this verse as following direcdy on the preceding verse
in his text (Dhp 389, verse 11 above), thus adding unnecessary complications to an already
difficult text The modern translators have wisely neglected his suggestion that what ts attractive
(scil to an irascible man) is anger T h e separation o f the two verses in the Prakrit shows that
there was no ancient tradition that the two are to be together
T he Prakrit form o f the verse shows such striking differences from the Pali that at least one of
them must be senously corrupt And since the Prakrit is relatively straightforward, while the
Pah version is full o f improbabilities, there can be no hesitation in deciding in which text the
worse corruption lies Most o f the errors, however,— perhaps all— were already fossilized in this
form at the time when the Pah commentary was composed and there is therefore no direct
evidence that the Pali text was ever any better I t is desirable to be esp liat about this Trans­
mitted texts are inevitably exposed to corruption, and it is certain, on first principles, that errors
must have intruded into the Canon between the date o f the redaction in Pah and the compdauon
o f the Commentaries But corruption on the grand scale o f the present Verse is a rarity, sad js
hardly hkely to be accidental Rather, it has the appearance o f a desperate attempt by a redactor
to reshape averse which he could not understand I t is thus possible, indeed probable, that the
traditional text 0/ the verse as it appears in the editions 13 to be accepted as the genuine P oh text
On this view, an editor o f the Pah verse should not attempt to emend it, though he may wish to
mark it as corrupt, and m il, i f he is wise, refrain from attempting to translate the untranslatable
T he existence o f the other two versions, however, enables us to see behind the Pali, and to
reestablish the pre-Pali verse with a high degree o f probability T h e U v version, unfortunately
 COM M EN TARY j 8i

not available in Sanskrit, is especially valuable, since it shows up the crucial difficulty from which
the corruptions appear to have started. Rockhill translated the verse (84 in his numbering):
‘As Brahmanas and the like have left behind everything that is disagreeable, as my mind has
consequently left behind (all passions), I have truly put an end to all pettiness.’ This extraordi­
nary rendering probably accounts for the fact that the verse was not recognized earlier as the
counterpart o f Dhp. 390.
T h e second half o f the verse is easily deaied, and it is best to deal with this first In the light
o f the Prakrit y=asa {ca asya) and the Tibetan deyt (asya), we can see that the absurd form
hitpsantano has come from an earlier Ai 'ssa mano.
In the last line, sammati has been interpreted as a verb (iamyate). This is in itself most im­
probable, no comparable instances having been noted of a sandhi-consonant after an indicative
verb, either in PaÚ or Prakrit (Geiger § 73; Pischel § 353). The Prakrit samudim and the Tibetan
kun rdzob bden par z a i (sartivftir eva satyam) show immediately that sammati is in fact the fami­
liar noun which is normally written sammuti in Pali. It should be added that the interpretation
o f the word as a verb may well be a modern misunderstanding. T he commentator at least appears
to have understood the force of nivattati to be supplied from the preceding line: sakalam pi
va^a-dukkham nivattati. This explanation seems to take sammati as in apposition to dukkhatp,
and attempts to analyse the word as sakalam vatti-, i.e. as if it were for sam-vftti. It need hardly
be said that such an etymology is unhelpful.
For the final phrase of the verse, we may compare Sn. 904 [the parallel was noted by Konow,
but not discussed, AO 1943, 12]:

sakatn hi dhammam paripttnnam Shu

añftassa dhammijt pana hlnam ahu
evam p i viggayha vivSdiyanti
sakant sakai/t satttmurim Shu saccam.

‘They say their own doctrine is perfect, that another’s doctrine is inferior. In this fasluon they
quarrel and argue, and each says that his own (pragmatic) opinion is the truth.’ The present verse
also then reflects the opposition familiar in philosophical contexts between santDrti{satya) ‘con­
ventional truth’, and(param3rtha-)satya ‘ ultimate truth’. The PaK dukkham would appear to be
an attempt to adjust the sense after die beginning of the verse had gone astray.
Except for the presence o f »a in the Prakrit, the second line offers no difficulty: nisedhe (opta­
tive) manaso (abl.) piydni. T he Pali piyeki is then an alteration— virtually restoring the original
sense, although clumsily— after -e had been misunderstood as a nominative singular, giving
msedho, while manaso was taken to be a genitive.
So far, there seems to be little room for alternative explanations. There remain serious dis­
crepancies in the first line; and we may note here that the Tibetan has mi ¡dugpa, which indi»
cates apriya-. This might suggest a possible method of explanation which would offer the chauce
o f salvaging something of the Pali: we could conjecture that we have here originally not one but
two verses, that is, a contrasting pair of the type of the Yamaka-vaiga, and others in the present
text such as 1 6 9 ,1 7 0 (Dhp. 345, 346). One of these verses would then have had a reading cor­
responding to M . . . hiji bhodi, together with apriya- and satyam, giving a sense which is pre­
served virtually intact by the Tibetan: ‘There is nothing (of advantage) for a Brahman if he ex­
cludes (only) what is unpleasant from his mind: the more his mind turns sway (from such things),
the more he comes to say that sarpvrti is “ truth” .’ The twin-verse would then be represented by
the Pali, na. . .akilici seyyo, with piya- and dukkhanr.'ltis not non-anythingbetter(i.e. not nothing
better, i.e. much better) for a Brahman when he excludes what is pleasant from his mind: the
more his mind turns away(from such things), the more samvfti is indeed (seen to be) suffering.’
 CO M M EN TA R Y !83

embarrassment It is probable therefore that the word is here only a secondary accident of cor­
ruption, resulting from an attempt to balance the optative nisedke in the second clause (before
the alteration to ntsedho) by an optative siyd in place o f hoti(bhodi). Since this would be unmetri-
cal, it would naturally be altered to *siyyd (for although such a form is elsewhere unknown,
~yy- is regular in other optatives); and this would inevitably result in seyyo.

1 6 . parvahi'a should probably not be attached directly to pra-vraj-, as Senart assumed in his
note on A 43. The older manuscript o f the XJv.(Chakravarti, p, 135) has for the second half of the
verse:
pravahiya atmano malam tasmdt pravrajito nirtuyaie,

while the more Sanskritized version has:

pravrajayitva Ui malan uktah pravrajitas tv iha.

The former, together with the Prakrit, thus shows an alternative, and doubtless older, form of
the pseudo-etymology (from the causative o f vali-), while the revised version and the Pali have
tried to tidy up the matter by connecting the word at least with the correct verb, vraj-.
The Tibetan has bdaggi drimarabspanspa, which, with bdaggi(atmano),zppezrsto translate the
older Sanskrit version; and with spans p a both here and in a, reflects twA- in both places, while
the Prakrit, with brahctva in a, has kept the two verbs apart. On the latter, see also note on verse 1.

17 . T he Pali yonijam matti-sambhavam is a most curious expression. T he usual sense o f yonija-

(‘viviparous’ as opposed to andaja- ‘oviparous*, &c.) is so well established that, in spite of the
possibility of etymological justification, the word seems extremely awkward here, i f not indeed
comic, T he usual interpretation o f matti- as mair- is also difficult; and although the dictionaries
quote yoni-satnbltava as a synonym o f yotti-ja, die expression matr-sambhava seems forced. The
Prakrit would allow us to see inatra- as the original sense; and while yoneka is not in itself deci­
sive (since -k- might be written either for original or for a secondary -y- < it is probable
that the original line was of some such form as yoniya-matta-sambhavam (with a secondary
derivative of yoni, e.g. yonya-); or, perhaps better, with a locative, yoniyam-matta-, forming an
¿/¡/¿-compound. This would readily be rendered into Pali as yonijam, under the influence o f the
more common expression. We should thus have here the same type of false ‘correction’ of an
earlier Prakritic version as appears in the Pali spelling gavaja for gavaya (BSU § 148). As in
some other places, the Pali commentary appears to have preserved a memory of an older version
o f the type here proposed: naliam brdhmana-ymiyamnibbatta-matteneva vadami.
The Tibetan, with n a y i mnal, suggests inatr- rather than matra - for the Sanskrit.
sace ‘if’ (usually printed in the editions as sa ce) is supported by the Prakrit sayi and the
Tibetan g a l te, against the variant sa ve in Sn. 620 and the edition o f DhpA iv. 158.

19 . For the anomalous 9 in adina, see p. 98.

In c, the Tibetan has hjig rten cunzadm i lett de, which appears to translate loke na kimcidadatte.

20. apakare, nom. sg.; parivaya, opt.; see pp. 116, 8a.
For kama-bhoka-, P. Mma-ihava-, the Tibetan has hdodpaid sagpayons sad de, which seems
to imply kamSsrava-pank^nam.

2 1 . kamehi, kamesu: for other examples of interchanges between instrumental and locative in
Pali and Buddhist Sanskrit, see BSU §§ 220-5, and BHSG § 7. 30.
i 84 TH E G AN D H ARl D H ARM APADA

2 2 vtHHapamm of the editions seems to be a mistake, and vinnapamm (Sn 632, ed FausbeU,
in the same verse) is better both metrically and morphologically (T h e edition o f DhpA iv 182
has vtnnapamm) T h e word is rendered b y the Tibetan as go byed ‘causing comprehension*
(Jaschke s v go-ba, not go the meaning suggested b y Beckh, ‘heilsam, zutraghch’, has nojusti«
fication)
In place of tactam, the T ibetan has ytd hon ‘pleasing’ , -which fits the contact of the versa
better than ‘true’ It is conceivable therefore that the Sanskrit from which th n was translated
had satyam Such a derivative o f luta- is not attested elsewhere, and it may be rash to assume it
here, but the aptness o f the meaning makes the conjecture tempting (O n sata-, see also note on
verse 186 )
Pada c (‘by which he offends no one’) appears to have been replaced b y a different line in the
U v gan gis Hon mons mi Iskyed de ‘who has not generated kleias’

24 Vetse 5 4 gives a parallel for the whole of D h p 363 F or mana- manta', see note on 237
T h e Theragitha verse corresponds to the whole o f U v xxvm 8 see also 6 9

2 5 T he scribe first repeated here the preceding verse, and then corrected b y deleting the third
pada, and adding utamatha anuprato above the line

27 U v »Deni 49 corresponds to the whole of D hp 407

28 T he first half of the Sanskrit verse is quoted in B SU § 2i6(w here the verse is numbered 18)

akroian vadkabandhatni ca yo pradustas httksate

(Read akroiSn— T gie ba,yo ’pradustas Utiksate— T sdan ba mm la bsod byed de ) T his is quoted
as a possible instance o f an earlier am for an acc pi surviving in Pali
In place o f ksanti balam, the Tibetan has food pahi brtul zugs, which seems to imply ksonti
vtatan

29 For pada c of the Tibetan, which does not agree with this verse, see 1 98e

31 Rockhill translates b (corresponding to a o f the Prakrit) as ‘who does not speak lncofl
siderately’ , which seems improbable T h e Prakrit suggests that the Sanskrit text probably had
navadhySyt ttSbkijalpak (napt jalpah would not give a satisfactory sense) papakam na vtctntayti,
and this may have been taken to mean, ‘neither taciturn nor talkative , or, since the two padas
probably go together, ‘he should not think of evil either meditating on it or talking about it
But it is likely that the sense o f ‘speaking’ (stnra ba) is a later misunderstanding, and that the
original sense of the verse was ‘he should not think of evil, either as despising it (avajjhayt) or
desiring it (abhjappo)’ T he spelling avtjapu here implies *abhi(j)]happo, suggesting that the
word is a secondary formation from dbht dhyd I f this is so, P abhijappati ‘to covet’, abhtjopp*
(and ¡appa, Buddhist Sanskrit jalpa) ‘desire’, are to be separated from abhijappati ‘to mutter
prayers’ It is of course likely that a contamination with the latter word assisted in the loss of the
aspiration, as against abhjjhS, abhjjhdlu, which survived intact, although it remains possible
that the spelling here is due to contamination with avaja’t only within the present verse
The Tibetan translator appears to have understood papaka- as ‘an evil man’ (sdtg can)
Plda c of the Tibetan stanza does not correspond (it translates jkayttn vtrajant dsinant, Dhp
386a, c f U v xxxm 43, R 41), and the interpretation o f the Prakrit remains doubtful The
word-dmsion given seems to agree best with the remainder o f the stanza ‘ One should not think
 COM M EN TARY 185
on evil; the man who sees the good (sad-dassam), who sees what is profitable {attha-dassavim),
I call a Brahman’. Pali has attha-dassa- as well as attha-dassi{n) (CPD): e.g. Jat. vi. 260 ye
panfita atthadatsa bhavanti Alternatively to sad-, we might think ofsamdassa-. Buddhist Sans­
krit is familiar with saiiidariaka, ‘teaching’ (adj.), and this may lead us to think o f Uv. xxxiii. 45s,
R. 43 as a possible parallel, hin ics sbyan (var. spyan, spyad) phyir chos ston de; Fochhill: ‘«-ho,
being perfectly wise (themselves), teach the law’. If this is in fact a translation o f the same phrase,
phyir would indicate that atha is the particle, rather than equivalent to artha-. (But if so, it would
probably be simply a mistake for artha-, since darsavin- normally occurs as the second part of a
compound, and the only uncompounded example quoted by Edgerton (BHSD), Mv. iii. 104.15,
at least has its object expressed.)
Still further possibilities are opened by the break in the manuscript. The thin stroke on the
right at the head of the second character may be simply the beginning of the character itself,
as has been assumed in the text. But it is not impossible that this stroke represents the remnant
of -e, and if so, we should read sadciam, which could represent, for example, sa-adeiam, or
sv-SdeSam (‘of good instruction’ ; but additional interpretations could be suggested by the usages
of a-diiati, see BHSD).
Again, it would be possible to divide the words as sada iamatha-dasavi, which could be under*
stood as tadd ¿amatha-dariavi. This interpretation would imply an adjective based on the fami­
liar iamatha-vipafyand, ¿amatha-vidarsana. This compound is normally a dvandva (‘tranquillity
and insight’, BH SD s.v. iamatha), but it may perhaps be an exaggeration to say that it i s ‘never
a tatpuru?a’.
Or, with the same word-division, sada could be understood as saniam .
It seemed worth while to pursue these alternative suggestions in some detail, simply as an
indication of the uncertainties o f interpretation which can arise from this orthography when a
close parallel in Pali or Sanskrit is lacking. See also additional note in Preface.

32 . For ghahaiheki, the scribe has first writtenghahafhe'i, and afterwards altered the final syl­
lable to 'hi.
The Pali anoka-sari- is well established, and need not be doubted here. The writing o f -v-
as a glide-consonant is admittedly unusual in this dialect, and we may suspect that anova-
(unless a mere miscopying, or a careless writing for ano'a-) has been taken over from an earlier
form of die verse in another dialect, although the same word is in fact intended. (For traces
remaining in Pali of a pre-Pali -uva < -uka, see BSU §§ 91-93,139,147.) It is therefore unneces­
sary to conjecture that the Prakrit version intended here something like 9an-upasarin-, although
this would admittedly give an acceptable sense in the context: cf. P. an-iipaya, CPD. s.v.

35 . The Pali vttaddaratp (and niddaro in Dhp. 205— the latter verse not being represented in the
extant Prakrit text) has regularly been translated ‘free from fear’ : S. dara, Tr.dara and <fanz(Pischel
§322 ), the form with the initial retroflex surviving in the modern languages. This would imply that
the double consonant in vitaddara is a ‘rhythmical lengthening’ of the type recognized in anuddaya
{iot anu-daya) :see CPD s.v. anjanagiri for further examples. If only the Pali verses are considered,
there is nothing impossible in this explanation; but the remainder o f the evidence raises doubts.
To take the new material first: the Prakrit vikada-dvara could perhaps be explained in the
same fashion— a ‘rhythmical’ -dd- which has been replaced here by -dm- as a (mistaken) learned
spelling. There are in fact two other examples in the text which are rather similar, utvari ( ) 78
and udhvaradha ( 132 ). But in both of these the reason for the -v- is an easily understandable
umlaut carrying through from the initial u-. In these instances, we can be sure we have a real
feature of the language, and not merely a ‘learned’ spelling, since the Niya document no. 420 has
186 TH E GANDH ARI DHARM APADA

the form vtvaravaru T here is therefore no real support from these to uphold the suggestion that
»dvara is an artificial spelling, and it seems more reasonable to assume that in this word do repre­
sents an older form which has been assimilated in Pali vitaddara But i f so, the connexion with
dam ‘fear’ should probably be abandoned
Further, it should be observed that the Pah commentary does not give the meaning ‘fear’ in
either o f the verses m question In D h p 205 it gives the explanation rdga daraihSnam abhavena
ntddaro, and m D hp 385 kilesa-darathanam vigamena vttaddaram T h at is, data is taken to be
identical in sense with daratha, the formal relation being exactly parallel w ith d a m , damatha
and tatna, samatha There is no uncertainty about the general sense o f daratha it is 'suffering,
pain, distress*, and may be either bodily or mental In Jat v 5, for example, apeta daratho is
explained as vtgata-kaya-citta-daratho Since fear is after all a type o f mental distress, it is not
impossible that even in ancient tim es th o e was some confusion here, but on the evidence of
dvara , it seems wiser to keep data, daratha separate from data ‘fear’.
A possible etymological connexion might be seen in the Vedic dvard- In R V 1 52 3 it is said
o f Indra, sd h i dvara dvarisu But except for the name (or epithet) vrka dvaras- in 11 30 4» the
word does not appear elsewhere in the Rigveda, and the meamng is uncertain T h e translations
‘verschliessend, ‘obstructing’ (Grassmann, Momer-W illiams) are based only o n Sayana’s guess
Geldner suggested a connexion with Avestan dvar- ‘sturzen, rennen’, and translated, ‘Denn er
1st unter Raubem eiti Rauber (?)’, explaining the epithet as ‘w e em W olf (rauberisch) anftUend
A t the best, therefore, any explanation which would connect the tw o words— for example, to
take dvard- as ‘violence’, and daratha ‘suffering (resulting from violence)*— would remain purely
speculative
But whatever may be the earlier history o f -dvara, •ddara, there is clear evidence that at an
early period the word w is understood as jvara Luders conjectured that vitaddara stood for
vitajvara (BSU p 100 n , and see §§ 116-21 for examples o f di < jf), comparing P daddallatt
S jiyvd/ysie (Geiger § 41) T his is confirmed by U v xxvm 5, corresponding to D hp 2051 where
in place of ntddaro o f the Pali version, the Tibetan has rttns nad tried, 1 e tiirjvarah We irught of
course suspect that atrjvarak was merely a. copyist’s error in the U v , bu t the occurrence o f the
phrase vtgatajvarougatabhayoaioko m M v 11 237 14. justifies the acceptance o f jvara as authen­
tic Moreover, the same interpretation was certainly known to the Pali tradition, since we find
the commentary on Sn 257 (identical with Dhp 205) giving the explanation kdesapartlShahhS-
vena ntddaro T he word panluha is also used in the explanation of Sn 15, where the correspond­
ing Tibetan (U v xxxu 76, R 74) has again nms nad for daratha-
W e may thus see in dvara either a separate word, whose meaning was nevertheless sufficiently
close to that of jvara to allow for the substitution o f the latter (this would be the view preferred
if a connexion is sought With Vedic dvard-), or, more probably, a genuine development oi}tara
in a dialect showing at least sporadically, the change j > d A s is v.ell known., this change was
ultimately universalized in the Prakrit which developed into Sinhalese
In143 , pa[ ]valide, P payable, the manuscript is unfortunately broken at the crucial point
T he connexion o f vidvarina in157 with dvara in the present verse is doubtful See the notes on
these verses
T h e coincidence o f vzkada- here with vtgata- in the passage quoted above from the Mab^vastu
— where also xnta- would have made smoother metre— indicates that this is the earlier form in
the verse, which has been metrically improved in Pali b y the substitution o f vita- Similarly
avakada- in verse 153 , where the Pali has apeta-, and the U v (to avoid hiatus) has vyapeta-

36 42 78
Cf sadana(P tanddnam) ia verse , and Dhp 370 ( ), panca chtndepancaja ht, where the
commentary (Dhp A iv 109) gives panca , samyojanani
 COM M EN TARY ,g 7
In samdaya (line 66), and four lines later in verse 40 70
(line ), anuvayasa% the character sa
ends in a curve attached at a sharp angle which could reasonably be interpreted as an anusvSra.
See Introduction, p. 7 1 . There appear to be no other places in the manuscript where there is
any likelihood o f an anusvára having been written.

37 .chada may b e understood as a sandhi-form after a preceding accusative, as in the regular

Sanskrit treatment -n s- > -ñ ch-. W e can therefore either assum e that this treatm ent has been
extended to original ~m as w e ll as -n, or, m ore probably, accept here a case form equivalent to
the Sanskrit acc. p i. m asculine (*rüpán). S e e also p. xoi.
F o r th e gen eral sense, cf. D h p . 397 sabbasamyojanaqi ch tiv a y o ve na paritassatL

38 . mulasya is clearly an attem pt at a learned spelling which has gone astray, and there is no
need to doubt that it has com e throu gh mulasa, for an earlier mulama, and thus corresponds
directly to the loca tive in th e P ali version.
T he Tibetan differs in b : no tsha s'es sin hdod m i Ita (RockhiU: 'who learns to b e modest, who
is without desires’). T h e exact Ind ian equivalent o f this is not immediately apparent; but for the
general sense we m ay com pare Petavatthu 74 7 appiccham hirisampannant, or the phrase in the
following verse here, appdhdram alolupam.

39 . ahhtbhtt: at first sight th e final syllable gives the im pression of A« rather than bhu. I t seems
probable, however, that th e character, com ing at the edge o f a break in the manuscript, has lost
a minute fragment from th e top right-hand com er, and that th e scribe did in fact write bhu.
It is difficult to be entirely certain of this from the photograph; but i f the assumption is wrong,
and ku actually was -written, it would be reasonable to conjecture that it was simply a miscopying
o f bhu in the exemplar.

40 . amtvayasam: see note on verse 36 .

41 . nadaka-. the initial character unfortunately comes at a rough part o f the bark, and is clum­
sily written. There is a thickened mark bending to the left at the head o f the character, which at
first sight gives it the appearance of a va. But it seems probable that this mark is in part a natural
marl: on the ba it, and in part a blot caused by the pen catching on the roughness. I f this is so,
the reading na- seems die most likely, and has been adopted in the transcription, though with
some hesitation. Apart from the pronoun na, P. narn, which is an enclitic, there are no other
words in the test with initial na-. This, however, is not necessarily an insuperable objection. The
only other word with original sn- which is represented is sineha, a word which regularly appears
in Pali as sineha. For aid -, on the other hand, Pali has both sina- and nahd- (nha-) : for a detailed
discussion see B S U §§ 180-6. T he development o f sn- to w(/i)- in this dialect can hardly be
excluded a priori; and it may be possible to conjecture that the retroflex was due to the fact that
in the older form the -n - was not initial.
In the Niya documents, the forms which appear are sapaka, salra (511) and sana (647), in
which s has been taken to be a method o f wridngin(.Kiar.J«HT.,Rapson, p. 321). In both these
documents, however, th e w ords occur in Sanskritic verses, and they are thus not cvideocc for the
inherited diaiect form s. In the m anuscript here, th e line above the character is in the main a
natural mark, b u t it appears to contain traces o f ink, and it is possible that the scribe intended a
superscript line. B u t it does n o t seem possible to read the character itself as an r. If, however,
the superscript line was in fact intended, w e could reasonably assume that it denoted aspiration,
i.e. nadaka for nhadaka, parallel to banana, gaña (see p. 98).
,88 TH E G ÄN D H ÄR l D H ARM APADA
T w o alternative conjectures may be put forward for consideration, though at present they
appear less likely than the reading adopted
1 A syllable might have been omitted, and w e ought read amQia) hanadaka— or, in keeping
with the Pali anejam ui this verse, ant(ya) hanadaka
2 Instead o f na we might read An (though the curve to the right at the bottom o f the character
is rather slight for such a reading) W e should m this case accept the superscript line, and take
Hadaka as standing for hnadaka, parallel to tust, taSa see p 63

42 nadht may represent either naddhn o r naddhi, both o f which are recognized by the Sanskrit
dictionaries T h e Chagaleya Upamsad (quoted b y Rawson, Katha Upantsad, p 2 1 9 0 ) has
naddhayah straps’ as part o f the harness o f a chariot T h e nasalization o f the Pali form is a
separate development, since a nasalized form would appear here as "naftt T h e spelling nandtm,
regularly adopted by Pah D hp editions, seems to be merely a mistake introduced into the
manuscripts b y the memory o f mmdi bhava-pankkhtnam in the same chapter (Dhp 413) In
the present verse, the edition o f the commentary also prints nandtm, although the explanauon
given, nayhanabhavenapavatUan kodham, shows that the commentator knew the correct reading,
and the editor m fact quotes nandhim (D hpA iv 160, n 1) from his Burmese source (the Rangoon
edition o f 1903 by U Yan) Sn 622, which 15 the same verse, has nandhim, and on this evidence
Fausbotl corrected the text in his editio pnnceps o f the Dhammapada T h e resurgence o f the
spelling nandtm in later editions therefore seems to be mere editorial perversity
In the Tibetan sogs m g remains unexplained A possible conjecture, o n the basis of the
Indian versions, would be that sogs has arisen from the copying o f a broken o r smudged exem­
plar, and that the translator originally wrote sgrogs ‘strap’
I f it is accepted that the writing of the subscript m may be ambiguous (see p 70), we might
read either samadikramimorsamadikratnmi T he former has no very obvious syntactical explana­
tion, and the latter, though readily understandable as an absolutive (samatikramya ), is unmetn-
cal For the word, c f Dhp 191 dukkhassa ca atikkamam , U v xxvu 37 ( T 30) duhkhasya
samattkranam (quoted by Waldschmidt, N A W G 1959 1, p 6 n )
T he third päda of the Sanskrit version (U v xxxui 61, T 69, R 67) is quoted BSXJ § 130
utksiptapartkham buddkam, with the comment, ‘D ie Übersetzung ist natürlich ganz falsch, es
kann nicht von dem Fortätossen eines Grabens die Rede sein, sondern nur von dem Wegschie
ben eines Torriegels ’ It is, however, admitted that in Pali paltkham we have ‘eine falsche
Palisierung1 o f pahgham, and there seems to be no need to invoke a confusion with portkha
‘ ditch, trench’ (BHSD s v ) The spelling pattkha seems well established for Buddhist Sanskrit,
and it is better to consider it as an orthographic peculiarity rather than a ‘mistranslation’, since
the original sense continued to be understood T h is is confirmed b y the Tibetan version o f the
present stanza, which has yens su gdttn spam (Rockhill’s translation, ‘has thrown off all afflic
tion\ has mistakenly seen here gdun ba ‘pain, affliction’ , instead o f gdun{ ma) ‘beam, panghct)

44 tivedi, vavati see p 87 T h e writing o f initial va- for uva- does not necessarily mean the
2 4,25
loss o f a syllable, as can be seen from vaiada varada T h e Prakrit verse, with ca vt (cäpt)
may therefore indicate a line o f tune syllables T h e Sinhalese edition o f 1898 o f the Pali com­
mentary (quoted by Norman, DhpA iv 228 n ) has uppattinc'eva T h is m a y o f course be merely
a coincidence but it is possible that the Pali verse should in fact read upapatttm e’eca, and that
Uppalttn e'eva and the current reading o f the editions, upapatttm ca, are both ‘corrections’ to
reduce the nine syllables to eight

46 T h e first half of the Sanskrit Verse U v xxxm 20 (equivalent to 12 m the Tibetan) is quoted
in B SU § 203
}<u la pwtyam ca papam copy ubhau sangäv upatyagät
 COM M EN TARY I9I
61 . sviha’ o si’ a : th e verb indicates an agreem ent w ith the Sanskrit version, sprhako bhavct,
rather than w ith the participle pihayam o f th e Pali. In itself, how ever, the Prakrit form is
am biguous, and since sprhaka- is a som ew hat artificial form ation, there is a slight bias in favour o f
con sid ering th e participle to b e th e earlier reading. F o r other exam ples o f interchange of/i andjj-
in Pali, due to m isunderstandings o f earlier Prakritic form s (in both directions, b u t apparently
o n ly after i), see B S U §§ 88-90.

63 . kamaramti: either kama- o r karma- w ou ld give reasonable sense in th e context, bu t the

latter has som e additional supp ort from th e partial parallel cited b y R . 0 . Frnnke, Z D M G 1906,
482, fro m Itiv . 7 9 : kammaraino bhassa-ralo. T h is interpretation accords better w ith the story o f
th e P ali com m entary to D hp . 364, and furnishes a better jin g le fo r dharma-. Itsh o u ld be added
that th e m anuscript is p erfectly clear here, and Franke’s doubts as to the reading o f the sccond
kama are w ith out justification. In M v . iii, 4 32 ,4, 5 the m anuscripts have /«irwa-, w hich suggests
a telescop ing o f th e tw o verses.

65 , 6 6 . T h e op ening here is alm ost an echo o f K ath a U panisad, ii. 23 nnyam utmdpravacancnn
labhyo, na viedhaya na baltuna £rutena, although the rem ainder o f the passage reflects a very
d ifferent attitude from that o f th e Buddh ist verse. S u ch a parallel, however, at least provides
confirm ation ( if an y is required) fo r th e traditional interpretation o f the Pali bahusacccna, in
spite o f th e oddness o f th e form . See also p . 91.
T h e reading vivicca- w h ich has becom e current in the P ali text was doubtless adopted by
F au sb oll as a lectio difficilior, b u t it has really little to com mend it. It is apparently unknown to
th e m anuscripts used fo r the edition o f the P ali commentary-, w hich have the more natural
reading vivitla-. T h e an tiquity o f th e latter is guaranteed b y the Prakrit, and it therefore seems
reasonable to reject vivicca-. In the M ahavastu the phrase is replaced b y the virtually synony­
m ous expression pronia-iayyasancna ca, w h ich also appears in the Pali com mentary, panla-
scnasana-vasino; cf. Sn. 338.
phusamu, plural, as against the singular in Pali, m ay perhaps be linked w ith the fact that the
in trod uctory story before the verse in the Pali com m entary is also in the plural. In place o f this
w ord, the M ahavastu edition has sprhayam, b u t the manuscript readings reported arc spfheyn
and grheya. I t is probable therefore that the text should be corrected to ¡¡>r!cya. T h e surviving
readings could then b e readily understood: grheya as a substitute giving approxim ately the same
sense (though with scant gramm atical justification), and tprhcya as a blend o f the corrcct reading
and the corruption. C f. also p . 83, and note on 333.
67 . lavada-. both the U v . and the M v . agree, w ith tavafii, against the Pali, which Ins presumably
been altered under the in fluence o f D h p . 260 (cf. note on 182). T h e insertion o f so before fccti
and the Cam bodian reading bhihhhuko (D h p A iii. 392 n.) arc obviously subsequent attempts to
corrcct the metre, and should b e disregarded.
i 52 TH E G AN D H ARl D H ARM APADA

first sight offers an attractive explanation 'a man docs not become a ihthsu merely by undertak­
ing a meretricious dharma’ ('such as for their bellies sale, creep and intrude, and climb into the
fold’), or, simply, 'an easy, accessible d h a m d The Tibetan hardly agiees with tbs, haying
gren p a h chos
Edgerton (BHSD s v tefya) thought that the sense might have been taken to be 'o f the village*,
i e ‘common, vulgar, gramya\ but suggested that veiya might be a false Sanskntization of
Mind (AMg ) iestya, from Sk vesa, ‘of garb, or external appearance (only)’. The form tefyam,
however, is simply a conjectural restoration, the manuscript being broken at this point, and the
-y- having been added by the editor By good fortune, part o f the verse has been preserved ut
a bilingual Agnean fragment (Steg and Siegling, Tochansche Sprachreste, I A, p 201, no 3(0)
bhthsur m taiatS bhavatt tehnadharmam samSiaya, the last phrase being translated as
icasta-stm tckam ‘accepung a domestic manner (of life)’ This gives a precise parallel to
the Tibetan(fron, ‘house* rather than 'village'), and we need not doubt that veirtta-13 established
as the reading of the Uv
The Prakrit text uas formerly read as vtipa, and was taken to support the interpretation of
vtitam as vtham But the first syllable is clearly ve, and if the second syllable is ipa, it is indeed
written somewhat clumsily In the absence of other examples with which to compare it, a
reading ima here might seem unduly speculative, but once the idea has been suggested by the
Uv reading, /maappearsgraphicatlyniorelikelythan^xi We would then see here the narrowed,
alif-like form of /, such as regularly appears in ipa, written above a normal ma The form of the
character has been disguised by the double accident of the pen having been carried from the
bottom of i towards the beginning of the m (on the right), and by the lower part of the arc of
the m hiving disappeared with a sliver of bark (which has also taken away the lower extremity
of the following dha)
It would still have been possible to consider that vebna- was a later misunderstanding, if it had
not been for the remarkable coincidence of the Pali explanation vua m a m and the M v n famSm
This, coupled with the other evidence, shows beyond question that a reading with -m- was
current at a v ery early date We may also note that the group sibilant plus m was frequently pre­
sen ed in MSgadhi, and the Jaina commentator SQSnka states that the Sanskntic forms akasnat,
asmSkam were used in Magadha even b) the cow-girls (Pischel § 314) It seems probable there*
fore that the original form of the \erse, in some old MSgadh! or Ardha-magadhi dialect, had
saj, tujam dhamman, which produced an apparently absurd sense ‘A man who undertakes the
whole dharma is not thereby a bhtkfu ’ The preacher would then explain to his audience that by
xtsta he did not mean n ha, but t thna, so that the real sense of the verse was 'a dharma no better
than that of hung in a house*, t e a dharma concerned simply with obtaining enough food to
Inc on Such an explanauon, handed down orally, could then hate gnen rise to the Pali and
Mv vtiama, vt/ama, when the sense of *tetma,mvuma was no longer remembered The Sanskrit
and the North-western Prakrit, on the other hand, were able to preserve tehna-, but, as in other
case» also, were unable to retain the original play upon words

68 An exact parallel to b in the Prakrit occurs in Pali in Jat v 153,%! 181, tataiSbrahma-
tartyavJ (I"nnke)
In the first half of the verse, U% agrees with the Pah (but with prahSya in place of bShttrS)
The Mv also, with yo ca kdruSm fa pjpim cSihkftvS hrahmacoryarSm, although seriously
corrupted, dearl) j^>es back to the same original In p3da c, on the other hand, the Pali and the
Prakrit agree, against the M v , m hirm J bhito taprajSo, and Uv a rthenl-bhutat (or J r ir J ’ <f
xi i2,Chakravtni,p 133) carats This is a good illustration o f the extremely complicated nunner
in which the various versions are interrelated.
 COM M EN TARY 193
In the writing of du for di we might be inclined to see a mere lapsus calami, were it not for the
fact that the same feature reappears in a repetition of the same phrase in 7 9 . We may therefore
assume that the writing does give some indication of the pronunciation, and that the vowel has
been attracted in the direction of » under the influence o f the surrounding syllables: see p. S3.

6 9 . dttrjadi: see p. 10a; tnadunt: see p. 105.

7 0 . Cf. also Therï, 182,189pativijjhimpadaip santarp, Uv. iv. 3Z haspratividhyate, while ¡ocrii.
20 has adhigacchet.
Fotpadatp, the1T ibetan has go hphan ‘rank, status/ while the Chinese has -pj] ‘words, sentence’.
T he latter is a common sense otpada- in Buddhist texts, in contradistinction to the regular usage
of the grammarians, for whom pnda- is a single word as opposed to a sentence: see P. S. Jaini,
BSOAS xxii. 98 ff. Both adhi-gam- andpratt-vyadh- are commonly used in the sense o f ‘under­
stand’ ; and in the translation of Uv. iv. 31 the Tibetan has rtogs ‘understand’, while for xxxii. 20
it has Ihob ‘obtain’. It thus seems possible to translate the verse in two ways: either, ‘He will
understand the Word of Peace: “ The cessation o f the snmknras is happiness” ’; or, ‘He will
arrive at the peaceful, happy state which consists of the quiescence o f the mnskSras* It is of
course possible that the double sense was intentional. Since the expression padam santaot as a
description of nirvana is certainly to be linked with such ancient formulations as the Vcdic
vìpioh paramani padat/i, it is o f interest to «m ari that Benou has recently suggested the possi*
bility o f verbal play in the Rigveda on the two senses o f pada, “ trace” et “ mot” ’ {Études sur le
vocabulaire du Rgveda, première série, Pondichéry, 1958, pp. 21-22).
sagharavoiamu may be a reflection of the pronunciation rather than a mere error of writing:
see p. 83.

7 2 . asecatiakam: the CPD rather inadequately renders this as 'agreeable to the taste, smell’, but
also quotes the traditional Sanskrit explanation from the Amarakoia, trpter nàsty auto yasya
darêanât, -which is certainly correct, except for the restriction to the sense of sight, which is only
secondary. The root sek- ‘to satiate’ is to be separated from sek- 'to sprinkle’ : for details, see
H. W. Bailey, BSOAS xxi. 530. In the commentary to DetfttSmamSld, i. 72, Sseanaya is ex­
plained by avitrpia-dariana. It is possible that Vedic arfc- belongs here : RV ii. 3 7.1 su' pilnjdrp
vasty asicam, and similarly vii. 16. 11, in both of which a translation such as ‘ He {the god) is
eager for full repletion’ would fit the context well. (Geldner: *Er wiinscht voli eingescbenkt’.)
We should then see in tid vd sincddlmm in the second half of vii. 16, 21 a verbal play with the
homophonous root.
There is no means of determining whether the Prakrit should be divided as aseyanc tnoyaka
or aseyanem oyaha. I f the latter was intended, the reading agrees in essentials with the Pali,
which is certainly the older form of the line; if the former, the corruption leading to Mv.
asecanaqi ca mocanam had already started. (One o f the Mr. manuscripts has asccanamocanam.)
Among the commentary explanations of asecanaha (quoted CPD s.v.), note in particular ojavanto
sabhâven'eva madhuro. We may wish to reserve judgement on the question of connecting ojavant-
with ojns- ‘strength’ ; but there is no reason to doubt that c/arani- is immediately connected with
Paliand Buddhist Sanskrit oja. Edgcrton (BHSD) held that in Buddhist Sanskrit the meaning of
ojd was simply ‘food’ ; but from the contexts in which the word occurs it is dear that it is applied
principally if not exclusively to ‘food of excellent flavour’. The phrase in the present verse thus
describes the padani santavt as ‘of sweet savour, never causing surfeit*. The Uv. -datianam js a
poor substitution for this, the word being mechanically borrowed from a different type o f ccntcxt,
namely, the description o f the physical beauty o f Buddhas and other eminent persons.
b mu o
*94 TH E GANDH ARI DH ARM APADA

75 U v xxxi 31 (JR A S 1912, 373)

dtapi vthara tvam apramatto
[ \theta attam
ma ¡ohagudSmgile(h) pramatta(h)
krandan t at mrakesupacyamdna{h)
T he first line o f the v erse presents little difficulty T h e Pali version is probably closest to the
original form Since pamado after ma occurs several tunes in Pali in positions where the metre
requires — v — (ma dkatnmam rajapamado Jat v 123 2 7 ,2 2 3 29, v i 94 30, at the end of an
anustubh the same phrase still further distorted, M v m 454 5 ma raja dhartne pramSdaya),
it has been generally accepted that the original phrase was a negative injunctive, Tilth the
augment retained, 1 e of the form ma pramadah It is thus reasonable to assume that the line
originally had the metrical form — w - w - v - « _ > - a s i n D h p 236a, 285?, 180a Since this
metrical shape is accepted without difficulty b y U v xx ix 53 54 ( = 180), and probably also
xvu 5 ( = 285) the rephrasing here b y the Sanskrit translator m ay be due partly to the Vaitaliya
line in an otherwise Aupacchandastka stanza and partly to other metrical problems i f the
reading¿omado had, as is probable, already become current T here is, however, no justification
at all fo r actually emending the Pali text to pamado, as D Andersen did (Pah Reader, p 126)
there is no reason to suppose that the compilers o f the Pali canon were particularly sensitive to
metrical minutiae, and ma pam&do is thoroughly established in Pah, both in prose and ui \erse
(Sam t% z(f$mabTahmanapathamam]hdnampanuulQ,fsC) M ost probably the word was thought
by the Pah redactors to be supply the noun pamado, with the verb left unexpressed ‘(Let there
be) no slackness’ , since there appears to be no other likely motive for changing an earlier
•pamado T h e commentators regularly explain the phrase by mdpamajjt (nhich does not prove,
however, that they considered pamado to be an injunctive) and this commentary form his
intruded into the te.'rt in the cunous shape mapramadyt in M v m 124 18, where again *pr&mado
v o u ld g n e b e tterm etre .an d jsp ro b a b lyclo se rto th eo rig m alo f theverse In Jat iv i l l Udaye
mSpamada, carattu dhemmam, the metrically better form would be an injunctive without aug
ment, •pamado
I f it were possible to read m the Prakrit veraon pramadi, this would be easily explained as a
simple transfer to an -1 aonst injunctive (pa waJ; also in Pali) It seems, however, to be certain
that the senbe has here writtenpramati, a form which is difficult to explain, and which, even if
correct in this v ersion, can hardly be original A loc sg pramatte would not be satisfactory, and
a nom sg in •# here seems unlikely Apart from this, we are d m e n back to very improbable
analogical forms such as •pramattt (aor inj ), or •pramattek (o p t) or •pramat t o (absolute e), 0!
which the last is perhaps the least unlikely T h e easiest solution is clearly to assume that the
icnbe has sim ply nuscopied, and that he ought to hav e written pramadt
T h e second line o f the stanza is particularly troublesome, and it w ould be rash to be dogmatic
about its ongutal form It probably became grammatically obscure quite early— though the
general sense could not be misunderstood— and it may be that all o f the surviving versions are
the result o f attempts to patch the grammar I t remains possible, however, that the Pralnt
version, giving a simple construction, is reasonably close to the original
T h e Pali text was earlier pnnted with iharastu, and the commentary as pdteaadhe ca U
kJma«wu attam mJbharvtu (so quoted b y Chtlden, P Diet * v bhavati) T h is is full o f difficul­
ties. T he second person imperative n recklessly interpreted as third person. B y its position te
should be ace pi o f the pronoun tat, but to make any sense o f the sentence, it must be gen. t j
of Iran , and tJiragvne must be loc. sg In these arcunwtanccs, it is understandable that Senart
should have felt that the Praknt provided a certain correction o f the Pah— an estimate which
 COM M EN TARY i 95

now seems over-optimistic. Talcing bhamatsu a5 a causative o f bhram- (the difference in trans­
cription is irrelevant for the interpretation), he understood die line to mean ‘ L e t not the
kamagunas cause your mind to stray.’ This, it seems, was so attractive that subsequent Pali
editors have regularly printed bhamassu, and H . C . Norman in his edition of the commentary
(1914) gave die sentence quoted above as cttlat’t m i bhamatu, This indeed makes it easier to
interpret the sentence in the commentary; but it is a mystery why bhamassu should have been
thought to make easier sense than bhavasm,
Radhakrishnan follows other editors in printing bhamassu, although in his translation ('Let not
your thought delight insensual pleasures’) he has temporarily forgotten that James Gray’s transla­
tion is bascdon Burmese manuscripts; and there the reading is ramasui. D. Andersen {Pali Reader,
Glossary, $.v. bhamati) docs not even mention the existence of the reading Ihavassu. O f bhamassu,
he says, 'imp. 2 sg. med. . . . seems to be used as imp. 3 if .’. The Prakrit version, he add?, 'seems
to prove that we ought to read hSmagttna bhamii’isu {aor. 3 pi.) or bhamcsum (aor. 3 pi. caus.)'.
T he important point to make in the present context is that the Prakrit spelling bhamdsu,
w W k qontutent 4 fonsv Hiroin*, is not ©WfiUmvc. «.vidwci for it. A t \V,c
bhamassu was imported into the Pali editions, it was insufficiently realized that intervocalic -re­
in the Prakrit frequently appears in place of an earlier -v- (see p. 88). A confusion between ?;i
and v is easily understandable in the Sinhalese script, and the Sinhalese manuscripts are in /¡ict
divided. (O f the two Dhp. manuscripts in the library* of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, one has bhavasm, the other bhamassu.) The evidence is therefore impressively impartial,
and neither reading can claim superiority on grounds o f manuscript support only.
For the Prakrit, it seems on the whole easier to make sense if the ambiguous -m- is here under­
stood as for an earlier -c-. From the same root, v.c have also bhamana'i {bUUvaniiya) and tabhamu
{sambhavaty). The Prakrit text can thus be taken to represent mu tc hamaguna bhorimsu rittam,
‘May the kamagunas not accrue to tlice, 0 mind.’ Cf. Mv. ii. 142.5. dixya me bhantn !uTmagurd{ft).
Unfortunately most o f the Sanskrit version of the line is lost. The editor filled the lacuna by
[mdhSmaguncprama]thcta ciitatp, without giving any reasons; but since this makes questionable
metre, and doubtful sense (‘May your mind not be agitated in the /«Tjr«<juna {<■%.)' {:}), it can
probably be ncglcctcd. It would be rash to assume that th, coming at the break, ins been ra d
correctly. The Tibetan has sans khyodphut) hhrol hdod la dgah ma byed ‘0 mind, do not take
pleasure in . . . hama'. (The sense otphuri hhrol is uncertain, but this is a problem which need
not be pursued here.) It seems almost certain that terns, in this position in the line, is intended as
n vocative; and if so, this might give support to the translation suggested for the Prakrit. It
might be thought that dgah here oficre some support for the Hurmcse reading rarr.aisir, but sincc
the latter is much more likely to be simply altered from bhamassu of one o f the Sinhalese rmmi-
script traditions, this is more probably an accidcftt.
196 t h e g a n d h a r i d h a r m a p a d a

In the last line, ma in the Fait is unmetncal, and superfluous m sense, since the negation can
be readily earned from the previous line T h e word is thus d ea rly an interpolation to the on*
ginal form o f the verse, but again, this consideration does not entitle an editor to delete the word
from an edition o f the Pali recension In the Prakrit, kam is probably to be taken as injunctive,
equivalent to the Pall kandi, but the existence o f present participles in (bham,yujt, see p 116)
leaves the possibility open o f a direct agreement with the Sanskrit version, handan

7 7 pdnvaja’t (i e panvarjayet, or perhaps second person) sesms an almost certain reconstruc­

tion o f the break in the manuscript, fitting well both the sense and the remaining traces of the
characters
In the Jataka verse, adduced by Franke as a near parallel, the feminine adjectives refer to the
nature o f woman, and we m ay assume that this is also the intention o f the Prakrit verse The
sense is thus, ‘ One should avoid women, who are irascible, ungrateful, and malicious ’
In the Pali verse, cara seems unlikely, and it should probably be emended to care, opt s sg

78 utvart see p S3 ¡agadht'o see pp 95, xoi

7 9 . P asatS is supported here b y the commentary, and b y the occurrence o f the same pida in
Sn 861 and 950 It seems almost certain that the manuscript here has asata, which could not
correspond directly to the Pali I f it is not simply a mistake or a careless writing for asada, it
would seem that the sense was taken to be ‘without attachment' (asakta-) c f Sn 176 aktncavm
kdtna&have atattam
du for di see note on 68

80 Olher versions o f the swnza are

Mv 111 412 alankrto vapi careya dharmatn

ksanto danto ntyalo brahmacart
sarveht bhuttht mvarya dattdtm
so brohmano SOiramano sa bhtksuk
GatuspansatrsQlra (ed Waldschmidt), p 192

alankrtai capi careta dharmam

dantah iantah samyato brahmacart
sarvent bkutesu mdhaya dandam
sa brahmanah sa ircmanah sa bfaksuh
D ivy 339 agrees with this la$t, except for careta and brahmacart (which are probably misprints),
and, unmetncally, dantendnyoh for dantah I t is o f interest to observe here that while the Pali
reading m the first p 3da is isolated, the Mahavastu and d ie Pali are closely related 10 b, while the
Prakrit ts in agreement with the canonical MOla-sarvastivadin version

81-90 These verses, with their common refrain (on which see further the discussion below 0D
86), are preserved as a separate unit in the Pah tradition, where they form the first chapter
(t/roga swtttf) of the Sutta-n*P<ita While there is therefore no reason to doubt that this is in
ongin a separate, self-contained poem, the subject matter quite naturallyled to its indusionhei*
The fact that the Praknt and the Uv agree in using it as a sort of coda to the Bhiksu chapter
(to which, however, the Uv adds a further two verses) may indicate that there was an early
tradition which placed it at this point in the Dharmapada material The Prakrit gives the shortest
 COM M EN TARY rg7
version of the poem, the Uv. the longest. The 17 verse» of the Pali show only slight differences
from the Prakrit in the arrangement of the material: verses 14 and 15 are telescoped in the
Praknt into a single verse, 8 8; verses 6 and 7 are not represented in the Prakrit; and for the
rest, the greater extent of the Pali is due to the repetition of a single stanza, ■with successive
substitution o f single terms of a series. Thus, verses 10-13 816 the same as 9, except that for
fiatva lake these verses have vitalobho, tntarago, vitadoso, and vitamoho respectively. T he same
process of ‘serial repetition’ , highly esteemed as a mechanism for expanding the volume of
sacred texts, is used here by the Uv. to achieve a total o f 26 or 28 verses, including the six
(Chflkravarti’s Sanskrit manuscript) or seven (Tibetan version) built out of the two, 81 and 8 3 ,
which are transferred by the Uv. to the Puspa chapter.
T h e manuscript was badly fragmented here at the time when Senart worked on it, and this
accounts for the difficulties he experienced in putting these verses into order. Since then, most
o f the fragments in question have been carefully fitted into place under the same glass as the
main leaf, and it is now clear that the section consists o f 10 verses, not 11. There is therefore no
need to assume, as Senart did, that the figure given in the manuscript for the total number of
verses in the chapter is incorrect, since there are in fact 40 verses, if we exclude 56a from the
numbering as an accidental repetition.

8 1 . In the second pada, in spite of the break in the manuscript, the remaining traces make the
reading proposed very probable, though a doubt remains with regard to the last syllable. The
spelling pupha is unexpected, since the word appears elsewhere (290 ff.) asptxa 0r puspa; but
the upright stroke, with a very faint trace of a horizontal to the left, at the edge of the break,
suggests the reading -p/ta for the second syllable here. Alternatively, an interpretation pufaje or
pu\s\i might be graphically possible.
It would appear that the ends o f the second and fourth piidas have been transposed by the
scribe, as Senart suggested. Since this cannot possibly make sense, we may assume that the
scribe’s eye had jumped to the second vivo in his exemplar, and that he wrote tcaya ptirano at
the end of the second p§da; but that he also realized his mistake immediately, and, following a
time-honoured method o f concealment among scribes, simply wrote in the word he had missed
at the next convenient place, thus preserving the appearance of his page by avoiding the untidi­
ness of an erasure or deletion.
On the sense o f the refrain, jahati ora-pSraqt, see note on 86.

8 2 . visadax the Pali editions have regularly printed vtsalam, but Fausboll quoted from Burmese
manuscripts the alternative spelling visatam. Since the latter is supported by the Prakrit, it
should certainly bo restored to the text. The word apparently has caused some difficulty to
translators, since Lord Chalmers omits it entirely, and Hare, though accepting the traditional
sense (vitthatam) proposed by the Pali commentator (SnA i. 12), dissents from the natural syntax
of the latter, and attaches the adjective to kodhatn instead o f to sappavisam. Neither translator
has felt it necessary to give a note to explain these somewhat arbitrary procedures. One can only
conjecture that the embarrassment arose from the feeling that a diffusion of tlic poison through
the body would imply a knowledge o f the circulation of the blood; and this knowledge, naturally,
the ancient authors could not have possessed. Nevertheless, even in the absence of this know­
ledge, the commentator was aware that snakc-venom docs in fact spread through the body, and
said so explicitly: ¡album havam pharilva ihitam visatam sappatisair.. In the Tibetan version
htan ba (often used to translate samarpayati) may indicate a variant tisrstcn in the San«knt
version; but this would in any case be a late alteration.
It must, however, be admitted that the sense of ‘diffused' is 3 little forced here. ’I hi* in it:e!f
 CO M M EN TARY i 99
correspond to the Pali (sappa)visam (ZD M G 60. 484), is 4S0 in the present plates, and really
belongs to verse 4 4 .

8 3 . tidavahi: even before the discovery of the Prakrit version, Morris suggested (JPTS 1SS7,
136) that the Pali word here should be understood as udabbahi, from the root rrA- ‘to extirpate’.
T his seems intrinsically much better in the context than the rather questionable ut - f r adhcti
o f the Pali commentator, and we may agree with Senart that the Prakrit confirms the conjccturc.
Since this root appears with initial b- in the present dialect (see note on brahidarc, verse 1), the
form here indicates a single intervocalic consonant, uJ-abrh- (or ud-a-abrh-, for the metre, i f the
original verse had an aorist with the weak form o f the root). In the Pali, the double consonant
~bb- may either indicate ud-abrak-, or may be simply formed by analog}- from other parts o f the
verb.
vtkasa: < s igahya, S. vigrhya. On / < hy, sec p. 105. It can hardly be disputed that the sense
o f ‘seizing’ or ‘plucking’ the lotus-flower is intended here: such a meaning is entirely apt in the
context, and ctgaylia, with a single intervocalic -g-, is the phonetically regular inherited form of
this part o f the verb in Pali. It would seem, however, that the Pali commentator was familiar
only with the meaning ‘to quarrel’ for this verb, and with the analogical formation viggayha. lie
therefore attempts perversely to see here the root gah-; and the modern translators have regu­
larly followed him. This curious piece o f pedantry— which has the effect o f eliminating such
poetry as the verse contains—is supported by a jejune story of boys diring into a lake to gather
lotuses. This is obviously invented merely to justify the exegesis. It is probable that the meaning
o f vigrhya survived in the tradition leading to the Udanavarga. Unfortunately, Cliakrnvnrti’s
Sanskrit manuscript was somewhat broken at this point; and the printed Tibetan tcvt has:

chu styes rtsa belli me tog chugnas it aid.

But it is very doubtful whether this could be original. The phrase chugnas (perhaps 'water-
dwelling’, as an adjectival phrase with me tog: Rockhill's ‘tank’ could hardly be justified) is in
itself clumsy after chu skyes at the beginning of the line. And since the translator has carefully
given a literal rendering of all the other words (chu sltycs for saroruhatri, rtsa bn for bhn, r-e tog
for puspa), it is prima facie very likely that |f/;w gnas stands in place of the word corresponding
to the Pali zigayha, We may therefore suggest that die translator wrote theg nas 'having hro',:cn'.
This seems an appropriate word in the context: see further Dcsgodins, s.v. chng pa, where the
following phrases are quoted: me tog chagpa ‘bouquet de fleur»’, rgun hbrum ehig pa 'fai.'ccau
de raisins’, thog (gi) chag pa sdom ‘lier Ies gerbcs'.
200 T H E G A N D H A R J D H A R A IA P A D A

from the Hevajra Tantra (ed D L Snellgroie) produced 35 absolute es translated with m ,
against only 13 translated otherwise
The pattern of this group of \crsts obvrouslj lends itself to corruption by the process of rt-
soitiiig the fusi and secood lines and pairing them in different combinations Thus, the present
verec in the Praknt combines the first line o f Sn 4 with the second lme o f Sn a There 12 little
point in «peculating which arrangement is original It could be argued that the Praknt first hoe
here, with fob-, goes better with the plucking of 3 flow er than the Pali chid-', but there is nothing
improbable in the latter» and it may well be supported by the Tibetan, which hasffoJ, a tetb
regular})' used to translate ehd- But tbe same Tibetan *e/b would certainly not be impossible
as a rendering of brh- in a suitable contest In fact, all three \ ersions ha\e suffered alteration in
one way or another The Praknt has lost some \erses which are in the Pah An onguia] verse-
beginning» corresponding to that of 85 in the Praknt, has probably been ousted from the Pali
by the mechanical repetition of the same first line (with udacchidd) in Sn 2 and 3 The Pnknt
a restrained m tmung sen al repetitions into the text {though reateis may hate been ejected
to supply them), while the Pali multiplies b> this means the \erse beginning j o noccasSti The
Udina\arga lea\es this \erse single, but multiplies $e\eral others

8 4 , 8 5 . udackn't see pp 82, 87.

vtsoia)tfca appears to be thoroughly-established tn th e pgh manuscript tndtaon 31 this point,
and there is thus no means o f telling w hether o r not th e corru ption goes back as fa r as the on*
ginal redaction o f the Pah \ersion. A n editor w ill therefore p rob ab ly w ish to lea\ e th e w ord as it
Stands m an edition o f the Pall te x t, b u t th e sttu ctu ral pattern o f th is group o f t erses (see also
note on 82 ) alloiw us to re-establish for the ongm al p oem a reading equivalent to tvs totayitrj
In tievr q{ the com paraute ranty o f the w tcom pounded ie r b , the corru ption was virtually
inevitable A similar instance, w hich also illustrates th e powerful attraction o f a fam iliar com*
pound\erb, m aj be seen in S n . 2 9 H ere the Sinhalese m anuscripts an d th e editions ha\e prr-
a e n ed th eco rrecttex t nSgopuiilatamtadalayxtvS B u t Fau sboll qu otes also a Burm ese reading
padilayttvS It should be added that nsasayittS m ight hat e been in itially suspected m eiel) on
account o f iu form In t tewof latcrP ah usage, i t 1$not surprising-th at sc n b e s vtd editor*jhould
ha\e been quite undisturbed by this b u t in the old language w hich underlies m ost o f the poem!
in the SuUa-npdla, divergences from the fam iliar Sanskrit distnb u tion o f absolutizes in -ftv?
and -}a are extremely rare I n th e 1149 verses o f th e tex t, there are o n ly 4 0 instances o f - f r i
(or •trfyfi) u ith compound \e ib s, 28 o f these are in 7 suttas, and o n l) 18 suttas from the 72 m
theco!lrct)onha>eaji} exam ples at all On th eo th e rh an d , simp/e *e rb sm -/ t< f and regular forms
in •)<* are extrem ely com m on throughout In the first Vagga (suttas 1 -1 2 ), the
tutta, nu h 9 compound ^ eibs in -/rtf, shows b j th is fact alone an origin different— w hether in
tim e or m p lice— from that o f its neighbours (T h e re are thus good g ro und * fa r dissent from the
suggestion made b ) W intenute, Jlutory of Indian Literature, 11, p 9 5 , that all 12 poem s o f the
l}n g a*v?S£a might be the work c f a single au th o r) A part from th is su it», th e rem ainder o f
the A »pga contains only one eiarrp le (nrjjrtcd, 139, 171)
iojdttha, dala'ftka LOders proposed to interpret th ese form s as optative m idd le, but w W e
an o p u u te is conceivable, though u n like!), in 8 5 , such a form v ou ld b e altogether impossible
in 84 . Since the two words m ust certain!) share th e sam e explanation, it seem s necessary to
undcru and them asab«>lu ti\n (F or oth er s n o m a lio in th e m atter o f aspiration,
* « p too )T h i» would alio« iofa'ttha to correspond exact!) to the Tali * e « e , and a syntactical
parallel to the ab so jtm iein the relam e clause ma» b e t e e m n S n 17 , i\> n!taranrpahfyopcr.m a
Cotrni'ohdinK toralj-utvn the Tibetan should ha% chdambuh r a » j (no t rr*j, as tn the p n n ’ed
edition) ‘a d im o f reeds' Ro& hill*» tram lation ,'em bankm ent', although w rong in th is e»*>*ext.
204 THE g a n d h a r i d h a r m a p a d a
best one ought suppose that the slaAdcr in question was o f the type whereby an ignorant percoo
might slander the TathSgata by dedansg that the Tithagata m s fully enlightened, or that he
preached the doctnne (as for example, VajracchediU Pnynaparamita, ed E Conze, pp 48
53) It seems unnecessary to strain credulity so far Rockhill i t is true, quotes the commentary
as saying on the subject o f skurhdebt, *W e must not revile, no t seeing that all conditions (dharma)
are by their nature, nothing ’ But this could readily have been adduced from the second line of
the verse
in the Mahavyutpath, 7024 5, the two expressions ndtijalpet and ndlisaret occur side by side
The latter appears in Tibetan as ha (anhphro barmbya'fo not continue too far* But the Chin
ese rendering (both in Sakaki and Wogihara) takes both words in the sense of ‘spedung
H i t « I t may then be possible that we hive here a hint o f a conn«m
w ith the dictionary translation quoted (where appears fo r xgro) on the one hand, and with
the verb (ahsaratt) o f the Indianoriginal of our verse on the other In Sakaki's edition, moreover,
an alternative, or perhaps additional, meaning is offered fo r naUsaret, iq " ^
and here the sense of ‘fnvolous speech may rather reflect the other fault, skurhdebspa The latter
also tran&latea abkyakhyOnam ‘slander' in M vy 5233, -where the Chinese lias sj^ $ | ^
‘slandering someone’
These may admittedly be only accidental coincidences B ut there is no reason to donbt that
the two expressions naitjelpet and natuartt, go together w a cliche, and even i f the Chinese has
added the sense of ‘speaking’ to aiisartt only because o f the influence o f its neighbour, (though
Indian exegesis may lie behind this, if a Prakrit sara* C svara was thought of), it is quite pos­
sible that a memory of the same cliche may have induced the Tibetan, translator to view otimab
in the Uv verse in terms of exaggerated speech' T h is would account for sjroW ogr/d, to which
its normal partner skur hdsbs pa could then be added, without too closely inquiring into the
adequacy of the latter as a rendering of pratimatt
I am indebted to Professor W Simon fo r the identification o f a Chinese rendering of the
verse in chapter 3a o f the Fa ckt yao sungclung (Taisho Tnpifakfl, no 213, vol nr, p 797A*4)
''S* ^ t it tt£ $ tf £"] ‘ N ot thmkmg o f his present Or future existen­
ces, considering the world as illusory ’ Here i t might be that mat ‘think of
call to mind indicates pralt sarati in the sense o f ‘to occupy one’s mind w ith’ I t is, however
possible that the translation depends on a M iddle Indian formation rather than a Sanskrit
one ( w also the dscussion of dtpa in verse 111) and that vre have here the reflection of an
Indian exegesis which saw here ait and prati w ith smardh, interpreted as 'to think ahead (to die
future) and ba<Jc (to the present)’ This is very similar to the alternative interpretation for
oraparam already quoted from the Pah commentaiy The latter phrase is here translated is
IJ|£ ]lt> literally, ‘he conquers that and this , and as already suggested it is probable
that naceasan m paccasan approximately repeats the sense of die refrain jdhSU oraparam U
might therefore seem tempting to suggest that the words ‘this’ and ‘that* convey the same seme
‘ present existence (thatra M v y 2975) and ^ ft£ ‘future existence’ (atmdrc,
samparo^a) and are thus in accord w ith the interpretation oiparain \he original verse as future
existence’ rather than nirvdna But in fact the Compound must be taken as abbreviating pfc
and lf(^ p f, the normal renderings of param and aparan respective^ No conclusions can
therefore be drawn from this Chinese version as to the ongmal sense of para in the Uraga sutta.
 COM M EN TARY -05
8 8 . anose'a: a reading am- is at first sight tempting; but this appearance is due to a fold in the
b a it. I t is admittedly a striking coincidence th2t this fold should show a darkening at precisely
the point 2t which -« would require the additional stroke, and from the photograph alone it
would be difficult to be sure that this w2s not a stroke of the pen. W e may, however, assume that
the mark is not ink, since Senart read -o from the manuscript itself.
In the Tibetan version, bag la m l b a h z regular translation o f anuiaya (Jaschfce 3nd Dcsgodins
are misleading on this expression; bag chags, which Jzschke gives under the same he.idinr,
norm ally translates zasana). U v. sxxii. 77, agreeing w ith Sn. 14 is preceded bj'three variations
o f the same stanza ( tr.ula akusala samuhalast), w ith anuscxa replaced bv kur. g i i (Slava) in 7 s,
nags sbyor in 75 (cf. Sn. 16 vanathqja), and rims ttad in 76 (cf. Sn. 15 daratkaja: on the corre­
spondence P. daralha-, S ./ra re -, see note on verse 35 ).
p a c e a i : the last syllable has been read as a; but the fact that the final stroke o f the character
is horizontal (and the in i somewhat rubbed or faded) makes it probable that i was intended. The
assumption would then be that the fold in the bark had checked the pen and prevented the con«
tin nation o f the stroke to the right o f the vertical. I t would be difficult to see in this a direct
r epresentation o f paecayase (see also note on the following verse), and the most natural cxplana*
tion is that prace’a is a normal nom. pL replacing the archaic form in -arc, and that i (r/i) has
been added to mafcf. good the metre. (In the same way, but without metrical repair, Sn. 7 has
yassa zHakka zidhupita. Occasional Vaitaliya lines in Aupacchandasika poems 2rc well cnouch
known elsewhere, and this line may therefore be authentic: but it is equally possible thai the
original poem h2d here a form which should have appeared as zidkupitase.)
89 . zanas^arasj well have been influenced by anose'a in the preceding verse; but in the light of
established parallels in siHla, P . sithila, and masimi, p. rr.edhura (sec further, p. 94), the spelling
is not in itself surprising. I t is certainly not an error, as Luders at first supposed.
zinavana’ u 1 the writing here is clear, and it seems impossible to interpret the last syllabic as -i.
Lfldere, reading in the preceding stanza where the Pali has -«if, was prepared to inter­
pret the word here as equivalent to vinibar.dh£ie. This could be understood as a nominative
pluntl of the Ardha-magadhT type in •So (Pischel § 367), and although this form docs not occur
elsewhere in the manuscript, i t could conceivably have been transferred by the translator from
his sourcc. This explanation would seem to be the most probable for praceVu, if the proposed
reading pract'a i is not accepted. In the present stanza a nominative (with -6 for the metre) would
give a possible sense; but it seems more likely that the word agrees with the Pali, and that -a'u
instead of the normal -a'i for the dative— assuming that it is not simply an error in copying—
merely reflects the weakness of terminal syllables. The labialization of the final vowel might be
due to the following bh (see also p. S3 and note on 304 ).
91 . var.asir.:n of the Pali editions is unmetrical, and the original verse doubtless had vanasmi.
20Ó TH E GÁNDH ARl DHARM APADA

either a mistake o f the Tibetan translator, o r an indication that adkt• had been omitted ui the
Sanskrit manuscript used fo r the translation {adhi-muc- is regularly rendered by mospa)

95 . The two vowel-marks below fragment 459 belong to tadheva lohe in 432, 451, the fit being
confirmed by the natural marks on the bark Likewise the traces above 431 fit the bottom of 455,
and the top o f the final - i m 455 can be seen in the fragment attached b y thread to 451 The
three verses 95 t 96 » 96 a, are thus consecutive in the manuscript, though there is no guarantee
that this group follows 94 w itho ut a break
Th e Prakrit verse thus appears to be a conflation o f the tw o P ali verses, w hich also remain as a
pair in the U v In the context y o k a m is a reasonable replacement for the Pah dxhkhtm, cf
U v u 7 yoga hi daratiktamah
a tdt (dyanti) U v duhkhamyantt

96 athadu U v , w ith ttflhantt, agrees w ith P in the indicative B ut the imperative seems to
give a better sense ‘ Supposing there do exist things m the w orld w hich are attractive in this
fashion, still, the wise control th e ir desire in the matter* (aíra— better so taken than *ici bas’,
Chakravarti), or alternatively, ‘Away w ith such things as are attractive only in this mf(taihatio,
i e which are samkalpa-raga)
athatha U v athatra (ms athddr) T h e meaning m ust be the same as in P ; but there is no
trace of -e- written here See p 82

96a The Pali verse, containing both •tanho and bhava-tallSrti, is given merely by way o f dlus
tration, and there is no certainty that the P rakrit verse was the same even in the first three pádas
U v xxxu 50 f f has a series o f verses containing the expression gron gi tsher (translated by R
'thorns o f worldluiess’) which may render b h a v a - ia ly a , b ut none o f these verses is likely to be
a direct parallel to the present stanza
F o r d, cf also U v v i 9, ¡amprajána-pralistrirtah (wrongly restored by Ch as •praU\}tfa\lah)

97 . There are no very close resemblances between the present passage and the well-known
chanct-compamon in the Ka(ha Upanisad, 111 3-8, except the conclusion, ta tu tat padam
Spnoti yasmad IkSyo najayate I t 18, however, an interesting coincidence that the preceding
verse, 111 2, w ith abhayampSram, gives a parallel fo r abhaya disd here F o r other chariot com
pansons, see J N Rawson, The Katha Upanisad (1934), Appendix I I , to which may be added
Sam v 4 ff (cf E Waldschmidt, N A W G , 1955 1 , pp 10 f f ), Jat v i 252, and JatM x xa , 55-8
akuyano was interpreted by Senart as c-ku-jana, 'w ithout worthless men*. Barua and Mitra
rightly followed the commentary (tta kigati na 1nravati) in reading the long vowel, akujano, in
the Pali text, against akujano o f the P T S edition, but objected that Senart’s interpretation was
‘unidiomatic’ (W hat then can one say o f their ow n incredible suggestion that the word ‘can
also be allowed in the sense o f Pali akuyano, 1 e “ n o t a bad vehicle” ’ ?) T h e P T S D , accepting
•Ü-, translates as ‘not going erooked’ , b ut this is very dubious T h e commentator’s sense of
‘a chanot which does not squeak’ fits excellently, and has been generally accepted The only
trouble is that i t seems a singularly pointless thing to say in the context, i f this is all that it
means Rawson (loc a t ) talks o f the'silen t spiritual progress'of the Buddhist teachings which
sounds well enough in modern English, b ut is in fact quite incongruous Th e position is not
much improved even i f we take into account the follow ing phrase, and suggest that the reason
w hy the chanot does not squeak is that i t has dkarma-vrhseb A ll the other comparisons in the
tw o verses have the possibility o f a religious interpretation in at least one o f their two tenw>
and double meanings are certainly involved in apalambo and partvaronam, which, as well as
 COM M EN TARY 2o7
being technical terms for parts of the chariot, must in the second sense indicate ‘prop, support’
and ‘protection’ respectively. It is thus reasonable to see here also a second sense. Smart's
interpretation serves well, and should accordingly be reinstated in this capacity. The punning
sense is thus to be seen as an echo of the phrase akSpurisa-sevila, which appears not only as
an epithet o f the goal, nïbbâna (as in 7 1 , o f atnaiampsdairt), but also of the means thereto, for
example samadhi(CVD). The long vowel in aküjano is not a serious stumbling-block; and such
a slesa would presumably cause no more difficulty to poet or audience than did the constantly
reiterated classical Sanskrit pun on jada, jala. It may be added that in any case a-ht-jana would
tend to result in akiijana, through the familiar process of 'rhythmical lengthening’ (cf. CPD
S.v. anjanâgirï).
trakehi; Senart brought into comparison here the expression dhamma-takka-purejavam,
which occurs as an epithet of amâ-vimokhant in Sn. 1107, and drew attention to the fact that the
present passage contains, in the verse which follows, the very similar expression sammâ-ditthi-
purejavam. Considering then that samyag-drtfi was, if not an exact synonym, at least very simihr
in meaning to dhama-tarka, he was ready to believe that the sense of larka might have been
original here. It would thus be a most fortunate coincidence that the substitution of the more
familiar expression ihama-cakra should fit so neatly into the structure of the comparison,
replacing a word which did not fit at all. Put in this way, the argument is of course absurd. In
the Sn., on the other hand, takka is the word required; but the context is entirely different.
Barus and Mitra go so far as to suggest that the chariot-verses ‘may be justlj- regarded ss a
later recast of the idea’ of the verses in the Sutta-nipita. This is wide of the mark. The poem in
question begins (Sn. 1105) jhSyim virajam âsïnatjj; and the relevant verses are:

1106 (a) pahànam kâmacchaiidânaip (b) domanassana £ ibhayam

(c) thinassa ca pamtdauam (d) kukhuecânam nivârauam
1107 (e) upekhSsaiisaqisiiddhairi dhammatakkapurtjazam
arffiSvimokhaip pabrSnti (f) avijjâya pabhedanam.
m i ajjhatiam ca bakiddhS ca vedanam nàbhinandato
evam satassa carato vinHSnam uparvjjhati.

The poem is thus clearly based on the formulae of the trance— the jkSnas, samâpattis, and
vimokkhas. (This is recognized by the commentator, though not elaborated. For a detailed treat­
ment of the terms involved, including full references to the Pali sources, see E. Lamotie, Le
Traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nâgârjuna, ii, pp. 1013, 1023 fi.) 'Hic first of the verses
quoted gives the preliminaries to the f i r s t — tivice' evakffmehieiviccaahtsalchi dhammehi.
B y the hitter are meant the five nlzaranas, of which four are indicated by the phrases marked
a, c, d, and/ (the last, since vicikicchSarises from avijja). The second mzarana, ‘oyiipSda, is here
replaced in i by domanasta, doubtless in part due to the fact that abhjjhâ-domonassa is a familiar
compound; but in addition the fourth jhâna involves the passing away o f somanassa-domar.assa.
The szirttfliSna is also described as upckhâ-sati-parisvddhiy, reflected here in e. The first word
of the sumJhSyirn, indicates the subject-matter; and the last verse sums up the proccss by the
slightest of hints, which are nevertheless unmistakable in their intention. The phrase ajjhaitan
ca bahidàhâ ca points to the formulae of the alhihhzSyatanas, the first six of which begin with
these, xvhüc they arc transcended in the seventh (Mvy. f 71, following the dkyânas and samd-
patlis in 67-58 and the vimohfas in 70). In vedanam nàbhinandato there is summed up the for­
mula applicable to the second and following sanâpatiis (Lamottc, op. cit., p. 1033; M . i. 436):
so y ad csa tatlha holi vedanagatam tafiRSgatam sanUtaragaiam virJlâr.agatam te dhonme orkcato
duhkhato ngalo. . . semenupwati. In the second samâpattithü vin r.âr.Sr.ancâyatanan is attained,
and in the third is transcended: hence vinr.5r.am uparujjhati.
208 TH E G A N D H A R l D H ARM APAD A

This is too much to be dismissed as an accidental coincidence, even though the terms involved
are commonplace enough Th e term which concerns us here, dhamma-tahka purejavam, may
therefore be expected to belong to the same complex of ideas, and m fact we find it in the for
mula of the firs t/ta n a — tavitakkamsamcarammvekajampitisukham In the same way as tedanam
in the last verse o f the sutta indicates the larger form ula, the first item from this list also was pre
sumably meant to call to m ind the other adjectives T h u s dhatflma takkd-purejavammeans simply
that the later stages o f the trance are ‘preceded by (or start from ) the first jhana' A more literal
rendering would be ‘preceded by an examination o f the dharmas'— not, surely, ‘reasonings
thoughts o f the Law the dkarmas in question are those ( vedanagata, &c ) mentioned in the
formula quoted above fro m M i 436
T h e conclusion seems certain d h a m m a -ta k k a - in the S n verse is m erely a poetic licence (for
the metre) fo r d ha m m a v tta k k a I t may w ell have been fe lt as an approximate iltr n on dhatnm a
c a k k a , but i t could hardly be the original phrase in the chafiot-verses
T h is leaves the P ra krit reading trdkeh1 s till enigmatic T h e S n verse appears to be the only
recorded occurrence o f dhamma-tahka m Pali, and w hile one m ight assume that a memory of
that verse has induced the translator to w rite trakehi here, i t is difficult to see w hy it should,
especially since, as verse 201 shows, the expected fo rm coka was available in the dialect
As a possible explanation i t m ight be suggested th a t the traditional interpretation did in fact
see in the chariot verse a near pun on cakka takka (which would be no woise than jada jalain
Sanskrit), and indeed i f this were so the S n verse m ight w ell have had some influence The
translator o f our version may then have grasped an opportunity, not available in other dialects
to improve on his source by placing in his text a * o rd w hich would in fact w ork as a ilesa since
traka is not only the expected inherited form o f tarka, b at is also precisely the form which would
be expected fo i the Greek Tpo^os if this -were taken over I t need not o f course be implied that
such a borrowing from Greek was in regular use m the dialect A wheel is after all an u n lik^
object for which to borrow a w ord from another language B ut the recently discovered Greek
inscription o f Asoka from Kandahar may encourage us to believe that the Greek language was
sufficiently widely used in the N orth west to make it quite possible for the translator to be a\fart
o f the existence of a word which he would naturally w rite as traka, and which at the same time
actually had the meaning 'wheel

99 gihi can hardly be thought o f as a genitive, and the suggestion that ‘the genitive termination
has been dropped m etri causa’ is unconvincing W e may rather assume that the phrase is a later
substitution in this vetae, being transferred as a whole from other contexts (Dhp 74 g & l
pabbajita uhho) and inflected only at the end Th e singular inflection and va together exclude the
possibility o f treating the expression as a compound A aimtiar inflection n f a phrase as a whole
appears in 251 vtjatnana 1» nruesu, where vtjamanesu m ight have been expected In Buddhist
Sanskrit L v 3 7 7 artyatrakarmasvkrtat seems best interpreted in the same m anner (rather than
the alternative explanation B H S G § 1 7 13 , which involves an ablative karma(t) subjected
shortening m etn causa)

100-5 T h e extent o f this section agrees exactly w ith the P jIi, whereas the U v contrives to
elaborate it still further into 18 verses (xv 9-26) c f note on 81-90 I t is not at first sight clear
w hy tius material should have been, placed m the M aiga chapter Franke suggested (ZD M G
*9 °® 495) that the compiler o f the text had been reminded o f these verses, w ith their refrain of
tmrtt, by the occurrence o f the word (svadi) in 98 T h is in itse lf may be thought to be a iatt>«r
slender m otivation, but it is w orth recalling th a t ¡amma ¡ait is one o f the items in the eightfold
tnagga, and that another item, samma dttth, appears in company w ith satt in the verse in que*-
 T H E G A N D H A .R I D H A R M A P A D A

T h is is too much to be dismissed as an accidental coincidence, e\ en though the terms involved

are commonplace enough T h e term w hich concerns us here, dharnma-takka-purejavam, may
therefore be expected to belong to the same complex of ideas, and in fact we find it m the for­
mula of the first jhana— tavttakkamsamaramm ekajampitisvkham In thesame-way asredanam
in the last ’■erseqf diesuttaindicates the larger form ula, the first item from this list also was pre
sumably meant to call to m ind the other adject» es T h u s dhamma-takka-purejavammeans simply
that the lite r stages o f the trance are 'preceded b y (o r start from ) the first jhana\ A more literal
rendering would be 'preceded b y an examination o f th e dharmas'— not, surely, 'reasonings,
thoughts o f the Law’ the dharmas in question are those (tedanagata, &c ) mentioned tn the
formula quoted above from M 1 436
T h e conclusion seems certain dhamma-takka- m the S n verse is m erely a poetic licence (for
the metre) fo r dhamma-vttakka- I t may w e ll have been fe lt as an approximate ilesaon dhamms
cakka, but i t could hardly be the original phrase in the chariot-verses
T h is leaves the Praknt reading trakehi s till enigmatic T h e S n \ erse appears to be the only
recorded occurrence o f dhamma takka in P ali, and w hile one m ight assume that a memory of
that verse has induced the translator to w rite trakekt here, i t t$ difficult to see w h y « should,
especially su\ce, as verse 201 shows, the expected fo rm cdka was available in the dialect
As a possible explanation, i t m ight be suggested that the traditional interpretation did in fact
see in the chanot-vm e a near-pun on cakka takka (w hich w ould be no worse than jada jala in
Sanskrit), and indeed i f th is were so, the Sn verse m ight v e il have had some influence The
translator o f our version m ay then have grasped an opportunity, n o t available in other dialects,
to improve on his source by placing in his text a w ord w hich would in fact w ork as a (tea since
traka is not only the expected inherited form o f tarka, but is also precisely the form which would
be expected for the Greek rpo-^s i f this were taken over I t need no t o f co u rs e be implied ¿at
such a borrowing from Greek was in regular use in the dialect A wheel is after all an unlikely
tAsject fo t v*Ynd* to borrow a word from another language B u t the recently discovered Gtwk
inscription o f A ioka from Kandahar may encourage us to believe that the Greek language was
sufficiently w iddy used m the North-w est to make it quite possible fo r the translator to be awaie
o f the existence of a word which he would naturally w nte as traka, and which at the same time
actually had the meaning 'wheel*
99 gtht can hardly be thought o f as a genitive, and the suggestion that ‘the genitive termination
has been dropped m etn causa’ is unconvuicmg W e may rather assume th a t the phrase is a later
substitution m this verse, being transferred as a whole from other contexts fD hp 74 gtto
pabbajudubho) and inflected only at the end T h e singular inflection and ta together exclude the
possibility of treating the expression as a compound A sim ilar inflection o f a phrase as a whole
appears in 251 vtjamana c i rttcesu, where vtjamanesu m ight have been expected In Buddhist
Sanskrit, L v 37 7 mvyalra feannaraArtat seems best interpreted in the sam e manner (rather than
the alternative explanation, B H S G § 17 13, which involves an ablative karmd(t) subjected to
shortening m etn causa)
100-5 The extent o f this section agrees exactly with die Pali, whereas the U v contrives to
elaborate it still further into 18 verses (xv 9-26) c f Dote on 81—90 I t is not at first sight cleat
why this material should have been placed in die M arga chapter Franke suggested (ZDMG
1906,495) that the compiler o f the text had been reminded o f these \erees, with their refrain of
smrtt, by the occurrence o f the word (stadi) in 98 . T his in itself may be thought to be s rather
slender mouvation, but it is worth recalling that tammd-taft is one o f the items w the eightfold
nagga, and that another item, scmmd-dtttki, appears in company with saltin the verse in ques-
 COM M EN TARY 2n
doubtless find a lamp more serviceable. I t must o f course be conceded that the allusion to
attadipa viharatha is intentional, and the commentator’s suggestion that the traveller has been
shipwrecked is thus not altogether perverse.
For jara in d, against ogho in the other versions, Senart thought o f the possibility o f jhara
(which graphically would imply only the omission of the diacritic in Jara), with a transfer of
sense from ‘waterfall’ to ‘flood’. T his was disproved by Franke, who cited J s t iv. 121 dipam ca
kâtum icchâm yam jará mbfrikiratî. Lévi suggested that in both placesjar/î resulted from a re­
placement o f ogha by jala, which was then misunderstood as a Mâgadhi form forjará. This can
also be excluded, since So, 1092 shows that, when the flood (so/, o f sainsâra) has arisen, it is
precisely against old age and death that the island is required as a refuge: oghejate mahabhaye
jarâ-maecu-paretânam dipam pabruhi mama. Similarly in Thg. 412. Lüders (BSU § 86), while
rejecting Levi’s explanation ofjará as an error forjala, thought that the similarity in sound(with
ja lâ ‘old age’ in the ‘Magadhan’ form o f the verses) might have had some influence in the
development o f the metaphor o f the island in this connexion.
T he Chinese versions here, in keeping with ‘lamp’ in the preceding clause, have ‘darkness’
instead o f ogho. Lévi ingeniously suggested that, since glia and ya are so similar in the Indian
w riting the translators might have read tamo yam instead o f lam ogho. Indeed, the phrase invites
misunderstandings. An alternative would be Uaraa ogho (since from early times a superfluous
anusvâra is often written in sucha position), read as tarn mogho, and interpreted as moho, or even
appearing in this form through a Prakrit version. From this, 'darkness’ would be an easy step.
O r again, tamogko might have been taken as a compound (tamas+ agita), in which ease ^ $3
‘l’abîme des ténèbres’ (L¿v¡) might be thought to render it very neatly. Or the idc3 o f darkness
might have been suggested by the similar verse Dhp. 236, where tuddhattfa-malo (Uv. svi. 3
nirdhanta-) might have prompted someone to think o f nir-dhvanta-— though this is probably too
abstruse a pun to have been intended by the author o f the verse. But o f course it remains possible
that the Chinese wrote ‘darkness’ merely because, after 'lamp1, this was the logical way to con­
clude the stanza.

1 12 . Since fluctuation between versions in verbal prefixes is fairly common, it is quite possible
that idha vafhadi is simply a miswriting for adhivaelhadi. On the other hand, adhi-ijdh- is
somewhat rare (though it does occur in RV vi. 38. 3; ix. 75. i), and it seems therefore more
likely that idha is a genuine variant in this version. For the sense compare 110 asvi lohi; 122 so
ida loku ohasedi. In a comparable phrase, Thg. 35 has the uncompounded verb, yas' assa
vafdhaii.
The Uv. agrees with the Prakrit in having ¿ârittah and lit, but with the Pali in ya h 'bhivnrdhate.
In place of suyi-kajnasa, it has éubha-cittasya. This last, however, appears to be a corruption of
one version of the Uv,, since the Tibetan has spyodpa gisan, rendered by Leri as iubha- and ear-,
but in fact a perfectly possible translation o f suci-karma-.

11 3 . anuiheltadu, implying *an-u{i)-slhihanio.

yo'i was taken by Senart to representyo oyam, comparable to na't for tuTyarp( 133). Barua and
Mitra were right, however, to prefer the sense of yiiva (though " i from tv7, perhaps through an
intermediate ya" is a silly suggestion), and the new material confirms it by yu'i in 184. The
form is thus the representative o f P. yuvin-.

114. Uv. iv. 21 dharmam kâycna vaisprtet. The reading/xwfffr'in the Pali is certainly an error,
and is probably as old as the commentary, which has hrlycr.a dulMiIdiniparijiinamo camaeta-
dhammatrt passali. Since this also would make better sense with 'touch’, it mipht be sucecMed
210 TH E GANDH ARI D HARM APADA

Indian original, but without further evidence one could not exclude the possibility o f a less
Sanskntic version of the U v which still had here the form dtpam instead o f dvtpam On the other
hand, in the locus classicus for this expression, the last words o f the Buddha (D u 100) die
Sanskrit has Stmdwpair mhartavyam, and the Chines« also has ‘island’ (MahSparuumna sfitra
ed Waldschmidt, u 200) In this and similar contexts, the Pali commentators regularly under
«cod the word in the same way In his translation of the Digha-nikaya, Rhys Davids at fmt
wrote 'lamp’ , but subsequently noted— w ith some surprise— tin t the commentator took it as
‘island’
The ambiguity o f the M iddle Indian dipa (presumably already ambiguous in the pie Pali
texts) would seem to make it inevitable that the word should have been used as a i k p on oca
sion A translator naturally had to choose between the tw o possibilities, and the Sanskrit tens
regularly chose dvipa Therefore, either this was the only sense considered in such contexts or
if a double sense was seer, that of ‘island’ w.» considered the more important l a prose, how­
ever, both senses can be brought in lokasya diipd bhatnsySma lokasyaloka bfuivisyam (Abtusi-
tnayalankiraloka-vyakhya, ed Wogihara, p 596) Sasaki is ready to take the rendering 'lamp a»
simply a mistake, and this seems to be the general tendency since modern scholars became fcra
liar with dvipa in the Sanskrit But the metaphor o f light is so natural that it would be hardly
fair to dismiss the rendenng ‘lamp’ as a curious error and nothing more T h e phrase dipom
harolt presumably recalled the name o f the former Buddha Dipamkira, who is understood 11
Sanskrit as well as m Pali to be a ‘light-bringer’, not an ‘island-maker’ Intrinsically the latter
would seem no more forced than tirifumhara and indeed one could not reject o ut o f hand the
possibility that one term may have stimulated the formation o f the other by w ay o f rivalry since
if one religion were thought, even through a misunderstanding, to claim to have made the island
(of salvation), the other might retort by claiming the construction o f the ford leading to that
island, or vice versa T he Buddha may indeed be an island (or refuge) for the world, but when
the author of the Mahavamsa says (111 2) dipa lokassa nM utot he could hardly have meant that an
island had been extinguished T he same text also puns elaborately o n the tw o senses of ¿¡p& »
184
In many places the sense of 'island is quite unambiguous, for example Sn 1092,1145 Thg
412 In others, where the context does not immediately decide, it is tempting to suppose that the
commentators deliberately preferred ‘island because alia dipa m the sense o f ‘with the atmat
as light* nay have seemed too reminiscent o f the Upantsadic dlman (Bfhadaranyaka, iv 3 6
asiamta ttdilye yajridvalhya condratnoty astomte Iante 'gnati iantaySm vSa hmjyotir evayam
purvsa ill atmanmya jyottr bhavaty atmanawSyam jyotudste & c , Katha U p v 15 torn tw
bk&nlam anvbkati sanam, usya bh&a sirvcm idam tnbkati, or even Bhagavadgita, xiu 33
ksetrem h ttn taika krlsnamprakaiayaii) Nevertheless, we may suspect that for the same reason
the early Buddhists n ho first used the expression did think o f dipa m terms of light’, while they
would necessarily reinterpret atman (Tins is possible without any implication that primitive
Buddhism was ‘ upamsadic’, or that it held M rs Rhys D and s's doctrine of a tm n in opposition
to the orthodox Buddhist theory of anatnum )
In the other Dhartnapada passage where the Chinese has translated in terms of ‘ light*, the
content nukes it certain that this was the sense primarily intended b y the author of the vers»
(Dhp 235 8) The literal sense is the common metaphor o f a journey, and a translation with
‘ aland’ reads rather quaintly ‘You have started on your journey to Yaraa’s presence (not is
Radbakrtshnan, “ arrived — sampaySto tt yamossa senhke) there is no inn where you canpasstbe
night (til« pi ca fe rotthi antara) and you have laid in no provisions for the journey
Pt ca it na vtjjati) therefore be sensible (fandtto bhend), get yourself an island, and press on
rapidly (khippamvSyama)* If forced to continue walking through the tught, a sensible tpan will
 COM M EN TARY 211
doubtless find a lamp more serviceable. It must o f course be conceded that the allusion to
attadïpà viliaratha is intentional, and the commentator’s suggestion that the traveller has been
shipwrecked is thus not altogether perverse.
F or ja m in d, against ogko in the other versions, Senart thought o f the possibility o i jharâ
(which graphically would imply only the omission of the diacritic in jara), with a transfer of
sense from waterfall* to ‘flood’. This was disproved by Franke, who cited J ît iv. 121 dipam c<x
katum icchami yam jard nabhikirati. Lévi suggested that in both places jarS resulted from a re­
placement o f ogha by jala, which was then misunderstood as a Mâgadhî form forjura. This can
also be excluded, since Sn. 1092 shows that, when die flood (sal. o f samsSra) has arisen, it is
precisely against old age and death that the island is required as a refuge: oghejâte mahabhaye
jarS-imccu-paretamm dipam pabriihi mama. Similarly in Thg. 412. Lfiders (BSU § 86), whfle
rejecting Levi’s explanation o ffora as an error for jala, thought that the similarity in sound (with
ja lâ ‘old age’ in the ‘Magadhan’ form o f the verses) might have had some influence in the
development o f the metaphor o f the island in this connexion.
T h e Chinese versions here, in keeping with 'b m p’ in the preceding clause, have ‘darkness’
instead o f ogko. Levi ingeniously suggested that, since gha and ya are so similar in the Indian
writing, the translators might have read tamo yam instead of iamogho. Indeed, thephrase invites
misunderstandings. An alternative would be iamtn ogko (since from early times a superfluous
anusvâra is often written in such a position), read as tarn rngho, and interpreted as moho, or even
appearing in this form through a Prakrit version. From this, ‘darkness’ would be an easy step.
Ox again, Iamogho might have been taken as a compound (tamas+ ogha), in which case ^JjfJ
‘l’abîme des ténèbres’ (Levi) might be thought to render it very neatly. Or the idea of darkness
might have been suggested by the similar verse Dhp. 236, where niddhanta~malo (Uv. xvi. 3
nirdhanta-) might have prompted someone to think of tiir-dkvSnta— though this is probably too
abstruse a pun to have been intended by the author o f the verse. But o f course it remains possible
that the Chinese wrote ‘darkness’ merely because, after ‘lamp’, this was the logical way to con­
clude the stanza.

1 12. Since fluctuation between versions in verbal prefixes is fairly common, it is quite possible
that idha vaçlhadi is simply a miswriting for adhivadhadi. On the other hand, adhi-vrdk- is
somewhat rare (though it does occur in R V vi. 38. 3 ; ix. 75. 1), and it seems therefore more
likely that idha is a genuine variant in this version. For the sense compare 110 asm loki] 122 jo
ida lohu ohasedi. In a comparable phrase, Thg. 35 has the uncompounded verb, yas' assa
vafâhati.
T he U v. agrees with the Prakrit in having cârinah and hi, but with the Pali inyaio ’hhivardhate.
In place of suyi-kamasa, it has subha-cittasya, This last, however, appears to be a corruption of
one version of the Uv., since the Tibetan has spyodpagisati, rendered by Lévi as iuiha~ and car-,
but in fact a perfectly possible translation of iuct-harma-.

113. a$ttptehadu, implying *an-u(t)-sthihanlo.

yo'i was taken by Senart to represent yo ayatn, comparable to na'i for nâyatn (133). Barua and
Mitra were right, however, to prefer the sense of yuva (though “i from vS, perhaps through an
intermediate ya” is a silly suggestion), and the new material confirms it by yu'i in 184. The
form is thus the representative o f P. yuvin-.

114. Uv. iv. 21 dharmam kâyena vai sprSet. The reading passati in the Pali is certainly an error,
and is probably as old as the commentary, which has hâyena dukkhfidltu parijanatiio catitsacca•
dhammatn passati. Since this also would make better sense with ‘touch’, it might be suggested
212 TH E G AN D H AR l DHARM APADA

that the commentary has been brought into conformity with a later corruption, but ¿ u s o less
probable, in view o f the metrical difficulty o f an indicative (whether pkusah or phaaeti) in the
verse In other passages in Pali the original verb has remained A n g in 356 amaitm dhatm
k&yenapkusitva Itiv ilb}fah¿¡yenaamatamdhatumphmayttvámrttpa¿hm,]ít v 2$t Jhammn
kSyena pkcssayatn These latter passages confirm the interpretation o f the Praknt form here as
an optative of the causative base, phasa't < spar¡ayet Ludera (B SU § 234) rejected the sugges­
tion that the original verse might have b&iphassaye, on the grounds that an indicative (¿foasotj)
was assured by the agreement of the Pali and the Prakrit But there is no such agreement The
termination a'i is well exemplified as optative, but would be strikingly anomalous as anuulsa
tive It has of course been thought of as such only because o f the familiarity o f the M 3har£tn
declension (On the other form in -a’t in the present text which has been taken as an indicative
avka't see note on verse 5 0 )

115 U v iv 1 yepramaltah sada tnrtah, and similarly in the Tibetan, rtag tu hckt

116 pramoiia theU v agrees in havingan optative singular, against the indicative plural of the
Pali But the manuscript reading accepted by Lévi pramadytta, seems incredible, andis indeed
shown to be merely a corruption by the Tibetan translation, tab igah ha T his would indicate
that the word should be emended to pramudyeta (since on the evidence we could hardly go as
far as the classical form, pramoieta) T he Tibetan version admittedly depends on a difietent
recension of the U v and in the last pada of this stan?a agrees with the Pali and Praknt, hphap
pakt spyod yul dgak ba yin while the Sanskrit manuscript diverges, miyam aryah wagotaroi*
To this extent, the evidence of the Tibetan might be thought to be inconclusive But tt seems
highly improbable that the producer of an improved recension o f the U v should have introduced
pramadyeta intentionally

117 ieih supported by the U v ¿restkrva, and its Chinese translations (see p 36) mayseetn
at first sight more striking than the Pali settham, but if so, (me might suspect that for this
very reason the Pali here has the older reading In fact, the argument is inconclusive, and the
question remains open Parallels can be cited for both senses for b esf, U v x quiddbuuy*
dhanam ¿reítkam, and Arya áüra’s Suihástía rabia harandaka v 9 (text as yet unpublished)
ptmyam anyair aháryaivad dhaitanam paramam dhanam, and s o n 7
htam dhanam paraman aryam ahdryam anyath, and, for the mwyhant, ibid 111 2
yo mamuy&m kusalavibhaDcik prdpya kalpair antdptar
tnohat punyadtaitnam tha na svalpam apy dcinott
so *mud lohat param upagatas twram abhyeti ioham
ratnadvtpdi oemg wagatah warn grham iunyahastah

In the Praknt, it is conceivable that ietht was at first intended as neuter see p 116

118 Uv six 4 bhadtaim- See also pp 103 109

119 U v iv 4 yadd, ickrnm prcjam C f M Bh xu 17, 20 (Bombay edition)

120 U v iv 24 inverts the order of the two halves o f the stanza It agrees with the Pali m
{ttfthatSm, and the Prakrit sitfmdht is thus left isolated Luden proposed to take the word as
equivalent to samrddhttn, but this seems altogether impossible on account o f the metre Formally
» e might recognize here the locative of the Vedic samiha T he sense would then be, 'went
 COM M EN TARY 2I3
to a meeting with the gods’, that is, bccame one o f them; or, more probably, ‘entered the battle
o f the gods (with the demons)’. This function of Indra does in fact appear in the Pali commen­
tator s story introducing the stanza; and from the Vedic point ofview sainitha- ‘battle’ is especially
appropriate to Indra. Alternatively, it could be suggested that the word is written for samidi
(for comparable anomalies in aspiration, see p. 100): ‘went to the assembly (samiiim) of the gods’.
This would be, in effect, simply a way o f saying ‘obtained rebirth among the gods’, which is the
substance of the Pali commentator’s story.

1 21. Ludcrs was doubtless right (DSU § 200) in considering dhammam in the Pali here to repre­
sent an original plural (as in the corresponding verse in the Uv., hinan dharman)-, but perhaps
over-emphatic in asserting that the Prakrit forms could only be plural: see p. 114.
seveyya in the third pada o f the Pali is most probably a mechanical repetition from the first
half of the verse. T he Uv., with rocela, agrees with the Prakrit, and the same word seems to be
the source of the Chinese translations. These have ‘qu’on ne plante pas
les racines des fausses vues’ (Levi, p. 244), which suggests a misreading such as rope- (for roye-)
or rove- (for race-).
On loliavaddhano the Pali commentator wrote: yo hi evam karotiso hkavaddhano nama holt.
Such a frank confession of ignorance by a commentator as to the meaning of a word is so rare
that it seems almost ungracious for a modern successor to add his own conjectures. T he Tibetan
renders with exact literalness, hjig rten hphel bar mi byaho, and the Chinese expands it to 'one
should not increase the evil in the world’. Barua and Mitra, in a paraphrase, give ‘popularity’,
which suggests that they took the compound as a bahuvrlhi (loke vardhanam yasya salt). This
seems on the whole more likely to be right than the translations which see in it a tatpurusa.

1 22. Uv. xvi. 5 eandrama.

1 23. Uv. iv. 27 nadagaram. The expression ‘a house of mud’ in the English rendering of the
Tibetan is not ‘a different simile’ (Barua and Mitra), but merely an oversight. The Tibetan text
has, correctly, hdam btihi khyivt ‘house o f reeds’. In place o f this, one of the Chinese versions
(Levi, p. 287) has ‘lotus-pond’, which seems to indicate a confusion between nala- and nalina-,
mlint (as also in the Sanskrit lexicon: Monier-Williams gives ‘the blossom of Nelumbium
Speciosum’ under nala, but queries the validity of this sense) and between agara and akara(as in
padmakara, kamalakara). Levi translates the Sanskrit as ‘hutte de branchages’, but does not
comment. There seems to be no difficulty in the accepted sense o f a ‘house of reeds’. We might,
however, bear in mind the possibility that the original intention of the expression might have
been ‘the home of the reeds’, as a poetical phrase for ‘pond’ or ‘lake’ (cf. for example S. kiunu-
davasa); since in nature it is after all a rather more frequent occurrence for an elephant to trample
down the reeds at the edge o f a lake. See additional note in Preface.

125. imasma: previously read as imasa, since in Senart’s facsimile an overlap at the break in the
manuscript conccaledthe -m-. The new photograph is clear, dukhusa-: see p. 83.

1 2 6 . bhadranu: see note on 2 8 6 , and p. 53.

127. The last three syllables of b and the first four o f c have almost entirely disappeared from
the new photograph, but are legible in Senart’s facsimile.
The parallel adduced by Franie, Itiv. 45 appamddarata santa, is not exact, since the metre
here requires sada to be interpreted as equivalent o f ¡add. The second half of the verse is a
214 t h e g An d h a r i d h a r m a p a d a

frequently recurring cliche J2t 1 275 Ihdzett kusalam dhammam, & c (see Franke, ZDMG
1906,480)

128 te the Pali parallel quoted is not in itself conclusive evidence for this, but the reading may
nevertheless be adopted with confidence, in spite of the break in the manuscript, since the only
other possible reading m the context would htye, and this is excluded b y the slope of the vowel-
stroke (C f for example line ]93 )
vthano s ee p 116
It has not been possible to restore the end o f the verse w ith certainty Taken in conjunction
with the second half o f Dbp 23, the three prominent marks on the upper edge o f the break
strongly suggest [fo]emn 'a I t is therefore tempting to restore [ni]van£yo[ka ksjmtu amitara (cf
also 156- 9) Allowing for the fact that the two edges o f the break have been pulled a little too Eir
apart, the remaining traces o f writing would be entirely consistent with such a reading, except
for one difficulty on the lower edge, immediately below the mark read as ’a, there is a cone
which has the appearance o f the lower part o f a sa I t is perhaps ju st possible that a hastily
written mu might curve back in this fashion, but it would be extremely unusual for n u to desceoi
so low m the line o f wnting Because o f this fact, it has seemed more prudent not to insert the
conjecture into the text

129 Franke compared with the first phrase Ang m 329 appamSde pamuditS, but both die
metre and the comparison o f 116 make it much more probable thztpramodi’a should be under
stood as an optative, as Senart suggested
T he phrase kama rati is frequent, and the form o f the present verse, with kama-Tatx-uatfutcam
is well established in Pali, reappearing at Sam 1 25, M u 105, T h g 884 Similarly, U v iv 13

pramddam n&nuyujyeta na kama-rati-samstavam

The Chinese translation also, ^ ‘ne recherchez m desir m plaisir* (Levi,

p S48), strongly suggests that both words, kama and rati, were m the source T he reading of
the Praknt text is thus isolated, and it seems therefore v ery improbable that Senart was right in
suggesting that it was original, and that the Pah reading was the result of 3 mistake Inparticdar,
the theory that kama- here was due to a version in a Praknt dialect which knew the substitution
of 'tenuis for sonant’ (as in adhkaehadi in the present text) is based on a misunderstanding oi
this feature in the orthography (see p 86) More probably, the Praknt is merely a ‘restoration’
from an imperfect memory o f the general shape of the line at stage in an oral transmission
I f so, it would seem that Senart’s interpretation (ma gam as aonst injunctive, and taihamz as
tamhknmm), while consistent with the wntmg, is less likely than an interpretation which would
preserve the metrically long first syllable o f kama- and the meaning o f santhatam In 17, the
same spelling sabhamu certainly represents sambhavam, and in the present context this would be
nrtuaHy a synonym for saTiihaiain In M v t 120 9 lambhtrcam (BHSD s v ‘assoaauon, social
relations’) 1$ probably a distortion o f the same word, and in that passage aly< it is probably a
synonym substitute rather than a graphic corruption, since, as Edgerton noted, some of the
manusenpts imply the reading ¡ansiuvam Ifin^flrathefirstsyllableism etncallyloBg the word
may be either the equivalent o f the locative frame, or, more probably (but without much differ
ence in meaning) gramya-, and th is compounded as in the Pali phrase In support o f this, we
may note gramya sukha ui Sansknt as a euphemism fa r raft, and Pali and Jaina Praknt gama-
dhamma (collocated is Pali with vietkuna, P T S D , and interpreted as meaning rnattkaaa in
SOyagadanga, u J , Sheth, Proknt-Hmdi D iet)
 COM M EN TARY 2I5
1 3 2 . Then. 341 saddhamme siippavedite; and frequently in Pali (Franke, p. 479).
dntgha: see p. 100; udltvaradha: see p. 83.

1 3 3 . amedi: Senart’s reading amoii, interpreted as apnoti, was for long an embarrassment both
to the palaeography and to the grammar: for the syllable which seemed to be mo had the vowel-
stroke apparently attached to the right o f the character instead of the left; and in the next verse
-pn- has clearly developed to -tm- [pranodt). The form pramuni in 130 gives no support, since
there the -in- is the development o f a single intervocalic consonant, from a form equivalent to
the Pali pdpune. Franke, before the Uv. version was known, established the sense o f the second
half of the verse by the comparison of Jat. i. 389 vissdsa bhayam anveti siham va miga-mattika.
Because of this, and the difficulty raised bypranod!, he proposed to understand the word here as
developed from anveti, but retained the reading amoti. Barua and Mitra even went so far as to
dispute Senart’s reading, and because of anveti in the Jataka parallel conjectured that the reading
might be ameti or amid; but, for a reason unexplained, refrained from examining the published
facsimile to see whether the manuscript would justify this.
The reading amedi is in fact certain, and is confirmed by the appearance o f the same word in
the new material in 2 0 1 ,2 0 2 as the equivalent of Pali anveti. In the present instance, the syllable
me, written somewhat cursive!}', is slightly disguised by the flattening of the beginning of the
character; but what was thought to be an o-stroke in an unorthodox position is in fact the right-
hand limb of the m, and what was taken as the beginning of the m is in feet the e-stroke.
T he foolish tale invented for the Jataka verse, of a lion in love with a deer (nicely described by
Levi as ‘ une histoire a dormir debout’) can hardly have been imagined by the poet who first used
this entirely serious and indeed striking simile. T he comparison was naturally felt to be strange,
and the Chinese translators cut the knot by boldly inverting the sense: ‘as the lion seizes the
deer’ . But there is little doubt that Levi was right in understanding the sense o f the original to
have been: ‘comme la biche suit Ie lion (qui lui a pris ses petits)’. (p. 250).

13 4 .parantu: Thg. 884 and Sam. i. 25 agree, vathparamam against vipulam in Dhp. 27; and in
M . ii. 105, as Franke noted, the manuscripts are divided. The word is missing in Levi's Uv.
manuscript, and the Tibetan version has lost the half-verse. In the Chinese versions, ^ is
more likely to render vipulam than paramam. But in the circumstances, the point is likely to be
o f little use in a discussion of the relationships between the different versions.

1 3 5 . The piecing together of the fragments which make up this verse has occasioned much
trouble, and the nature of the fragments is such that the critical reader may well feel impelled to
exercise himself with tracing-paper and scissors before he is convinced of the correctness o f the
reading. The following notes may be of some assistance.
There appears to be a mark rising from the lower horizontal of tha\ but this is probably a
pen-drag, since the vowel -e is normally attached to the upper horizontal: therefore ditha rather
than dithe.
T he -T- in dharma may be thought to be simply a continuation o f the piece of thread which
shows below the leaf. But the original print shows clearly that the thread passes under the bark,
and that the -r- is in fact written. The rising stroke, however, appears to be very slightly too far
to the left, and it is possible therefore to argue that it might be the vowel -e rather than the arm
o f the m. A reading dhanne is thus possible, though unlikely.
Neither of these points affects the sense, and for the remainder the reading seems established.
Pada c was firstread as dukha-prahanatti, bearing in mind Dhp. 331 sablassa dukkhassa sukham
216 THE G AND H AR l DHARM APADA

pahamm but this gave no likely sense to the verse as a whole, and rahha- seems a more probable
testaratH>n
Fragment 437 is now attached below 4j6, but it was separate in Senart’s number uig, and its
present position in the photograph has 00 justification
suhatha’i could be understood either as sukharlhayc or sukhartham ca Again the sense re
mams unaffected
For -tda j, see p 92
Any attempt to supply the two missing syllables o f c can only be speculative, but the general
sense is fairly certain Since the normal Buddhist attitude is to think highly of'proper exertion’
(sanyah prahana, sammappaJhana) but to disparage rvksa pradham (luha prahana) v.t may
reasonably assume that the same attitude is expressed here T h e verse may thus be translated
T o r the sake of happiness tn the present life, and for profit m future existences, excessuety
6cvsie « « t ic practices [are 'worthless] the wise man should (instead merely) keep guard on 1»
rrnnd , or alternatively, the wise man, (leaving aside] severe ascetic p ractices, should control lus
rrand The remaining trace of the second syllable would be consistent with -dha for the one
translation, e g a word representing Sk erlha, or with -tva for the other, e g falrxt
(H ie expression *l$kha pad/turn, it would seem, does r o t occur in P ali)
For other verses relevant to the association of the pcndita with two anhas, see note on 245

136 Fragment 431 fits the trace's above 436 as >\eUasthoseattbeendi>fthemamleai(i86) The
poaiuon of this verae as the second m the chapter is thus guaranteed

! 37a-d These four verses are consecuuve in the manuscript, but there is no evidence as to
their precue place in the chapter.
For the spelling anuuj- for an-troa-, see p 83

138a , b The mark at the top of fragment « 3 appears to be the bottom of fw in 4« These two
verses are tfiiis in all probability successive
The proposed identification of 138a with Dtu? 36 admittedly rests on rather «fender pounds
but the suggestion seems vorth putting forward In its favour is the fact that sudu isnotliiety
to be a very common verse beginning, jn d the fact that in both cases the verse comes m die Gita
chapter Against rt ts the fact that das is normally represented b y dru~ This however, is flQt
«ntvemlie g dugadt 0 in 5 2 ), audio the present instance we might in any case expect a di#s»
rtulau&iv sudutdriam "> su4 tt[dnia)
It would be tempting to see in. fragment 429 aUt rakse- the beginning o f pad* c o f the same
verse But ttxAt fragment fo s well (both physically and m sense) with 1 3 5 , and there n a slight
additional argument against placing it here in the fact that, after the first verse, all that has s»r
vived of this chapter is a number o f verse begtuungs, indicating that when the manuscript
first broken, only a narrow strip on the right hand edge renunjied attached to leaf A It uoiild
therefore be rather unexpected to find a fragment from the centre of the page, although naturally
vich an argument is not in itself conclusive

138c , d The moit thit can be said o f fragment M6 \®that the ttacea would he eonutttm with a
nn&fa%smadfn The comparison with the two t jv verses is merely a tentative suggestion based
on the fact that in these we have two consecutive verses m the Cttta chapter, containing the
*016 titu ly d ) and also the word samadht (ijn hdzin) Rockhill traiislatts ‘ They whose minds
delight in nwditauon find no enjoyment in desires, he who is shielded from the smallest affliction
will enjoy bbssfal slumber’ , and m veise 52, * he who is troubled by no affliction w h itest
will find great joy1
 CO M M EN TARY 2 iy
1 38e. It has not been possible to suggest either location or identification for these three frag­
ments. T h e probabilities seem slightly in favour o f their belonging to the present chapter; hence
the suggestion that the trace o f ink at the beginning of 439 may perhaps represent a.

139a , b . The main leaf begins with the fourth verse o f this chapter, and it is therefore iip™n-fr>in
whether these two are the first and second, or the second and third. It is o f course virtually cer­
tain that they are themselves consecutive, as they are both in Pali and the Uv., their first halves
being identical. The dose relationship o f the two fragments within the manuscript is emphasized
by the feet that they share the same rather spidery handwriting. I t would seem that the pen was
not functioning too well at this place; but before 140 the scribe bad cut a fresh point, and the
writing is back to normal.
In both o f these verses there is a striking agreement with the Sanskrit version: apa-matse, Uv.
alpa-matsye, against P . kfnna-macche\ and amsvam, Uv. amismaran, against P. anutUmuam (said
to be from stan-).
palare is also o f interest, agreeing with U v.paivare, while P. haspaHale(c(. classical Sk.palvala).

1 42. bhetadi: the future also appears in Uv., bbttsyaie, while P. has the present, bhijjati. The
commentary has na drass’cva bhijjissati it veditabbo, which suggests that the present was already
in die text. Since, however, futures such as bheechati arc sufficiently rare in Pali to invite altera­
tion, it seems probable that the future may be the original form in this verse.

1 4 3 . T he new photograph shows that hars- is to be read rather than has-. Our text therefore
agrees with the Sanskrit version against the Pali hSso. The Uv. a!so has harsa, and Chakravarti
suggested (pp. 1-2) that the Pali directly represents this, quoting in support the fact that the
commentary renders the word by tuttki. One might perhaps think o f kasam beside kassam,
hassami ( < *karfySnii, Geiger § 153); but on the whole it seems more likely that the P. Iiqsq is
simply a mistake, rather than a direct derivative. It would then be due to a misunderstanding of
hasso ( < harso) as if equivalent to hasyo, which would readily be ‘corrected’ to haso.
I n i, sado agrees with the Mv. version, while Uv. has ntiyamprajvalite sati. While it is tempting
to think of a survival of Vedic sadam, it is probably simply a case of 0 written for a, of which there
are several examples in the text: see p. 81.
The placing of fragment 512 here might at first sight be open to doubt, in view of pa- for the
usual pro-, and the need far conjecturing an otherwise unexampled conjunct, jva. But pa-,
though infrequent, does occur a number of times in the text (sec Index); and the present stanza
has an in paksiti. And jva would in any case be expected to be rare. In the light of the
interpretation of dzara in verse 35 as equivalent to jvara, the word written in the present verse
might conceivably have been padvalide. In the other word, however, the Pali also has a dental
(-ddara), while here it has The probabilities are thus fairly evenly matched as between the
two possible restorations. The location o£ the fragment is justified by the exact fit of the two
lenticulee in the bark with the portions on the main leaf. The probability of such a good fit
occurring merely by chance is in any case extremely small; and chance can be ruled out entirely
when in addition a reading appropriate to the verse emerges.
Since the meaning of niccam is conveyed by sado, we would expect the Prakrit version to begin
the line in a similar fashion to the M v. text; and tarn (tSvat) agrees sufficiently well with evam.
Jit is indeed just possible that eva was written here, though lava appears more likely.] Cf. Uv.
i. 29, wfuch has tatha where the Pali has taaa.
pakfiti: ioc. abs., decidedly better than Mv. prahfiptS, nom. pi., which is almost certainly a
later alteration.
 TH E C A N C H A R ! D H AR M APAD A

1 4 4 . T he last páda of the Prakrit (Senart’s fragment C xviu) was correctly placed here by
Luders» and is not to be connected with U v x 15 (Chakravarti, p 2) T he corresponding verse
(1 6, T ib 1 4), which was lost in Chakravarti's manuscript, was later cited m full by Luders, and
discussed in relation to the Pali (B SU § 105)

yam eva prathamSm rStrim garbhe vasati mdnavah

avifthilah sa vrajatt gatai ea na mrvartate,

(The last word naturally requires emendation to mvartate) T h e Tibetan version shows some
slight variants dan por, suggesting prathamam, taken adverbially, and ¿ugs pa, implying vifah
(unless we are to emend to biugspa, but the honorific form seems improbable in the content,
and the sense o f ‘enter* 19 confirmed for the Tibetan by the variant hjug in the Kanjur) The
other versions however place vasati beyond doubt as the original O n the other point, the Pali
and Prakrit are o f course ambiguous, but prathamSm has some additional support from th«later
parallel cited by Luders, Hitopadeáa, iv 84

yam eva ratrm prathamSm upaiti

garbhe ntvdsam noravtra lokah
tatahprabhrty askhalttapraySnah
sa pratyaham tnrtyusamipam tit,

— the more so, since this is in fact taken directly from the J2taka<m5lS o f Arya áüra, xxxn 21
T he verse is in any case a direct paraphrase o f the U v version or its immediate ancestor (with
askhahtapraySnah sa eti reflecting avifthitah sa vrajati), and is quite distinct from the Pali
In the MahSbharata, the critical edition notes the verse as an interpolation in the Southern
recension, With minor variants, but generally corrupt form (xu 169, n , note)

yam eta ratrtm prathamam ggrbho bhajati mataram

tSm eva ratnm prastháti marand) a mvartakah

Luders was thus certainly right in diagnosing eka- m the Pali as a mere nustike for eva, and in
attributing the variation in the third pada to an accidental transposition o f syllables (ta tstyatt,
va sayatt), and almost certainly right in considering the Pah version as the one which has gone
most astray A t the time when he wrote, the verb was missing from the printed text o f the Prakrit,
and the feet that Vayadt is now definite here, in agreement with vrajatt in the U v , adds further
support C f also U v 1 31 sadS vrajanti hy amvartamánah
Such an alteration must by its nature have taken place in a Piakntic form o f the verse, and it s
important to add that variants o f this type directly attest the existence o f a manuscript tradition
While in theory such a transposition o f syllables might he imagined m a purely oral transmission,
such a supposition would indeed im ply an unbelievably slipshod paranpard But in manusenpt
copying this is a common and readily understandable error
T he textual argument here has therefore more weighty consequences than might at first sight
appear For if Luders was right— and it is hard to believe that the direction o f his argument was
wrong— we cannot escape the implication that the text was already being transmitted by manu­
script copying, and not exclusively b y oral tradition, at a date earlier than the redaction of the
Pali. And this is a senous matter Since this conclusion is opposed to current opinion (E Laniotte,
Httimre duBouddhtsmeindKn,i 622, on the pre-Pali tests ‘ces textes, ou plutdtcesr^citations—
car il s’agit d’une publication orale et non ¿ente’), the evidence requires to be weighed with great
care T his may serve as an excuse i f the ensuing discussion, that o f the Pah commentator,
appears to be somewhat long-winded (‘langatmig’, Liiders)
It may appear that the argument as so far presented does not lead to an absolutely firm con«
 COM M EN TARY 2I?
elusion, and that a reasonably good case could be aigued for either alternative. The Pali may
seem to us a poorer verse; but it isnot necessarily wrong for this reason. N or is there in fact mach
difference in intrinsic merit between sayati and vayati in the context. The two verbs may be
observed side by side m Ka{ha Upanisad, ii. 21, where, in spite of the difference o f application
(to the upanisadic ätman) the poetical conceit is virtually identical:

äsino düray vrajati iayäno yäti sarvatah.

And when in the following verse of the Upanisad we find anavasthesv avasihitam, we may thinl-
it not improbable that vague memories o f such upanisadic verses may have had some influence
on the composer o f the Buddhist stanza. Needless to say, we should not dare, on the basis of
such intangible evidence, to alter the Buddhist text in the direction of avastkitak sa vrajaii—
although this would make excellent sense: ‘while (apparently) at rest, he is already on his way’.
And, as we shall see, this is not far removed from the form of the line which seems most probably
the common ancestor of the three versions. One might even add that the paradox in such a state­
ment would in fact invite corruption to the more pedestrian avisthitak, ‘he travels without
ceasing'.
Because of the apparent agreement of the Sanskrit and Prakrit in the first word o f the line,
Lüders accepted the sense o f avifthitafy as original, and saw in the Pali abbhutthito a consequen­
tial emendation to make sense after the transposition of syllables; since 'aviilhilo va sayati, “ er
liegt, ohne stehen zu bleiben” , war natürlich vollkommen sinnlos’. But here a doubt enters:
because the phrase is senseless only if we forget to translate va. Nor is the verb sayati in itself
‘gänzlich unmöglich’. On the contrary, few verbs could be more natural in company with
gabbhevasati. I f the redactor of the Pali verse had had before him the equivalent o f avitthito va
sayati, he need not have thought the phrase nonsensical. He could readily have taken it to mean,
‘he lies still, as if not at rest’ ; and this is in essence the same sense as must have been intended by
the corrector who introduced abihutfhita: ‘belies stffl, as i f already up and about’. There would
thus be no real gain in replacing the one word by t ie other. This naturally does not exclude the
possibility o f a change for other reasons. (The Pali dictionaries do not in fact know either aoitthka
or the verb vititthati.)
It is at all events reasonable to suppose that, unless aHhutfhito was an entirely accidental cor­
ruption, it must have been intended in some such manner. But the common meaning of the verb
abhy-ut-thä-, both in Sanskrit and Prakrit, is more than merely ‘to rise’ : it is ‘to rise from one’s
seat in order to greet someone’. It may therefore have been the incongruity o f this common
meaning o f the word which impelled the commentator to seek an explanation absurd in sense and
in grammar: abbho utfiito ‘he lies like a cloud uprisen'— kannaväyubhir iritah, of course. Apart
from some such motive, it is difficult to see how an analysis like this could be other than the gross
error of a beginner in the study of the language.
With regard to the Prakrit, Liiders’ argument assumes that the first word o f the line directly
corresponds to the Sanskrit aviflhttah, This assumption, however, arises from the accident of
the transcription chosen for the KharosthI sign. But throughout the remainder o f the present
text, the two characters transcribed pi and fh are never confused; and ih appears only in cor­
respondence to Sanskrit dentals. The contrast between vditha, cithadu ( < -sth-), and wttajia-,
dhamaflta- { < -sth-) illustrates the persistence of the different sounds represented by the two
characters. (See further, pp. 76-7.) It is therefore most improbable that the spelling aviihidu
should directly represent the same form as the Sanskrit word. The isolated instance of visthita
noted from Lv. 98. 1 need hardly be taken into account. As Edgerton says (BHSD), it is 'only
bad writing for Skt. visth ita and is rather to be compared vwtb such common spellings in later
Nepalese manuscripts as nisphala for nifphala. We might indeed be tempted to suggest that in
 COM M EN TARY 221
transposition of syllables in the following words, could hardly escape alteration to abbliuUhito.
Indeed, the C PD notes the tendency of a word such as abbocchinna ( < a-vy-ava-) to be trans­
formed into f abbhocchmna, even -without a motive for patching the sense.
In the Sanskrit version likewise, the change may have been equally inevitable. In view o f the
known strength of the SarvSstivadins in the North-west, it would be expected that the dialect of
our manuscript, or a closely related dialect, should have acted as the vehiclc of transmission for
some, if not the greater part, of the older Buddhist literature which was rendered into Sanskrit.
And if in the present verse, the Sanskrit translator had found avitthida or azislhida in his source,
it would be surprising if he had rendered it in any other fashion than by avisthitah.

1 4 5 , It is pleasant to see the rather trite comparison in this verse taken up by a poet o f talent
and used to better effect in an inverted form (Jataka-mala, xv. 5), in the description o f the drying
up of a lake in summer;

pratyahaiji kjiyate toyaip spardhamanam ivayusa.

Another version o f the basic stama was cited by Liiders from MBh. xii. 169. : 1:

rairyaip rdtrySm vyatllaySm ayur alpataram yada

gSdhodake matsya iva rukham vindeta kas tada.

T he variants are such that almost all that can be said with confidence is that dha in the Uv. is an
innovation, and that aparado in the Prakrit must certainly mean alpataram. This is the converse
of the transposition already seen in madam (mamtah) in 6 9 ; but it remains quite uncertain
whether this is a genuine word in the language (cf. jabodana, 2 42 ), or an accidental transposition
b y the scribe (see p. 105). T he same doubt may be felt with regard Xovivasitut. The phrase ralya
vivasane is common in Pali; but there seems to be no strong reason against taking the Prakrit
reading to mean vivdscna. Cf. also vivasadi, 1 5 0 .
H kumulatia: this seems the most probable word-division; and sincc the two other versions
have nu, it may be accepted that a here replaces this particle. Scnart, taking ukumulona as one
word, tentatively suggested okonmfifanarp 'the uprooting o f their home’ ; but this was put for­
ward before the fragment was identified as belonging to this verse, and can hardly fit the sense.
T he Pali, in agreement with the commentary (taruna-bhov:), may be translated as ‘what value
is youth in the circum stan cesThe reading however is probably corrupt, since the Uv. and the
MBh. versions agree in the sense o f ‘happiness’. (In the Uv., the last three words were restored
by the editor, JRAS 1912, 360, only the vowel -r- being legible in the manuscript; but the sense
is established by the Tibetan, which has de la dgah bar bya ciyod.) It is therefore probable that
komarakam has arisen from some such form as kmalakam: 'wine is there that is pleasant in these
circumstances?’. Tliesame form may reasonably be thought to lie behind the Prakrit ;but— unless
the change in word-order was made without regard for metre— some further alteration ha's taken
place, and the metre implies kltmtVanam or ktimullttftam. No satisfactory explanation has sug­
gested itself for cither o f these.
222 TH E GÂN D H ÀR t D H AR M A PAD A

v a u n t patanalo m the S n , rather than papatanâ C f a ls o jâ t iv 127, vi 28 Luders cited tlso

a close parallel from RlmSyana u 105 17

yatha phahnam pakvSnSm nânyatra patanâd bhayam

evam narasya jatasya nânyatra maranad bhayam

148 U v 1 15 17 (quoted Toch Spr B 1, p t 2, p 5)

yathâ tuidi p a n ah ya gacchate na mvartate

etam Syur maausySnam gacchate na mvartate
yathâ dandetia gopalo gah prâpayati gocaram
evamjara ca wrtyui ea ayuh prâpayato nrnam

It therefore appears that the Prakrit version has telescoped the tw o verses W hile the resulting
stanza is not m itself impossible, the fact that the second h a lf o f both o f the parent verses begun
with evam suggests that this is merely a copyist 3 error, and not an intentional rearrangement of
the material T he same type o f accident has produced one verse from tw o in Pah, Dhp 149
where both stanzas survive in Prakrit (1 5 4 , 1 5 5 ) and in Sanskrit
On Palipàettt ( < pra a/-) see B S U § 140 (where also a variant o f the second half of U r u 17
is quoted
evam rcgairjara mrtyuh ayuh ptapayaU nrnam)

1 4 9 ,1 5 0 ‘As on the stretched out warp, the more that the w eft is woven, the less there remains
to weave astheend o f the weaving comes nearer,— so also for men, and all other living creatures
each mght that passes brings them nearer to death '
T he reading o f the Pali edition, yam yam dev\ led to cunous renderings ‘den immer erne
Gotcheit t\ ebt’ (deva)— Dutoit, ‘A s when the lad y at her loom sits w eaving all the day* (¿en)—
Cow ell-Rouse Apart from other difficulties, this overlooked the fa ct that -vtyati is passive The
necessary correction \oyamyad ev' was made b y Ludera, B S U § 232, where it was also suggested
th a tjn fu i the Praknt text should be emended to yad (This, however, is unnecessary, since this
type of palatalization is well established see p 81 ) I t need hardly be sajd that there is no refer«
ence at all to ‘spinning* (Barua and Mttra), but on ly to weaving
Chavannes, Ctnq CettU Contes, 1 331 (quoted Toch B 1 7 ) gives a translation o f a O u n ce
tendering ‘l a vie humaine est comparable au fil qui traverse le métier à tisser, petit à petit d
en arm e à diminuer et a se terminer c’est ainsi que jou r et nuit dim inue la vie'
The Sanskrit U v version is not known in full, but the T ibetan translation agrees closely wiih
149
dper na thags nt bikyan p a la
spun m gan dan gen bcug paht
spun gyts rtm la gtugs pa Itar
m mams nog ky an de biin no

(Rockhifl s translation o f thags as ‘spider* instead o f ‘ warp* led to a misunderstanding o f the

terse as a whole, and a wrong com panion with D hp 347 )
tadn former!) read as tant, but the correction is certain T h e reading ni is « e lu d e d by the
fact that thisBjlUble»suw%ersallj written in the manuscript with the vow el stroke through tie
stem of the character, and not, as here, through the head T h e tail o f dr tends to slant downwards
(in contrast to tr, see p 7$) and the character is slightly disguised here b y the downward slant
being raiher more pronounced than usual— doubtless a reaction o f the scribe’s band to the break
m the bark immediately to ihe right o f the character No parallels can be cited from the manu
224 TH E G AN D H Ar I d h a r m a p a d a

rendered somewhat awkward I t m ay ho v -o er b e added that th e phrase in S n 20 1,although in a

different application within the verse, com es in the m iddle o f a poem (Vljaya-sutta) on the im-
permanency o f the b o d y , and in th e context o f the present chapter onjem i, such a poem might
well have been in the background o f the com piler’s m ind, and m igh t have (even subconsciously)
suggested the use o f the phrase here
In e, the third syllable was form erly read as a-, and the resulting avwasadt interpreted as abh*
vas- T h is is not im possible, b u t it now seems probable that t ( = <a) should be read, the votvel-
stroke being almost hidden b y the lenticule Although ca is superfluous both for metre and sense,
the revised reading ttu u a d t has the support o f the nearly parallel expression in 1 4 5 , vnostna
It seems necessary to take radi as nominative, and vttasadt as passive o f the causative (m<wy-
ates or conceivably o f the sim plex, *vtvasyate for classical vyusyate)— ‘each night that is lived
through’ Alternauvely, i f w e understand}« rail as accusative, w e m ay perhaps read manuftt [ri]
in o, which gives easier syntax in the %erse as a whole, b u t is graphically less likely, and implies
a metrical awkwardness in vtvasadi, which w ould then have to be understood as iitasantt Or
again— if we wish to follow the P T S D m its determined efforts to see vas- *to shine’ wherever
possible, as 8 v n vaseti— we may assume here sim ply a ,) <fvtvasatt rdtrt 'each night that dawns’,
with an analogical replacement for vyucchati T h e expression rs/r»«-t><&<r(BHSD) and the inter*
pretation o f the commentary on Sn 1 142 (vivasenu rattm U . raUtm aUnamemt) would seem to
show that we cannot categorically exclude vas■‘to dwell1

1 5 1 . sadt in place o f the expected *sa't fo r sayam m ay owe its -</- to its partner praitt Possibly
also the occasional disappearance of-¿-(¿Ao-t'fl’i < bho vSd i.ko't'a < kovtda) m ay have assisted
m the creation o f sadi as a ‘learned’ form F ra n k e(Z D M G 1906, 500) conjectured that the word
wasa miscopying o i'r a ti' (i e rath < rdtrt) from a K harosjhi exem plar T h is is in itself impnib
able, but the existence o f the form radi provides another possible starting point for the produc-
tion o f sail as an analogical formation T h e U v . version (quoted Toch S p r B 1 4) has sSyam
and kalyam See also p 87
T h e Pah verse also occurs in Jat v i 28

1 52 I n view o f the alternation o f -sma, •sa m loc an d a b l forms, it is possible that si does in
fact represent (a)«m here rather than an T h e U v agrees in the order o f lines with the Praknt
version against the P ali T h e first three-quarters o f the verse are quoted in Toch Spr B 1 J

tatra ko vtsvasen martyo daharo m itijm te

ddharapt mnyante

Like the Prakrit also, this is a syllable short in e, although it would have been easy to produce a
'better* Sanskrit version dahara apt T h e Pali has repaired the metre b y the insertion o f hi
ekada i f understood as equivalent to S ekada, would seem to mean ‘at the same time o r ‘at
some time*, which hardly fits the context I t may be better to take the word as equivalent to S
ekadha, ‘in the same manner’, 1 e ‘both m en and women equally* (But c f Sam 1 69 )
Senart noted that above ca in d was written a mark which he described as similar to the
Devanagan -1 It seems likely, however, that this is a rather cursivey a , written m as a correction
I f tins is so wem ayassutnethattheexem plarhadflariya, 1 e nom plural, as in the Pali, and that
the scribe had misunderstood the final syllable o f this as equivalent to ea

153 ayirena the first syllable has been covered by another portion o f the bark tn the process of
placing the leaf under glass, but the whole word is clearly visible m Senart’s facsimile
padha'i ta n (prthitim upari) T h e loss o f intervocalic -i>* mpadha't is unexpected The form,
 CO M M EN TARY 225
however, 3s unlikely to be merely a miswriting fo r-vi, sincc, although v and alif when carclcssly
written may be confused, the /-vowel stroke is always written through the head of die former
and through the stem of the latter, van conveys cxactly the same sense os adht• in the other
versions.
Fragment 500 was already placed in this verse by Senart. It appears from a note attached to
the fragment inthe plate that Oldenburg disputed this. But the placing is certain, and if confirma­
tion were needed, it is provided by the feet that the other side of the fragment faife into p/acc
exactly on the reverse side o f the manuscript at this place, after verse 331. Senart’s reading rvclui
naturally obscured the situation, and this word has unfortunately been the subject o f much
speculation. But graphically luchu is quite unambiguous, and agrees admirably with the Sanskrit
version iunyo, against the Pali ehuddho. Hemacandra, Dc&namamala, v. 14 gives the meaning
osukka (avasttsfm) 'dried up' for Prakrit tuccfta, and this sense may be thought to fit the present
context better than 'empty’, in which case the translation as iiinyo may be slightly off the mark.
The Pali chuddha in this verse is discussed in BSU § 236. In s verse containing much of die same
material as the present stanza, Then. 468, the manuscripts vary between ehuddho and chuttho,
and it would seem that the original form here must remain doubtful. The confusion of t/h and
ddh is a very easy one in the Sinhalese script. Since, moreover, misreadings of it as ddh are not
unknown (H. C. Norman, preface to edition of Dhammapada Commentary, p. viii, noted fre­
quent instances o f vaffati wrongly transcribed as vaddhatf) it is even possible that the Pali
originally had chutto. Lilders (loc. cit.) was prepared to accept a connexion of chuddha with
ch$$ha, which is well established for Prakrit. The meaning given for the latter, however, is regu­
larly ksipta, i.e. 'thrown1, not ‘thrown away', and it may therefore be that the commentators’
apaviddha, chaddita as renderings of chuddha are no more than guesses. Such a meaning is
rsadiiyadduced from comparable contexts :Sn. ¡ooyodocasotnatoseii...opawddhosvwnatmim',
Manu iv. 241 mrtam iariram utsrjya; Then. 469 chadduna nam mane.
Unfortunately, the formswhich may beinvolvcd here areembarrassinglynumerous. Inaddition
to chuddha and ckudha, Sheth, Prahit-Hindi Dictionary, gives chuUha— all three explained as
kfipia\ and also ehutla in two senses, *chuta hue', and 'chota, laghu'; in the latter sense also
chudda(anxmg the meanings o f which is included, interestingly, tuccha). [cfmttn, 'touched*, need
not be considered, and is mentioned here only because the related noun ehutti is translated as
aiauca (Hi. chut), which at first sight may seem tempting in the context, but is in fact impossible.
In Buddhist Sanskrit, chuila ‘injured’ (?) is perhaps a misreading (sec D/iSD s.v.),J
In the present verse, the words meaning‘thrown’ should probably be rcjectcd; and as a work­
ing hypothesis it may be suggested that an earlier form of ihe Pal» text liad a word understood
as ‘abandoned1(i.e. a word in the anccstryof Hi. ehtttnii), the sense of which has been preserved
by the commentary in apaviddha after the form had been altered. Alongside this, another tradi­
tion interpreted either the same form or a closely similar form as meaning ‘insignificant, worth­
less’ (i.e. a word in the ancestry of Hi. chata), The Prakrit version luchu would then be a near-
sjTtonjm 0/ the latter. Such a development «ould be understood equally 'veil in either direction:
with luchu as the oldest reading and 'abandoned’ as the youngest, or vice versa.
Since niralthaip is ambiguous in Middle Indian, it is not in itself mirprising that it appear* r.n
nirastaifiin the Uv. (in which sense, however, the I'TSD nates only r.irutta--, cite regular aspirate
appears in apattha-, Dhp, 149, Ct. ehadcHta-), while the Pali commentary l::i
understood the word as mrartha-. But the result of this is that there U a nirioin cvmpiftu*
tion between the versions, the sense of the Uv. rlrastan brine pven by th: f'aii cmmm -
tary to ehuddho, while in place of the latter ihe Uv. /li.ivn convey* virtually th- rnMnir.- of
r.irartha.
Still more extraordinary is the fact that all four o f the paints wherein the I’n lri: vertfwi
».««1 0
226 TH E G À N D H A R l D H AR M A PAD A

differs most markedly from the Pali (tart against ad/a-, ia’ ifidt against sessati, tucku against
chuddho, aiakada- against apeta-) are reflected in the P ali com m entary (D h p A I 3 2 ^ 1)

na araa■a a ayam kayopothavim adhtsessaU. pa lh avtyS u pan sayissati chuddho U apartJdho

apagata-euwwnafa)o tuccho Itulta sessati ti

Nothing comparable to this ha9 so far been observed m other verses o f the collection The
agreement j s too close to be accidental, and w e are therefore left to choose between two possible
hypotheses either the Prakrit represents the older verse, w h ich has been m etrically smoothed in
the Pah, while the older words have survived fossilized in the traditional commentary (for we
need not suppose that the authors o f the com mentaries we possess abstained from incorporating
such traditional material as they could lay hands o n), or, alternatively, the P ali verse is older* and
the Prakrit has been refashioned b y using the traditional com m entary, w ith little regard for
metre, either because the compiler thought that the m etrically w orse verse was more impres
sively archaic, or because he genuinely mistook the explanations o f the commentary for
lemmata T here is o f course no im plication that a com m entary in Pali was Known in the
North-West

1 5 4 ,1 5 5 In the same way as m 1 4 S the Prakrit has telescoped tu o verses, both o f which have
survived in the other traditions, the tw o verses here have been made into one in the Pali Here
also it is easier to understand the error as having taken place in the course o f manuscript copying
rather than m an oral tradition T h e alternative theory, that 'th e tw o Prakrit \erses appear to
have grown out o f one verse incorporated in the P âli Dham m apada and the Udâna-varga’
(Barua and Mitra) seems most improbable, since after all the gourd m ust have been brought in
principally for the sale o f the comparison w ith ‘skull’ rather than w ith bones tn general In fact,
the supposed agreement with the U v is illusory A lth ou gh it has o nly a single ■verse, this is not
the same as the PaL, bu t corresponds exactly w ith the D iv y version o f 1 5 5 . (T h e order of the
two verses is inverted m the D ivy ) M o st o f the U v verse is lost m Sanskrit, b u t apavtddhm
(Chakravaru, p 1) shows an agreement with the D iv y rather than with the Prakrit
upasthanam in the D ivy version is certainly a corruption, and should be emended to apSstora
(BHSD)
alspunna the traditional reading o f the P ali seem s inferior here T h e spelhng with -p is
probably a late pedantry (cf also pabbaja for babbaja, see G eiger, § 39, 6, w here it is desenbed
as a ‘ mundarthche Erscheuiung’ »B S U § 144 n ), and -b is cited from the Burm ese manuscripts
(DhpA , m 112) Since, moreover, the commentary has tnyd (whence Fausboll asked 4eva pro
iva?’), the verse should be restored to alâbum va
íarada m spite o f the broken condition o f the m anuscript here, the e-stroke would have been
visible if the senbe had written iarade
dtfpam, corresponding to dtstSno, presum ably owes its final vow el (as suggested by Barua and
Mitra) to the jingle in the verse w ith tant

156 T h e U v \ tm o n has only four pJdas, corresponding to abef, and w ith mgactkathaparim
iantm, agrees with the Pali m santrn, and with the Prakrit in the im perative (cf BHSG
§ 26, 12*13) as against the Pali future (thus, ‘ atteignez’, not, as Chakravarti, p 14 ‘vous
atteignez’)
Senart interpreted the thud pudaas vityaiubha-ttctmena, presum ably because • t’giwia« is not
elsewhere attested But o n the other hand, the development o f intervocalic -c- to -]- appears
nowhere else in the text Indeed, such a development isv u tu ally u n know nm M id d le Indian The
sole example cited by Pischel(§ 202), on the authority o f Hemacandra, t 177, is ftsâjt for ptiad
 COM M EN TARY 227
W e might perhaps assume here a sporadic occurrence of a spelling comparable to that of the Niya
documents in such words as yajitaja (y a c Burrow, Grammar § 17), although there the/with the
diacritic, which does not occur in our manuscript, is the normal symbol. I f therefore Senart's
conjecture is correct for the original form of the verse, the probability would be that vijmena is
wrongly reconstructed from an intermediate Prakrit form with -y-. But if so, it would seem al­
most certain that in. the present text the word was understood to mean vijima-. This would be
veiy natural in the middle of a chapter onjard; and since the standard list which forms the sub­
ject o f ahibha-bhavana has eight out of nine items beginning with m- (vinilaka, vipiiyaka, &c.), it
might well be thought that vijirna- formed a fitting prelude to this list. The sense would then be,
‘brought to decay by reason of its constantly present impurities’ .

157. vuivareija: in addition to Therl. 140, cited with the preceding verse, there is an alternate
form of the Pali in Saqi. i. 131, where the printed text has bhindanena in place of aturena. The
manuscripts, however, have also the variant bhindarena, and both Liiders and Franke were
tempted to equate this with vtdvarena, Luders cited S. Ihidura, which has the sense which must
have been intended by the Pali word, and noted the parallel root bid-. Since the Prakrit word did
not appear in the published facsimiles, it may be that both scholars assumed that Senart had
misread it. The reading, however, can hardly be doubted. The only possible alternative would be
vitvarena, which seems decidedly less likely. A direct equivalence between bhindarena and
vidvarena would involve such a host o f irregularities that the suggestion can safely be forgotten.
If, in fact, the two padas are descended from the same original, thenatleastoneof them must have
suffered serious corruption. The meaning of the Prakrit word therefore remains unknown.
Two possibilities may be put forward for consideration.
(1) vijvara- ‘permeated by fever', which would give a similar sense to aittra in the preceding
verse. (For dv, cf. vikada-dvara, vzta-jvara, note on 3 5 .) A strong objection to this is the fact
that vijvara is attested in Sanskrit with the opposite meaning, ‘free from fever’.
(a) S. vidrava- or vidrava- ‘oozing’ , in which case the word would not be in apposition to
ka’ena, but would give the reason for the application of the word which is lost, for example,
‘(repulsive) because of its oozing’ ; and the sense would then be comparable to the following
verse. If this were, in fact, the etymology, the metathesis might be recent in the dialect;
but a survival of an old by-form (cf. Avestan dvar- beside Sanskrit drav-) would not be
inconceivable.

15 8 . Cf. also Sn. 205 vissavanto tato taio.

16 0 . From the commentary onwards, the second half of the Pali stanza has been badly mis­
handled : DhpA., iii. 123 pavedayanti ti evam santo buddhSdayo sabbhipanditehi saddhim katJienfl
ti attiw, FausboII, 'proborum vero pietas senectutem non subit, (sic) probi (Buddhae) certe
probis (hominibus) tradunt’ ; Radhakrishnan, ‘but the virtue of the good never ages,
thus the good teach to each other’. This last distressing picture of the virtuous congratulating
each other on the lasting qualities o f their own virtue appears to be a modem invention, and is
perhaps due not so much to the commentary as to a misunderstanding of Fausboll’s Latin
(probis, ablative, being misconstrued as a dative belonging to tradunt ?). Fausboll contributed
his own share by the rendering ‘pietas’ ; but it is not the ‘virtue’ of the good which never ages,
but their doctrine. It is true that the idea of ‘virtue’ or ‘right conduct’ could hardly be excluded
from the range of overtones which a complex and emotionally charged word like dhanna might
carry in a context like this. But it is not here the most important component of the meaning.
This is made still more evident by the fact that Aiya Sura (Jataka-mala, m i . 74), when he wished
228 THE G AN D H AR l D H AR M A PAD A

to adapt the verse in a context where it was desirable to bring out the idea o f ‘virtue’ more defi
mtelf, lbuad it necessary to replace the last hoe b y something completely different

ralha nrpSnam tnam-ktma-bhBsam

vrajattit dehai cajara-vtrupatam
satam tu dharmam na jarahhivarfaie
ithrranur&ga hi gunrfti sddhavah

It seems quite probable that the Pali commentator had the idea o f 'doctrine’ uppermost in his
nund {nai'avidha-lokutwa-dhammo— X^it four stages, sotspatti, & c , with their fruits together
with mibamt m effect, the Buddhist religion), but he him self started the process of obscuration
by adding the word eoam N ow this is a fundamentally foolish interpretation, implying that what
is taught is the substance o f the first three lines o f the stanza, and thereby destroying the point
o f the contrast For the whole point is that, unlike the king’s chariot, the doctrine does not wear
out, 'because good men teach it to other good men’, their disciples and successors
A ll thii is due simply to a refusal to admit that sabbfa can bear the sense o f a dative It is true
that such a thing is rare and is overlooked b y the standard grammars T h e usage existed, never
theless, and was noted by Bloch from the ASokan inscriptions (Les Inscriptions d Atoka, p 61)
R E v i K D h mahamatehiahptte, M makamatreht aropite(G mahfinuHrcsv, Sh mafuoMttem),
RE ¿u, Dh hambhanasamtuht done (other vers<ons -samananatn)x Barabar, dmS cpvihehi Sum
hrly iq RE xn tehi vatavyam, where a translation in terms o f an instrumental not only makes
very curious sense— 'they are to say that the king consider» but is in fact shown to be wrong
by the version Sh tesrn vaiavo, which confirms what the context demands ‘ they are to be told
that the lung considers ’
The sense of the Dha/mapada stanza was made quite explicit b y the U v rendering

satam tu dharmo m ja ra m upaiti

santo hi tom satsu mvedoyantt,

and the Tibetan confirms that it is because o f the teaching that the doctrine escapes the effects of
old age
dim pn mams kyt chos hd\ dam pa ste
m tnchog gian rtogs bytd ctn rga mi hgyur

(Rockhili s translation ‘the best o f men shall not kno w o ld a g e , is doctnnaily impossible )
We may perhaps suspect here from dam pa ste that the translator misread hi tam as h i m
In the Prakrit version, h sa is certimly not to be emended to hi ta (Chakravarti) Since the
Sanskrit has tam and since fotms of the pronoun with initial t in place o f /- are known from liter
Prakrits (Fischel § 423), it might seem possible to understand sa as the accusative masculine of
the personal pronoun (In 3 3 6 , where the Pah has the nominative so, the Prakrit has sa, which
could thus be thought to owe its initial to e}a) T h is seems v ery unlikely, b u t it is of course
possible that a similar form o f the verie, understood in this way, was responsible for the appear*
ana? o f tam in the Sanskrit
It is much more probable that we should recognize here the particle sma T here are three
instances in the text where ma sa is probably to be interpreted as ma sma, and the change o f the
uutul after hi is thea exactly parallel to the Rigvedic hi sma Further, since the metre here »
certainly better i f the fourth syllable of the line u long it is relevant to note the constant appear'
ance o f the Rigvedic phrase as Ai paa in the SamhitS text T h is collocation o f particles would
thus be the equivalent in the dialect o f the common Pali ha ve T h e particle ve in fact appeals ta
b e absent from the dialect, and although frequent in the corresponding Pali verses, it is always
replaced in the Praknt version b y some other word W e have thus the interesting situation that
 COM M EN TARY 229
the Praknt, from the North-west, appears to represent the survival o f a common Rigvedic usage,
while the Pali, from a more central region, has instead a group which is most familiar from the
BrShmanas, ha vat.
paoerayadi: apart from numerals (AMg. ehkarasa, &c.) and derivatives o f d?l- (eSrisa, Src.),
both o f which form special classes, the appearance o f ~r~ for ~d- is extremely rare in Middle
Indian (Pischel § 245). It must, however, be accepted here. T he -writing of the manuscript is
quite clear and unambiguous, and we could hardly suppose that pavedayanti, which fits the sense
of the stanza perfectly, could have been replaced by a word of different etymology but almost
identical shape.

161 . vitnuta-mopaso: in spite o f the break in the manuscript, the reading seems reasonably well
established. For other examples of 0 written in place of a, see p. 8r.

1 64 . suha in fragment 4S6 was read by Senart as rttita, and it is still possible that this m s a cor­
rect transcription o f what the scribe wrote. There can o f course be no doubt that the word in the
verse ought to be suha, and i f ruha was written, it was merely a miscopying. It seems just possible,
with some charity towards the scribe, to see the first syllable as su, and this transcription has
accordingly been adopted, though with hesitation.
¿>£2r/ctf’i:locative(/H2rityfz£e),whiletheUv.agreeswiththePalimtheabIative. Butseealsop.81.
zrhrttla-: Unfortunately in both places in the verse the head o f the second character in the word
is broken, and it is therefore possible that the reading should be vTuia. See p. 87, § 34.
l a addition to its more usual meanings, matrS is widely recognized by the Sanskrit lexico­
graphers in the sense o f ‘property, household goods, worldly possessions’ [paricehade, dhant).
We might at first suspect that this sense has been artificially extracted from Manu, vi. 57:

aidhhe na visadt syal IdhhaS cainarjt na harsayet

But such a supposition would compel a rather forced interpretation for the last phrase: 'free
from attachment to what is limited (in its usefulness for spiritual welfare)’. It seems preferable
to admit that the author intended to play on the two senses, and to translate, ‘free from attach*
ment to worldly possessions’. It might then be suggested that, just as the first half of the line
reflects such a phrase as bhojaitamhi ca nattannurn (Dhp. 8 = 218), so also caje matta-sukham
should be seen as a virtual equivalent o f mSlta-satigdd vinirgatah. This does not mean to suggest
a direct copying o f one text b y the other. But so much o f this didactic literature in both traditions
is obviously pieced together from floating aphorisms current among the religious mendicant
populations that resemblances o f this sort are in general more likely to be echoes o f the same
prototype rather than chance coincidences. In the present instance, a recognition o f an inten­
tional play on the meanings o f mdlramihe Buddhist stanzs also would at least give some point
to what is Otherwise a singularly dull verse.

1 68. Uv. sxx, 44:

susuhham bata jlvamo yesdin no nasii Idmcana
mthiiay&m dahyamanayam na no dahyati timctina.

W ith the same opening, and parallel to Dhp. 200, Uv. roc. 49:
prUilhabsa bhavifyamo deva hy abJiasvara yatha;
xxx, 50 :
priliWiakfS bhavigyamo saikayenopanilisritdk.
2J0 TH E G ÄN D H ÄR l DHARM APADA

The first o f these especially had >ery wide currency (parallels noted J R A S 1912,371, Sa n a and
Mitra, pp 222-3) Ic seems very probable that a second half corresponding to one 01 other of
these, or je t another variant, has been ousted from the Prakrit text here by the accidental
recopying o f the second half o f 167
T he vanous forms o f the Mithila-verse in M B h xu (17 1 8 , 1 7 t 56,268 4), spolen in the
singular, ha* c in the second pads y asya me nästt kxmcana, and thus confirm Senart's interpreta­
tion of mu as a genitive plural o f the persona] pronoun See also B H S G § 20 36 ff
169 tanna it seems graphically more probable that the initial 1$ ta rather than da cf for
example, the a n tin g in ata and Jarcsu m the same line T he existence o f both ta n and dan may
perhaps ha\e been conducive to confusion Senart considered the formation directly equivalent
to the Pah darujam ( > däruy am > dSrutcm) It seems simpler, hon ever, to take it as a normal
adjectival derivative (S darta-, and daravam in the corresponding U v stanza) It is of coune
possible that the Pali i&nqan ts a false reconstruction from an earlier Praknoc form
babaka s e e p 9 t T h e same stanza also occurs in Jat 11 140, tv here the edition has the
spelling pabbojam
T he U ' agrees wiih the Praknt in tamrakta ctltd(h) T h e Pali sSratta rattä is awkward to
etplain, and may perhaps be due simply to räga-ratta two stanzas later A s FraoLe pointed out.
the Pali in fact has sSratta citto in Sam iv 73-4

170 hiila this is the regular spelling o f the word in the N iya documents also See p 94.
The published version o f the Uv has

etad driham bandhanam dhur aryäh

¡amartatah nathircm duspratnck$am

It would seem therefore that it is not only modern commentators who have been troubled by the
idea o f a fetter which is at the same time ‘firm’ and 'loose' Because o f this, Lüde» proposed
(B5 U § 82) to see in m threm a true reflection o f the original word in the Aeree In the Pali he
considered stlhlam to be a replacement for the older form sathilam, which would then be a tnere
corruption for an onginal such as tutlhilam ‘ Sathilam ist im Zusammenhänge des Testes
unverständlich und widerspricht dem Metrum, sutthlam ist ui beider Hinsicht zufnedenstd
lend The argument was discussed «i detail b) M A Mehendale(fiii/ii*n<3/th e Deccan Cott*2t
flettarth Instttuie, x\ n, 1955, pp 66 ff ), who adduced a number o f Vedic passages where ¿tfi*
and iithtla occur together, for example, T S 3 2 4 3 drfhe stftak hlhire tamtri mdmftasat pdUtn.
It u true that such instances maj in fact intend a contrast between the two adjectives of a tvpe
w h:ch might be thought to be hardly relevant to the Baddhist \erse But quite apart from dus,
there seems no doubt that Mehendafe was nght in rqecting Luders* theory T h e condoufc
argument ts the fact that the Tibetan translation of the Uv supports bthlam

hdod paht chtnt ma gan ym de thod kyan

tab tu dgrol bar dkah i e t hpftagspa gnat

I Oden thought that this might be explained by the assumption that the Tibetan translator had
acms to an older Indian version other than the Sanskrit 'Das 'phagt pa in dieser wie in der
vorhrrgthenden Strophe beweist, daß der tibetische Übersetzer die in der SanskritA et*»*1
nt« «»{^fühlte tesan £rydh \or sich hatte, um so mehr ßbcmschtes, daß er im dritten W>!*
tttan rrent das Äquivalent von dhhäh, cirpefupt hat Er kann dies Wort nur der dem M*
rufttinde liegenden \er*ton entnommen haben Dann aber ist es nicht unwahrscheinlich ¿*8
«r aocS Vtal auf Crund dieser ihm bekannten Version eingesetzt hat, um e t eimfermaßen
 COM M EN TARY 2$1
verständlich zu machen, hat er ihm ein kyañ hinzugefügt, das im Original keine Entsprechung
hat. Ich halte diese Erklärung für wahrscheinlicher als die Annahme, daß im Sanskrittext ein
ursprüngliches, unverbindliches sithilm später zu m ih h m verbessert sein sollte.'
T his argument is so improbable that it was indeed bound to be received with scepticism. It is
true that the Tibetan, as Luders remarked, shows in a number o f places that it depended on an
older recension o f the Uv. than the vulgate of the manuscripts from Turkestan. B u t there is no
reason at all for supposing that the translator had before him anything other than the single
recension h e w as translating. T h e only explanation possible in the p resent verse is that the revised
an d m ore S an stritic version o f the Uv. was alone responsible for the intrusion o f susthiratn,
p a rtly no doubt ss a m etrical improvement — though in fact there is still a flaw left in the length
o f the final syllable o f the w ord. The insertion of kyaA (api) is easily understood from the con­
text. T h e argument from Mart warns (dkirdk) is, however, mistaken. T h is is not at all a reflec­
tion o f dhlrS at the end of the first line of the Pali. A variant form o f the third line o f the stanza
with vajanti dhira in place o f parihbajanti appears not only in D hp. 347 (cf. note on 171), but
also in the present stanza in Jät. ii. 140, iii. 396. C f. also sttkrtah in a sim ilar stanza in Mbh.
xii. 169. 24:
nibandhani räjjtir ejayä grame vasato ratik
chittvainam sukfto ydnti naindrti cltindanti dvsb-tah.

The fact, therefore, that<f/iir£inthe first line had been replaced by drydh, as part o f the process
of metrical tidying, does not at all im ply that the Tibetan translator knew an alternative form of
this line with dhird: the translation merely shows that the version o f the Uv. in question had
vrajattti dlñrah in the third line.
I t seems then that we must accept sithik- in the verse, and make what we can of if. The tradi­
tional explanation that the fetter is (apparently) yielding and elastic, but nevertheless hard to
remove, does not seem at alia happy one: but we should doubtless be in error if we were to base
our criticism on the assumption that the authors o f these verses at all times chose the most
elegant or appropriate expression.
Since in any case the metre, not only here but elsewhere also, does not conform to the later
classical standards, an alternative possibility which may be considered is that the original verse
had sithila- compounded with the following word: ‘a fetter hard to untie for those who are
morally slack’. The metaphorical application of the word to moral attitude or behaviour is at
least as common as the literal sense, and the other two occurrences of the word in the Pali
Dhammapada are also in this sense: 312 sitfu'Cam kammam\ 313 satfnio hiparibbdjo. The negative
asithila likewise commonly appears in this application (CPD asithila-parakkatna) ; and the six
ñiewnfM o f ¿Uila noted in the Index to the Ñiya documents are all in the sense of ‘careless
behaviour, lack of attention to duty7.

171. The traces remaining at the break in the manuscript are consistent with the reading given.
It is certain that one syllable has been omitted by the scribe, but it is not certain which. We
could in fact restore the line either as <wi) jala or va ja(/a).
In the second half of the Prakrit stanza ire have a direct repetition of the second half o f the
preceding stanza, quite possibly as a mistake, while the Pali version shows a variant form.
Franke pointed out a Pali equivalent of the present verse in Paramatthadipaniv. 128 and Manora-
thapúraijí 206 (Sinhalese ed.), where the second half agrees with the Prakrit. But the two
variant forms could so easily be substituted one for the other that this could be an independent
alternation in the separate traditions.
The frequent use of the verb chid- in connexion with sotam has regularly been interpreted as
2J2 TH E CA N D H A R l DH ARM APADA

‘cutting off the stream (o f passions)' M A IVIehendale show ed com incingly (in Bulletin of the
Deccan College Research Institute, tv h , 1955, p 70) that the phrase was in everyday use simply
in the sense o f crossing a nv er, fo r example M 1 225-6 U tinyamgangSya sotamehetva tottfaul
param agamamsti 'having crossed the current o f the Ganges, they safely reached the further
bank’ In its metaphorical religious sense also the expression occurs in company with verbs such
as aeeatan (Sn 948), and it thus seems very probable that in origin its religious sense was
Virtually synonymous w ith that o f paramgatva A t the S 3 m e time, it would be expected that the
literal sense of 'cutting’ would intrude, and a passage such as the present verse, where the
‘stream’ is compared to a spider's web, can o nly be understood i f ‘cutting’ or ‘breaking’ u
admitted W e may note, however, that the commentator here does see in amtpatanti the impli
cation samatikkamitum na sakkontt In any case the metaphor is decidedly mixed, since those
Vrho are drifting down the river {anupatanh) ate hardly in a position to rescue the situation either
b y 'cutting off the flow’ (by damming it?) or b y ‘crossing from one bank to the other* The
\erse appears to be pieced together rather carelessly from traditional materials
T h e metaphor o f the stream, coupled 'n t h the term ragaratta, is in all probability a renunis
c en ceof the verses in the canonical account o f the discussion betneen the Buddha and Brahuii
immediately after the enlightenment, where it 1$ said that the w ay o f religion is difficult, ’up*
stream against the current’ (jmtisotagamt) and— with another abrupt shift o f metaphor—that
those who are inflamed with passion, and consequently in the dark, vnfl not be able to see it
(ragarattd na dakkhantt tamohhandhena SvutS) In the adjacent verse, the MahSvastu (ul 314,
and similarly Lalitavistara 397) e xp lia d y describes these worldlings as 'drifting with the current'
anusrotamht nhyantt kdmesugrants narah, though in place o f this, both the Pali(Vin MsM
vagga 1 5 3) and the Mola sarvSstivadm canon h avea different half*\erse (See\\ald»chnu<Jt
Das Catuspansatsutra, p 114, where the parallel versions are conveniently set o u t)
In the Dhammapada \erse, the Pali commentator could not avoid running straight into the
verb, and being thus left with y e anupatanh hanging loose, was forced to supply a correlative
clause for w hich the \ erse gives no warrant te tam samatikkamitum na sakkonti Modem inter
preters hav e in general thought it better to make good the missing correlative in another way
ye rSgaraitS (sartU, te) anupatanh sotam It is, however, possible that,)?, as nom plural, is a
misunderstanding by the Pali translator, and that the original author intended the word a*
neuter singular (On te, ye as neuter in the eastern dialects, see Pischel § 423, BSU §$ 2,3
mostly cited as nominativ e, but there is no reason to doubt that the accusaUve, as in any other
neuter w ord would be identical in form with the nominative ) T h is would give a ver) mud1
better»kmt syntactical structure to the verse, which would not then require the assumption that
the c o rre la te pronoun had been omitted yat sroto ragarokta anupatantt, etae c b ttv t& ir i
rrajanti
For other comparisons with the spider, cf MBh xu 187 48
nabhataxJJhya samstJJhJn sa mlyam srjategurtan
urnaruSbfury atha srasta tyneyas tantuvajgunah,
tn d x n s i2 47
yaihornanabhk panvartamSnaj
tantu kfaye Uftkati palyamSnah
talhS t t muktahprajaluiti duhhham
tidhvamsste lofta ndJnm arcchan
While these differ from the Buddhut verse in their application, they agree with it in the ruia
pomt of the simile, vhjch u that the jpider is the '«tf-creator* of its own thread The commen*
 COM M EN TARY 233

tator on the second verse in the Bombay edition (219, 47) uses the expression aviiyd-vaio
jtoaft karma-tantu-grhe tisthati; and it seems almost certain that the author of the Buddhist verse
likewise had in mind the idea of ‘weaving the web of karma', which is svayatp-fytam. The Pa]i
commentator gives a picture of the spider running to the centre of the web to kill and suck diy
the entangled insect, and then retiring to the edge to await the next victim. But this is unlikely
to be the real intention of the comparison; and the identification of unregenerate mortals with
the spider merely in respect of their greedy expectation o f the pleasures of the world, while
doubtless apt enough in a sermon, does less than justice to the verse. (But in what follows— or
so it seems— the same miserable beings appear to have been identified with the fly: for wise men
cut the bonds, etaqi bandhanam chinditva-, that is, jalam is taken as the object of eheivana instead
o f sotatp, though the latter can hardly be doubted. Cf. in the present text 9, 1 0 , and frequently
elsewhere.)
W e may be content to leave the verse here; and if so, we are compelled to admit that its
imagery is miserably muddled, and that its author has simply combined unskilfully two familiar
comparisons which are incompatible one with the other. There is nothing improbable in this.
An alternative explanation which might enable us to rescue the author from the charge of
mere carelessness in the employment of imagery may be suggested by the fact that the word used
isjdlatp and not tanturp; that is, the picture is of weaving, and not, as in the MahSbhSrata,
spinning. This allows the possibility that the two discrepant images are linked together, by a
play upon words. For just as the spider produces a ‘self-made’ (sayamkatam) web, so also the
'stream’ (sota>p) of desires or karma is ‘self-woven’ (sotam < sva-otam) by men themselves.
There are indeed some Dharmapada verses where the intention of a double sense by their
authors cannot be denied. The present verse is rather a borderline case, and it may seem that
sotam is too familiar a word to have been intended as the vehicle of a slesa, and that it would
require a commentary to elucidate i t On the other hand, we may reasonably assume that verses
o f this type were regularly used in preaching, and in such cases the accompanying sermon could
have provided the necessary commentary. While therefore we could hardly maintain dogmati­
cally that a double sense was intended here, it would perhaps be unwise to deny the possibility.

1 72 . Luders drew attention to another versioD of this in Manu ii. 121,

abhbadana-stlasya nityam vrddhopasevinah
catoari tasya ■oardhanta Syuh prajSa (var. vidya)yah> balam;
and the verse in MBh. v . 39. 60, with other slight variants:
catoari sampravardhante kzrtir ayuryaso balam.
vridhavayarino: under the syllable ®rt- there appears a mark which is probably -a. It would
seem therefore that the scribe wrote vri- and then intended to alter it to vru-, or vice versa, but
did not trouble to delete ihe superfluous vowel-agn. Elsewhere in the manuscript vrudka is
unambiguous, but the present Instance indicates at least some fluctuation in the representation
o f r in this word. Alternatively, it might be that the subscript mark is a correction, on revision,
which is slightly misplaced, and that we are meant to read vridhuvayarina. There is in any case
no need for Senait’ s assumption of a scribal confusion between apacaybt- and upacarin-. The
latter is certainly intended in the Prakrit version, even i f the tt is not written (cf. vasada <
upaianta; see p. 87).

173. mm: d/tiro. The printed Sanskrit text of the Uv., and Mv. in. 109 both have virak, but
the T ib. Brian pa indicates dhiras as a variant in the U v. also, where however it could be the
result of the dislocation o f the last two padas o f the preceding verse (winch contain dhira-) to the
 TH E G A N D H A R l DH AR M APADA

middle o f this %erse see note on 1 7 6 below T h e tw o words arc naturally constantly confustd,
mm o f the close resemblance o f dh and v in many forms o f vrrtung at different penods
T he term purtsajahno is well known and is generally recognized to be a metaphorical applies
non o f a term commonly applied to horses and other animals In theory there might seem j»
need to postulate anything more than a parallel development, since ajatt- is used simply of
'(good) family', so that the word might as w ell be applied to m en as to horses In fact Jh*
application to men is secondary, and to some extent may thus be compared with the usage of
English ‘thoroughbred See the detailed discussion in B H S D s v ajartya A few additional
notes may be added here T h e form ajaneya (or -eyya) appears to be the normal one in non
Buddhist Sanskrit, and similar forms occur in Pali (c f D hp 322 = 3 4 1 o f the present text ihwgh
the rele\ant part o f the ' crse is lost in the Prakrit) T h e Pah commentators connected the word
with j/w , thinking o f a trained horse (which knows its m asters wdl) P T S D s v ajdatye The
Tibetans regularly translated the word by can its ‘knowing everything’, presumably under the
influence of the same etymology It may however be a mistake to understand this Tibetan
expression as directly meaning ‘an omniscient person*, since the T ib - T ib Dictionary gues
under the head of can its only the meaning rta mehog ‘excellent horse' (Th e Chinese translator
o f the dictionary besides rendering rta mchog, gives also ‘omniscient person’ as an additional
meaning, and Jasehke quotes the two terms together s v rta ) From this it would seem thatthe
Tibetans remained aware o f the fact that the application o f the term to a man «»secondary
T he word occurs also in Jama tetts m both forms Charpentier recognized it in Uttarajjhajana
t i 16 ainne, where the commentary gives m itd iv a E J Thomas (IHQ \ w , 1937,5« )
equated this with P aktnna, but such an etymology could hardly fit the sense required The
extended form of the word is to be seen in Samavaysnga 13 purtsSddntya Because of the
appearance of the word, Sheth rendered it as upadeyapurusa, fiptapunaa, but the parallelism
with the Pali lea\ es no doubt that it represents the same word as ajSmya There is at present
no means o f deciding whether this is an example o f the rare dialectal depalatahzatun of/(see
note on 35), or simply a false restoration o f the m tenocalic consonant, through an intermediate
Prakrit form duma
In the last p3da, the U v , with tukham edhate, agrees with the Pali, and there can be no doubt
that the Prakrit is a later alteration (and n the original form sukham modatt would presumiW/
haxe been unmetncal) On the sense o f the m b s e e P T hicm s, Sanskrit edhate (Indian Lm
guistics Turner Jubilee volume, 1, pp 149-58), who renders the Pali line fittingly » that
family is radiant in happiness’

174 T he sense o f the first half o f the stanza is adequately justified b y the approximately pa»M
phravs in Pali 'Sages sleep happily they arc not under the control o f women* The proposed
restoration of the missing sj liable« is urtually certain in u e w o f parallels such as Sn. >0)5 M
te nlratVfJau«! A n aitem ame possibility, va[iag]una (taken as nom p i corresponding *
stem vaiam gu ) is graphical!) less lite lj. in Men o f the tendency o f ra, particular!) at the cod
of a pJd* to tnd o ff into a thinner end, and to continue some distance below the line of
Numerous parallels could be cited for the sentiment Uv xxx 38 sukkam hi yatytha**
hyvanam nJi(tnd fofcmtng te rs « ), MBh t u 170 -j ahtnainah sttMam M e, 171 6l,no*
(p rAf-ort jlcanti Pw uyc thatksya xjrttim samMntah, 171 14 nkham napitt w m ” «
n t d k i tSrtka ¡¿Jhane T h e i n i w o o f these examples might appear to justify the iflterpTeU’ ton
o f bet in d •* Jbw if, *thej fm e nothing1, no possessions But else« here this word is rejrutsfl/
wntteft h jt , and rather tlun postulate an anomitous spelling here, it teems prrferable to in’«
p ftt hei u krtyam (tea alio p 81 on the final./) T he sense, ‘they ha\e no (worldh) do'»«.
s%ouU then find s parallel in MBh X11 j 73 i j vtpatu m ihana¡faiya fan kjryam cvch Q S '
 COM M EN TARY 2- -
1 7 5 . The Uv. version of the stanza (quoted by Pischel, p. 975) agrees with the Prakrit:

siikham darianam aryanñm samvaso ’'pi soda suWim.

The Tibetan, however, has dam pa dag dan hgrogs pa bde, which implies a reading saul in place
o f sadS, ‘ dwelling together with a good man’. Such a reading could easily have arisen from a
text similar to the Prakrit, in which the two words would be indistinguishable in form.

1 76 . Padas a and b are lost in the published Sanskrit fragment, but are justified for the Uv. by
the Tibetan. The latter however has dislocated ef to the middle of the following verse ( = 173
o f the Prakrit), and has also inverted the order of the two halves of the remainder of the verse.
saghada: it is hardly possible to read the word in the manuscript as sacada \ but if we assume
that the word corresponds with Pali, it may either be an anomalous writing of the aspirate (see
p. 100), or it may simply have asiaen from a tniseopying o f sogada. It b of coursc possible that
we have here a genuine variant in the text, sincc bñln-snwghñlr-cdrín-'gaing with(or li vingamong)
a «¿lection o f foots’ would be perfectly intelligible; and the Pali compound is not in itself a
particularly well-chosen expression, although satngama, samgali are common in similar contexts
(cf. 2 2 8 , 229).
iayisu, historically 3rd pi. aorist, but perhaps to be understood, not as a ‘gnomic aorist’, as
Senart suggested, but rather as conveying a potential sense; cf. BHSG §32. 1 19 fi. for similar
usages in Hybrid Sanskrit. There is no point in separating off -« as a panicle, and then raising
the artificial difficulty o f a singular subject with a plural verb. carTu as a nom. pi. has a parallel
in apramada-vihari’o, 128 (where however we must understand -Ho, while here the metre indi*
cates -cáñyo). For similar transfers o f -in- stems in Hybrid Sanskrit, sec BHSG § to. 16S IT.
Rare in later Prakrit, and according to Pischel '«ohl falsche 7-csart', ts -10 405). See p. n ó .
savrari: unfortunately the break and slight displacement o f the bark and the Icnticulc com*
bine to obscure the lower part of the second syllable. It seems, however, likely to be rw , and
rva is quite improbable. I f the word corresponds in meaning to the Pali, the termination is
readily explained as a development of -dlti (cf. P. sabbadhi: for s in place o f dh see p. 94); but
the spelling savra- in place of sarz-a- would be strikingly unusual. Througltom the present
manuscript as well as in the Niya documents and the Khnrosfhi inscriptions from the North­
west (CII, vol. ii), the word is regularly written as sana-, occasionally a? ¡uva-, but never as
savra-. We have indeed become accustomed to this last spelling in transcriptions of the .A:--i';nn
inscriptions. But here, unfortunately, Bühlcr (Jndtsche Palaographie, Table I) confuscd the
two distinct signs for t before and r after a consonant. The example in this table given .is m
should be read rva. In view of the considerable weathering of the stone in the Asokan K!t.iro;jht
inscriptions, it would be difficult to speak too dogmatically; but it is certain that many, if rot all,
of the Aiokan instances traditionally transcribed fls tnzra- should in fret be im t j -. If therefore
the word here is to correspond 10 P. tabbndhi, it would be simpler to assume an crr.itie rpcHinr:
236 THE GAN DH ARI DH ARM APADA

oaso sukho) is in any case dictated by context, and the analysis suhho samvaso etend u suhht
sannmo may therefore seetn to be merely a grammarian's ingenuity We should note how««
that the compound 13 used as a bahitvnht m M v it 357 (see BHSD) Dines Anders« «as
prepared to emend the text to sukho c<* dhira-samvaso, but in view o f the agreement in word
order between all three versions, this is improbable V Lesny (JPTS 1924—7, p 235) made the
interesting suggestion that dhiro was due to a mechanical rendering o f an older version wiach
had dhire, understood by the P4I1 translator as nom s g , but in fact mstr p i , equivalent to S
dkiratk, which does appear in the U v I f the older text did have an instrumental plural here it
seems more likely that the line tvas of the form dfureht sukha-, in which -hi was first mistaken for
the particle, and replaced by ca Unfortunately the break in the manuscript leaves the Pfaknt
reading uncertain Ilseems however impossible to read the second word except a s ia , but tl*
first word may have been dhtra or dkire (On the other hand dhtru and dhtro can be excluded)

177 Quite exceptionally, the Pali text introduces this verse by the phrase tamaht, which stands
outside the metre I t is probable that the U v had the same feature, since the Tibetan vets
commences with an equivalent i t basxwhich is, however, included in the verse. Senart suggested
that A im the Prakrit might be a remnant o f the same feature, and this is possible, although a is
equally possible that the word ts a simple replacement for ca, or even an actual representation
of ca, as an alternative writing for t (see p n o )
The U v , with thos man, agrees with the Pali bakusmtam, leaving the Prakrit isolated m the
form o f the first line o f the stanza
dhoreka, representing dhoreya (see p 91), rather than the Pali dhorayha to which the
corresponding form would have been *dhora{a H ie word is explained in the Pah commentary
as dhuravahana nlataya dhorayha stlcm, and this has been accepted as an etymology even w
modern tunes, although in a slightly modified form (D Andersen, Pah Reader, Glossary, an!
PT SD Sansknt *dhaurvahya, abstract from dh&rvaha) No reason has so far been suggested
to explain why this did not result in a Pah form *dhobbayha It is true that Sansknt ha* d*
compounds dkur-vaha-, ¿htir vodhr-, and it might be suggested that the Pah form is due to»
blending of *dhurvahya or *dhaurvehya- with dhaureya- But this is very improbable and its
much more Ukely that dhorayha is simply a deliberate spelling distortion intended to make lie
text conform with the phrase in the commentary, which was taken to be an etymology But it B
obvious that the phrase is in origin not intended as an etymology ¿tall— even if the compdercf
our existing commentary thought it was winch is by no means certain— but merely * method
of explaining the sense For the obvious way in which to explain dhaureya is by means of th®
phrase dhurctn vahctt From the Rigveda onwards, vah is the verb which belongs naturally to
d h u r and the derivatives are given with this sense in Panuu iv 4 76 tad vahati , 77 dhvo
yaddhahau T he formations prescribed m 77 are shown in the Ka&ka as dhuram vahali dfaryiS*
dhaureyah (although alternatively the KJiika under vui 2 79, by the phrase ¿hurt toft#
dhuryah implicitly allows the application o f iv 4 98 tatra tadhuk, which one might have thooght
to be a better heading for the Buddhist commentator to use in expounding the metaphorical
sense in dhaureya ¿¡la)
Classical Sansknt, then, has dhurya dhaureya (as well as dhurtya dhunna), Bjddhist Sansknt
19 familiar with dhaureya (dhaurena, instr is probably, as suggested by Edgerton, BHSD
merdy an error for dhaureyeaa), the Jama Prakrit texts have dhoreya dhonya (dhoreya «2» w1
Uttara/jh r4, 35), and dkcjja, the Buddhist Prakrit here also implies dhoreya, and even front
Pali the form dhoreyya is reported by the PT SD from Milinda *88 The form ¿Jror^fcawthu»
confined to a few Pali passages and may safely be regarded as a mere eccentricity in spelling
Here, »s in other places, xt is impossible to decide whether the mistake was already in enstence
 CO M M EN TARY 2yj
in t i e formative period of the Pali capon, or was introduced between that time and the final
redaction o f the commentary; or whether it intruded at a still more recent date. A s already
remarked, the commentator’s explanation does not necessarily imply that the word was already
in his text in the corrupt form. In view of the uncertainty, an editor of the Pali text will doubtless
prefer to retain the corruption in the text. The main point is that the unsatisfactoty etymology
should be abandoned.

17 8 . U v .ii. 1 1 rathakára iva camonah parikartunn updttaham(but read probably jtarc/eartto/w).

T h e same comparison recurs in Ját vi. 51:
kadáham rathakSro va parikantam opahanam
Mtm-samyojane checcham ye dibbe ye ca manuse.

Chakravarti noted also aa echo of some of the phrases in this verse in MBh. xii. 168. 41. 35
(now separated in the critical edition., but together in the Bombay edition, 174. 44-45), where
however the rathakSra is not mentioned:
kimcid eva mamaivena yadS. bhavati kalpiiam
tad eva paritapdrthaqi sarvatii sampadyate tadS;
yadyat lyajati kSmSnSij1 tat suhhasyábhipüryate
kámánusáripttrufah kSmStt anuvbiaiyati.

The last line here is reminiscent of the first line of Uv. ii. 13, which, as the metre shows,
really belongs to the previous verse (as also in Jst. iv. 17a):
ySvai kSman anusarcujt na trptitji manaso 'dhyagSt.

While the Mbh. verse supports the reading cajaii in the Pali, a Burmese renáingjaháti is also
reported, agreeing with the Prakrit and the Uv.
For rathakaro, the Pali commentary unhesitatingly gives eammahSro, but does not condescend
to -»plain why the wheelwright should be engaged in making shoes. One naturally thinks of
the possibility that this might be a reference to a proverbial saying (tutor nc sttprtt crcpidam, in
effect): the more the carpenter abandon? an unprofessional desire to make shoes, the better he is
likely to succeed in life. For the religious man, naturally, any desire whatsoever is outside his
profession. But this seems rather improbable as an explanation; for although it fits reasonably
the present verse, the author o f the second jStaka verse quoted above certainly had in mind the
cutting away of desires, in the manner of the shoemaker paring away the surplus leather.
In the same fashion as the Pali commentary, the Tibetan translator renders rathokára in the
Uv. verse as ¡ham mhJian ‘cobbler’ . The word occurs twice in the ¡VíahJvyutpatti, and at 3797,
where it follows immediately after camakSra and mocika, the Tibetan translation has HA rta
mkhan nam ¡ham mkhan ‘chariot-maker or cobbler’. This appears also in the Chinese in Sakaki's
edition, but Wogihara (186. 127) does not give the alternative meaning. In the second occur­
rence, 9328, the Tibetan has only the rendering ho Ipagt mhhan, ‘tanner’ or ‘shoemaker’ ; and
because of this Sakaki has emended the Sanskrit entry to carmakarah. In view of the other entry,
it seems unwise to emend the text, and Wogihara (281. 137), with the Sanskrit edition, retains
ralhakdrali. Here, however, the Chinese version appears as {¡j/} ‘leather goods’, a translation
which both editors have naturally queried. It may be that this seemingly bizarre Chinese inns.
]ation has been extracted from a passage similar to the present verse, and that the intended
phrase has been accidentally truncated. Apart from the verses under discussion, there appears
to be no indication from any Indian sourcc that rathehSra might mean 'shoemaker'.
It may be that in this context we must simply acccpt die rcüiabara as a cobbler; and if 10, the
 THE GAN DH ARI DH ARM APAD A

expression could hardly be other than a piece o f vernacular slang, which saw a jest in a pair of
shoes being *a poor man’s chariot’
A t a later penod o f Indian literature, a poet might have been suspected ofaglesa id rathakSta
(‘maker of desires’), in apparent paradox with yam yam cajati kamanart This seems quite
unlikely here But there is rather more probability that a double sense was originally intended
in kdmunam, fo n t is otherwise not at all dear why the cobbler rather thnn another nun should
fare the better for giving up desires W e may then suggest that the author o f the verse intended
to say that a man attains happiness to the extent that he forsakes desires (kdmanam) just as a
cobbler in cutting out the leather for a shoe succeeds to the extent that he avoids wrong measure
ments (ka-mdnam) T he pun will not o f course work m Sanskrit
[The opportunity may be taken here to abolish an apparent occurrence of rathakm in
Divy 165 1, where Cowell and Neil’s edition has kutas tvam agacchast nuktopam ratkdkin
mfsa n'a nikrttairngah This should be -pamr, atha kSlamesa tva, ‘and like a black tannnhos
horns ha\ e been cut off* ]
samajadt see pp 107 8

179 There is no doubt about the identity of this miserably mutilated verse, after the restoration
to it of the third pada Though the reader might not guess it from the edition of Barm and
Mitra the disco\ery was made by Franke
In the first half of the veri>e, Senart was able to read nenayoatmano , and we can with
confidence reinterpret this as tuna yo atvano. Unfortunately a few crumbs have been
lost since then, and all that now can be seen is the tails of two tia's in a, and in b probably ni
(not no— and indeed the stroke is thicker than might be expected for n-)» the -a o f su, and the
lower ends of 'tcka
As rather closer parallels to the Prakrit in d, Franke quoted Theri 730-1 to dvkhhStah
muccait, Sam 1 37 dukkha m panmuccatt

180 In the first pida of this verse we have the unusual situation of the sense being simple and
beyond dispute, while at the same time each of the four versions dissents from the grammar of
nil the others The sense indeed is so obvious that translators of the Pali have not hesitated to
render 'Conquest begets enmity’ (Gray), ‘Victory breeds hatred’ (Max Muller * Radhaknsb
nsn), and according to our charity we may choose between the alternative possibilities that the
rendering was intended as no more than a free paraphrase, or that it reflects a positive belief
m the neuter gender o f jaya , or that it was a mere oversight The Pali commentator, however,
did not believe that jayatn was 0 neuter notm, and found a way round the trouble by interpret^
it as a present participle {¡ivanto) This is still not very good We might suppose it to mean
‘while m the very act of winning the battle, a man engenders hatred’, or, with a little latitude
admit Fausboll’s translation ‘victor immicitias procreat ’ (Mrs Rhys Davids’ version 'ton
quenng engenders hate’ H impossible on any conceivable interpretation o f a Pali participle> and
could only be justified by reverting to the theory of the neuter noun )
But the view xhitjeyam in the verse is a participle was net universally held, for at some point
in the descent of the Avadlna gataka, it was tertamly understood as a noun, \vh03e gender was
accordingly corrected jayo vairam prasavati This is excellent, but altogether too neat to be
ongirul
The passage was noted by Luders(BSU § 190) under the heading 'prasu "entstehen" nit AH
<&}'a o i T ie corresponding Uv version of the pada (xxx 1) is there quoted in the form /«^
tutran pratratale Unless this last word is merely a misprint, the paragraph heading *ould
indicate that Luden presumably (for this portion of the work was left incomplete) intended to
 CO M M EN TARY 239
emend the reading to prasavate. This may well be what the Tibetan translator had before him
( from victory, resentment arises), although hgyur is somewhat colourless and hardly decisive
for the Sanskrit reading.
On the other hand, prasravate, if it is a manuscript reading, would indicate that a reriser, if
not the original compiler of the Uv., had doubted the capacity o f prasavate to carry the neces­
sary sense in Sanskrit. And such a doubt would be understandable; for lipra-sii- is to mean
'entstehen’, we might expect to find it in the passive, prasiiyate.
The Prakrit prasahadi was dismissed by Senart as a mere error. But since the other versions
have by no means any noteworthy claim to superiority, it is only fair to give consideration to the
possibility of such a reading. There is no difficulty in interpreting the line if we take vera cs the
subject: ‘Hatred defeats the victory’— in other words, the revengeful bitterness of the defeated
enemy cancels out any benefit from the victory.
Since the other three versions support -sav-, this rather than sail- is likely to be the original
form in the verse. If the Prakrit, as is possible, shows the sense of the original, jaya{m) will be
accusative, and we might assign the verb to the root su- in the sense of ‘mastery over’ ; in which
case prasahadi would simply be a substituted synonym. If on the other hand Liiders’ view is
accepted thztjaya(m) as an ablative is the original, then prasavati may be understood to mean
‘proceeds from’ ; and doubtless Liiders had this root (or this sense o f the root) in mind rather
than su- ‘to engender’.
On either hypothesis, it seems necessary to postulate a sense which is not at all familiar outside
the DhStupatha: for the one, i. 988 su (prasava)-aisvaryayoh, and for the other i. 987 su gatau
(but with variants srtt, s'ru). An unfamiliar— perhaps dialectically restricted— use of such a verb
by the author o f the verse might in either case be expected to give rise to textual divcrgcnccs of
the type which we fiad here between, the versions.

18 1 . Fragment 504 contains the -r- of dharmmo, written, as is regular in the syllable -m i-,
through the i-stroke. The mark o f the end o f the chapter appears after the verse on the main
leaf, and the usual row o f crosses on the fragment, with traces of ga; but the number is missing.
In uvaiamo, the rather square shape of the head o f the initial character gives the impression
that the scribe first wrote vu- (which would agree with the Pali vupasamo, S. vyupasamah in this
familiar stanza) and afterwards altered it to

1 82 . Because of the break in the manuscript, the reading in b remains doubtful. The first
syllable is more probably ya than ye. In the second, the apparent curve to the right is probably
an accident resulting from the roughness of the bark at this place, and flic character might have
been 'a or da. Either of these would give a possible equivalent toyadasya, which would agree
in sense with the Pali. There is no means of deciding between palida and phatida.
therm the word was certainly still trisyllabic at the time of composition of these verses (cf.
also the spelling thaira in the Aiokan inscriptions); and the Pral;rit has repaired the metre, after
the word had become disyllabic, bv altering tena (which survives in the Pali) to tavada. The Uv.
reflects the same repair (xi. 11): sthero na iavata bhavati, where the revised rcccnsion has become
hypermetric with sthaviro. In the Pali the verse has been left unmctrical. Needless to say, there
is no justification at all for saying that in Pali the word is ‘to be scanned as thaviro' (Dines
Andersen, glossary' to Pali Reader). The reading thero so hoti of some of the editions is n late
interpolation, and should be discarded. The inherited form remains in 183 and 185 of the
Prakrit (the latter verse similarly in Tali, Dhp. 261).

1 84 . ‘Although still a boy, a mere child, a youth with black hair, provided lie is free from
240 TH E GANDH ARI DH ARM APADA

desires ’ the apodosis coming in the following verse ‘he is called an elder’ This pair of
&tan2is thus go fittingly with the preceding pair, ■which start from pkah tm mo
The common canonical cliche jut« Jkalakeso may well have been jn origin a compound, ‘mth
hair still as black as a. child’s’ , h ut the author of the present verse obviously considered it to b«
tv>t>separate t\ ords T he P T SD , on the authority o f Buddhaghosa (v ho has sutthu), goes further
than merely seem£ the Mord as a compound, and offers w o incompatible transition*,‘ havir£Ja
o> er abundance o f brilliant hair’ (s v kala), and *very, v ery black’ (s v stuu) The dictionary
proceeds to berate modem editors and lexicographers who ‘see m iuni-the £k iUa Jouiig of i£
animal, cub, overlooking the semantical difficulty involved by taking it as a separate word
It has not been possible, however, to discover what was the semantical difficulty complained oi
(for the authors could hardly have been ignorant o f the fact that (tht is used fora human child
as commonly as rwa is m Pali), and the present verse in any case show s beyond doubt that *very
very’ is mere waywardness on the part of the later Pali commentator

186 ptiskalamai the character transliterated as -m e- is cunous in having the curved aws*
stroke w the middle of the vertical, whereas elsewhere (e g in varna in the same verse) *nw*u
written vuihout lifting the pen, the t thus coming near the bottom of the vertical It would scon
that the etymologically unjustified r was in this instance written as an afterthought Ui tm .
to has Kama pvikotya na ca
tada rtnu sadhu tupo (Uv also iSdhu-) Conversely, Pali has asJt&m sate rupttta (iMiia
u 8) against aiaihu taihn riptna(\5v v ia ), and U v ui 5 and D hp 341 correspond direcvlj,
« ith saia sitS Pali has been equated with Sanskrit iata-, and Edgerton quotes both
and idta- for Buddhist Sansknt, v.beie, however, the sources are frequently unrelaUt in ¿a
tinguishwg between i and t The present verse argues m favour o f the dental initial (unless«
claim the word as a partner for iuyt, but m the Utter the dental may b e due to the influence of
n/*) It is indeed probable that the meaiungs ‘beautiful, handsome*, & £, in the Sanskntdic
tiOlunes under iila - should be removed to tala- C f also tanyate, toyate, Moiuet-WiHiamJ s v
tart', IMniru vi 4 43 (Vedic tan-, safri)

189 may imagine that the tam ed form itamana 13 used here in an attempt to male the
quasi etymotogj from icon appear less harsh Elsewhere in the manuscript the regulartj
developed form \amana is used
iamJhare tapatam may be compared with braludare ta paianc in 'c rte 1 , which is also aa
etymologv o f the same type It seems improbable that the formation here should be d atrfj
connected with iamaiha , and the parallelism with brahdaie suggests that the aspirate here a
not original (for other examples, seep ico) If so, both words can be readily explained as non-
*ff ° f ssMjt nouiu in ’ <*, comparable to AM g -tStt (Pischel § 389)

190 lamXalkattt Uv H 23 {rdmanydnha^a, against Pali saman'iatta, the last leaving tie
tnctrea»jlLib)eihcrt Similar!) Uv xui 9 ¿rJmanydrthtfv aztkfcKdrr., vhere the Pali vefsicm.
T h ? 339 lilt rJman/Uwmm aptkhhsrtf The Tibetan translation o f the present stanza p m
umpl) ¿t ¿¿gdgt tbyvi ikcl ba Ikob rta yin (Li>i and Deckh both gi>e ikal pa, vhifc the
tronanea are unanimous for ik a lla , UvV» translation of the word as artka instead of l i l f * “
presunallj an oversight) 1 e te {tamanajihfzam na pi^pnuvanti itHmanyiSrtha is Littl« tw *
than a synonym of the more frequent tJmanna pha!a, and occurs occasional!/ in fa!»
(fJruw-JffAd)

19J. Jhatrtusn in spite of the break, it teems almost certain that the penultuna*e
 COM M EN TARY ^
is ca : fo r i f it had beenya, the other leg o f that c a s t r a r w od d hsve bess espectsc to b s s t3
visible.
W hile the four pâdas o f the Prakrit correspond to d z f o f s â -îf*^ w w , ¿ « Ssrsirit
version gives the equivalent of abcf. One o f îfc2 C c Ê ssi Cë^Lsfons q c n s c dv L iv i £*$ g g^.
line stanza, not corresponding exactly to the Pali, b rt csrtEnly ea-tsi-r rc ¿ s ecrdnlszi eie,
while the other Chinese version has 2 four-Ime ssnz2. o f .which t i t second half conssronds to
c f o f tbe Pali, the first half being, it s c a n s , & 0 2 çcite z c s e r s c : sisz z l

1 92 . U v.xx ix . '¡pemdhâsyati, andapeia-darrji-sc^Tctych. This c s i w x d e s t be o p fe isjcslh -

explamed as falling under the âhitâgm- cîsss. Our test here sho-^s cr/dx urcospouncsd. and
we have therefore in -saraca the instrumental o f 22 -c- stem ia -5 {s?tc££c), which csnirslir pre­
sented a difficulty to the Sanskrit translator. Although th:s type o f ie s a u n e a a l à wcU-krowa ia
Pali (Geiger § 78), h is o f course rare in comparison with - e x ; and -scccer^i, which joes less
happily with dama-, is obviously a replacement.
C f. M Bh. mi. 18.33:

amskasâye hâsâycan tkSrthar, ft: râüfe* ici

dhamadhEajânâm jnadfo&r. TTtiycrthar. ù ì r.i rstih ,

1 9 3 . T h e first pâda is short o f a syllable, and we may assoœe a scribal o aisso n o f sTc, or taore
probably sa (P. ossa, Uv. syat) at the end o f the pads.

1 9 4 . It seems certain that the verse ought to begin whhyo du; end indeed, a slight clumsiness
in the writing of the first syllable, transcribed as va, may indine us to think that the scribe, in
the hast« o f writing, has accidentally telescoped the graphic sjgns, and that the latter half o f the
character really was intended as du.
T he exact Pali parallel to the common phrase in b appears with 232.

195 . The general sense of the stanza can hardly be doubted, and it may well be that the shaki­
ness of the Pali text ia the editions reSects nothing more than editorial vacillation. The verse
is not available in the published Sanskrit. The Tibetan has :

gal te gan ¿ig srog chugs hgah lahan sicA r u i sms

byamspar byedr.a deyis de vr. dge bayin',
semi eon thavj ccd la rsyid h i s brise byas r.a
hod r.ams phal cher hphags pas rah tu bsgrubs per hgyzr.

It ¡5 at first sight tempting to see in prahor.a an equivalent of P.pchor.a{ka). There is o f course

no doubt that the two words are derivadves o f the same root; but a direct equivalence is excluded
by the dental -n- in the Prakrit, which implies a derivation from a forra with double consonant.
Nothing can be based on the writing o f -o- in the Prakrit, since in the manuscript ho is much
more frequent than liu for earlier ku (see p. So). A possible etymology would be from *fra-
bhumnS, used adverbiallv, *to a verv great degree*; or an adjective rebuilt on the stem o f the
oblique cases of this word. The Tibetan phal cher is consistent with an adverbial interpretation
of the corresponding word in the Sanskrit stanza, though naturally it docs not prove this abso­
lutely. Fragments of the Sanskrit version appear in an Agncan bilingual manusc-p: {Tc-rhar-
òche Sprackreste, i, p. 233, no. 424), where for this word the editors hive read onîv / re f
followed by a lacuna,
s&m k
242 THE GÀNDH ARI DHARM APADA

196 yo with the plural noun, n probably a mere slip Sox ye, which occurs several time» else­
where in the text
satta saniam is most curiously translated b y the P T S D as 'teeming with beings', as if
involving saliva, although the passage next quoted (s t sartda) puts the sense beyond doubt
So 552

raja arahasi lhamtum cakkaoatUrathesabho

edturanto vtjilàvt jambusandassa issato

Here the commentator not only rendered the word correctly as jambudipassa, but added that the
cakkaiattt is master o f all four continents o f the world, apt ca cakkavatti catunnampi dipavm
marohott T h e present cliché merely adopts the alternative view that the world consists of seven
continents, sapta dzapdprthwt
n arya 'having travelled the whole earth’, as a preliminary to the afvamedha, gnes as good
sense in the context as 'having conquered’, although naturally this is implied
aipa teka, purusa-veka these surprising forms cannot be directly descended from -neiha
On the other hand, t ajopeya would naturally appear in this dialect as vayaveya, and thu »
certainly what is intended by the spelling vayoveka (see p 91) It would seem that the latter
half o f this has been misunderstood to mean ‘sacrifice’, and has then replaced -medhain the names
o f the other w o sacrifices
same pah also appears to be the result o f a «interpretation at the tim e o f the translation mto
this dialect The name o f the sacrifice, it seems, has been understood to be 'perfect snare' or
something of the sort {smy ak pi/a) It is true that the Pali form could theoretically represent
this, but the Tali name was understood by the commentators in the same way a s the Sansoni
translators took it, iamya prSsa, and this is probably a correct interpretation (see BHSD s * )
I f the Prakrit translator had taken it m the same way, the position o f the two sibilants would
ha\e been reversed, and pra would probably have been written instead o f pa

197 The expression 'is not worth the sixteenth part’ is so regular everywhere in this type of
context that ta n alo has surely intruded into the text here by a pure accident
eadn pTQiha has been left uncompounded in the transcription, on the assumption that the
phrase represents còndri prabhd It might, however, be thought that the appearance of ia
tandimd(of which Middle Indian form 8 candrtmd may well be a reflection rather than the
source) leases it still possible for the expression to be considered as a compound

198 The word corresponding to ? metianso appears to have been interpreted by the Prtint
translator as equitalent to matlrlasya See B H SD s t v amia an d mattràsatd Jnwhanspm*
biblj the same p]da, the word is translated in U v xxxiu 48 by brtsephan, butwithout/Atfnw
xxxi 41 43 (T

1 9 9 ,2 0 0 A versification o f a canonical prose cliché e g A n g *,29 9

uddham adho tmyam tabbadhx sabbatthaldya sabbdetutam lokam mettdsaka;atmt tttttS

n puJena tnaba^atrna eppavdnena avtrena obyjpayhma pharitiJ vtharatt, <9 tram pajltib
publ-f U10 rre tJam attan partttam akoa abhJntom, yam khopana ItticipamJnalalant k am z*
na Ian fairdccnuati, na tart tatrjeatufkah

The tan e pjisa-e. with minor rarunts, at Saqi it 322, D 1 251. M u 207, apanlfa*t cótj
iif/an Monifdh appamdram tubhdntam M 11 262 See also Mahlvyutpattt f ¿9 5
 COM M EN TARY 243
A different Pali versification o f the same material appears in Sn. 149-50 (repeated in
Ehuddaka-patha is. 7-$};

team p i sabba-bhSiesa vtanasam bhacaye aparimdnam,

inetlam ca sobba ïokasmm tndttasam bkàvaye apartntSnam
uddham adho ca tiriyam ca asambadhanj avernm asapaUom.

Cf. also M r. iii. 373 maitrS-bhSzanem bhâvaye apramatlo, maitrena cittcna intânukampî. The
parallels show that in this passage apramaito is merely a corruption for apramSnSm.
It seems possible that the last pâda of 2 0 0 was understood as transcribed {•diiryatc— 'cannot be
discerned in it'); but it is also possible that it tvas taken in the sajrce war as the Pali. On the
latter assumption, we should transcribe taircvitiSadi, and attribute the form ari* in place of
aza- to the palatalizing influence of the following consonant (see p. Si).

2 0 1 . Ur, xxxi. 23 (Tib. 24); char kyi sùùn du yid hgr/> tU can hardly be thought fo render
dhamapürsaqigamaiji majiah (JRAS 1912, p. 375— unless, improbably, the compound is inter­
preted as tatpurttfa instead of bahtrurihi), but is a straightforward translation o f manahpSrvan-
gamS dhamdh.
manobhai'âh in the printed Sanskrit text (ibid., p. 273) has no authority, being merely an edi­
torial restoration (and an unfortunate one, in evoking the idea of the god of love in this context).
Pischel's manuscript (p. 974) and the Tibetan translation (mgyogs) assure mono-javah for the
Sanskrit, which thus agrees with the Prakrit text. The verse is quoted also in the MahSkar*
mavibhanga (ed. lAvi, pp. 48, 57), with -jazoh. This reading obviously reflects the ksarnka
nature of the dharmas, while the Pali mono-mayâ seems almost to imply a Vijüâno-vâda view.
In the last pSda, it is probable that cokkam ca cahaio padam most nearly represents the original
of the verse, scil. vahatoh padam. The Pali commentary, while remembering the sense, has been
Jed, by the obsolescence of vohatu- 4draught-ox’, into the very awkward explanation of tahato
as the gen. of the present participle: dhureyuttasta dhutam cahato balkaddaaa padaneafjzan
tviya (Dhp. A. i. 24). The later complications show that the verse was not readily understood.
The Prakrit has produced an emendation : 'like the wheel on the cart on the road'. The U r. has
caitrcm (an almost inevitable solecism for ca) cahatah padam (Pischel, p. 974); but the Tibetan
gives likhor los mgo bo bead pa biin, ‘just as the head was cut off by the « heel’. The narrative
accompanying the Chinese version translated by Beal (7V.t/.? from the Buddhist Canon, com­
monly known as Dhammapada, 1878, pp. 62—63) illustrates the verse with a story of a sinner
run over by s cart and killed, but curiously shows in the verse itself a reflection of the oripinal
text: 'As the chariot wheel follow him (or*/) who draws it.’ In the quotation of tiic verse in the
Mahâkarmavibhanga, L4vi prints in the text caban ca vahatak padcn, but notes that hi»
manuscripts give tahutiipadam and cahalusire respectively, ‘leçons qui remirent ramener au
texte courant'. These, however, are not merely careless slips in copyinc, but scribal emendations
of some ingenuity. In the Mkv., there follows shortly afterwards (pp. JO if.) the story of
Maitrâyajna (Maitrakanyaka, Divy. xxxviii; Mittavindaka), «ho was punished by an iron wheel
revolving on his head; and it is clearly this wheel which has inspired these emendation«. Thut,
tko nnr- crn'Si* Jm« hrmtnhf Jit« fctt tn mean, 'sorrow will come Ufwn him. rr S wheel rivinç
144 TH E G A N D H A R l DH ARM APADA

with the Prakrit (having bdag-md mthon nas = dispa atvano in all four stanzas), but stth
additional intermediate stanzas varying the same theme
In 2 0 4 , sugadt, in place o f the normal sukadt, is not an exception to the regular treatment of
intervocalic £-,bu t,asD hp 18 shows, reflects the rhyming analogical form to he«
for the sake o f the metre

2 0 9 RockhiD cites Hitopadeia u n

jalabtndumpatena kramaiah puryate gkatah

The TJv manuscripts (Chakravarti, pp 213-14) S1™ stohastokam pt dcwam (agreeing with the
Pah) and stokastoka(ni\krtair apt T h e T ib has ¿sags ‘gathered'
ayaru, ayato appears to be ocaran (pres p t c ), which is somewhat colourless, ‘actinglittle ty
little’

2 17 U v jxnc ijj, ¡ubhanudarhnam mtyam, d, huumjogank&sti ca

2 18. U v xxix 16, aktbhSnudarhnam mtyam, d,yuktam jagarihSsit ca, f, iatlttm tva sthaan

21 9 U v xxxi 11, samahthmdati, abh&vttam atlam

2 20 . U v xxxi 17, na vyattbhndati, subhdvtlam ctttam

2 2 1 ,2 2 2 U v sxvii 3-4, quoted by L<vi, JAs 1912, pp 288 flf, and discussed there »com
panson with the version interpolated m jStakamala xvi, after verse 1, and the Tibttaitand
Chinese translations In 6, the T ib U v agrees with JatM , dJivankxn&htcikamana whie
L ivi s U v manuscript is closer to the Pali and Prakrit, kaka farena dhvdtrkstnd Pali dkansmit
is understood by the commentator as from dhams- (dhvams-) ‘destroy’ Dines Andersen, P&
Reader, Glossary, s v , suggests dkarstn ‘audacious importunate’, which would imply a panlM
in development to Prakrit damsana- < dariana-, otherwise rare in Pali The word cannot in
any case represent an original with -nks- c f dhanka-, Geiger § 62 It ts reasonable to suppose
that the Prakrit and Sanskrit versions intend dhvankstn , merely as a replacement htdhtanifU
for the sake of the metre The second crow m the line may be the result of h&ka~, m which cast
dhamtina will be thought to be the older reading, but the argument is not conclusive Note
however, if dhamsin- is taken to mean 'importunate', that the same meaning ts attributed to
dhanksa- by the dictionaries
prakkamno, with n instead of n < nd is anomalous, and may have been influenced by khani.
‘ break’
In 2 2 2 , the Sanskrit versions have suhnena (U v ), samknena (JatM) against altaetta

224 Uv seen x8<J also gives a partial parallel for cd It seems certain that in the original >eis*
dhemma pllt w as intended to convey a double sense, both -ptti and -ptilt T h e Prakrit version
has been forced to make a choice T he Pali tradition understands it at ‘drinking’, and the Dhp
205, dhamma ptti rajam fitam shows that the interpretation is not merely perverse But the
translation ‘He «ho drinks in the law* 1$ hardly sufficient T he implication is, ‘He whose dnak
is the doctrine rests happily, with a dear head (m contrast to the man who drinks r w i, who his
a disturbed tupht and a confused mind)* It u possible tfu t jntt- 'protection’ (¡arena) is also
intended ‘lie >\ho 11 protected by the doctrine rests secure ’ dhamm* romah in the second hitf
c f the t erse gives a further indication that the sense o f prlti- «as also in the mind o f the author
o f the terse
 COM M EN TARY 24-
T h e Tibetan translation {chos la dgah byed) shows that the Sanskrit also had dherma-priti
here; and even in ssriiL 5, corresponding to Dhp. 205, chos la dgah bahi to dag hthufi, i t .
dhama-priii-rasam piBaa.

2 2 5 . A s the dictionaries rightly remark, the word dhamma is ‘ rarely neuter’, and it should
certainly not be neuter in Dhp. 82. Translations such as ‘leges’ (Fausboll), ‘Jaws’ (Radhakrish-
nan) attribute an entirely impossible meaning to the word. It is true that the neuter plural occurs,
and probably correctly, ia JaL v. 221 satam ca dhammSni siddttitani, where however it refers to
the qualities o f the good. T he Prakrit shows that the Pali reading here has arisen merely from
an accidental transposition o f syllables in copying (cf. note on 144); and the correct shape o f the
phrase has been preserved also in Pali, ApadUna i. 328 iasta dhammam svnitcana.

2 2 6 . The verb ia the first pada o f the Pali verse has caused some difficulty, and the fact that
the Prakrit has a different word here confirms the initial impression that something may have
gone wrong with the te s t Nor is the Prakrit word immediately transparent. From the plate,
the first impression may be that it should be read vithedi rather than vivedi: but a dose examina­
tion o f the original print makes it very probable that the mark to the left of the second character
is not ink, but a natural mark in the substance o f the bark. Further, a reading r ifhedi would
imply an earlier form such as visi{h)enti, which has not suggested any plausible interpretation,
and is in addition less satisfactory for the metre. The reading vivedi can therefore be accepted
with a reasonable degree of confidence.
In the Uv. manuscript (JRAS 1912, 371) the first syllable o f the verb is lost, but zrajanti, as
restored by the editor, is confirmed by the Tibetan translation, which gives kun tu hgro bar byed
for sarvatra vrajaniL Rockhfll’s translation o f the line, ‘the holy man forsakes everything’,
can have no direct connexion with the Pali, since he had not identified the Dhammapada verse
In question; and die translation probably results from taking the phrase h m tu hgro ¿a as a unit,
which does in fact occur as a synonym o f hm tu rgyv ba. Naturally, if the persons talked o f are
parivrajakas, they have by implication ‘forsaken everything’ . It is indeed quite conceivable
that the Indian version itself was understood in this way, and that sarvatra crajanti was taken
to be simply a poetic expression for parivrajanti, ‘wander (as religious beggars)’. Such an
interpretation might be ¿o ugh t sufficient to account for the Pali commentator’s expressions
lobha-dhammam •dvajjelva and chanda-ragam vijahanti.
On the basis o f these phrases, H . C . Norman accepted the variant cajanti in the Pali verse
(DhpA ii. 156); but this can hardly be correct. The reading cajanti not only has strong manu­
script support within Pali, but is established beyond question as the prior of the two by the
agreement o f the Uv. W e can therefore drop cajanti from the discussion.
This is perhaps as far as we can proceed with confidence. But although the reading rajanti is
respectably old, as may also be the interpretation suggested, the phrase remains awkward, and
the variant in the Prakrit raises the possibility that vajanti is itself a corruption. A possible
hypothesis which would account for the readings (though in the nature o f the case any such
suggestion remains speculative) would be that the Middle Indian form vayenti, which o n be
assumed to underlie both the Sanskrit and the Pali, was a mistake for tiyar.ti; ‘ with rcspect to
everything religious men stand aside’— are indifferent. The Prakrit rs'rri/t would then represent
a replacement o f the verb ci-i- by the rather stronger form vi-apa-i- (tyapcnti).
In the second p3da, the published Sanskrit has sar.tah, agreeing with the Pali; but the ver*irm
translated into Tibetan must have had dhirah (hrtan mams) agncint; Trith the Prakrit.

2 2 7 . The Tibetan version, while giving the same sense, repeats the firs; phrase in th; record
246 TH E GÀN DH ÀRI D H ARM APAD A

half of the a erse, and may therefore indicate that the U\ had here an elaborated paraphrast,
rather than a direct rendering of this ; erse as it appears in the Pali and P ralnt
ant accusatn e plural, as is required b y the phrase, thus formallj equivalent to Pali aSrie The
form anfiam 19 itself to be understood as in origin a plural see Luders, B S U §196 ff Although
the commentary on Dhp 158 renders the -word as singular(icroffl) Luders t o able to ate the
Jataka commentator (ibid § 206) who renders annam anusisatt ;n his %erse by aniit There u
no reason to doubt therefore that the plural should be regularly understood as the ongiwl sense
in this recurring phrase

228 See also Sn 663 fo r a sim ilar grouping o f vices ajtaddho hadartyo madanSu mcchan
pttumyatmim amtyutto In 2 8 0 kradata again appears w here the corresponding îa h has
kadartyam, 2nd i f further confirmation is needed, the T ibetan translation hjm s pa maies it
quite certain that h a d a ta corresponds in meaning n ith kadary a T h e forms o f the two mvds
are in addiuon so similar that it would be difficult to suggest that they should be etymologicslly
distinct But i f there is an etymological connexion, it is not one o f direct equivalence If weare
to see here the survival o f a different formation from the same base (for example *kadar<*
beside kadar-ya ), it would hardly be possible to retain the traditional derivation of the more
familiar word from kad + arya-

2 2 9 In spite o f the b real in the manuscript, the first pâda can be read with certaint) In b, the
traces are consistent with hlatada, w hich is confirmed b y the Tibetan tshui khrtms ¡dan pa

2 3 0 . I h \ 26
atavaJed ânuSàsita câsalhySc ea midrayet
asatSm naprtyo lh a ia ti satâm ca p nyc bhavah tu

It is therefore probable that tn the Prakrit also asabhe is to be understood as abl s g , < asaihyi(()
w ith hi as a separate word, although formally asabheht could be taken as an abl plural Oft ht
as s replacement for ca, see p n o

2 3 1 . T he first line in the Tibetan tersion is

grtas mm zfog dan [tgs smra dan,

for «hich Rodthill gt\ es, 'Ha\ ing gi\en up a house, speaking v ell’ , but better, ‘ Dissuading fro®
what is improper, and speaking (recommending) that which is good * T h is then confirms the
sense of the Fraknt to be taftddharampravahtSram 'o ne who prohibits and exhorts* Weiruy
assume that the \erb m pdh- had not survned m the language, and the form wiih the dental -1
is simply taken o%er intact from the source language o f the translation (Similarly, the dental
appears in th e o p tatiteo f the «ante »erbtn 1 5 %ntsrdht ) On the « nting o f d for dh, see p too
T h e P j l i i erston was explained plausibly enough b y the commentator as meaning thât a wise
man who points out one's faults should be regarded as doing a sen ice equal to telling ore
where to find buned treasures, and this has generall} been accepted as quite satufactor) It
seems %er) Iikelj that, as in some oiher instances alread) noted (see 1 4 4 , 2 2 5 ), one \ewon »
dem ed from the other by a process o f graphic corruption rather than b j intenuonil change tn
the cotine o f an oral transmission It is hardly to be expected that the details o f the process csfl
st thisstape be reestablished, and it may seem that we are at the mere) c lo u r own literary
prejudices i f we attempt to judge which tcrsion is prior Some may be read) to accept Tali
’treasures as • touch o f poetrj, considering the Prakrit dry and prosaic in comparison Othtt*
 CO M M EN TARY z47
will certainly conclude that the Prakrit has the fee] of authenticity irkiie the Pali expression is
strained, if not indeed a little absurd. It is difficult to imagine that the rhythmic effect of the two
agent nouas together is not intentional; and if we take the Prakrit as the derived reading, we must
in this instance be wining to concede to the Fates who control the corruption of texts a stylistic
talent which they do not normally care to reveaL Cf. also Sn. 167 akkhalaram pavatiarani
sabla-cDtamm&na paragum. Ultimately, much will depend on whether future research makes it
possible to decide whether, among other questions, the Uv. is entirely independent in its line
o f descent I f it is, then its agreement with either the Pali or the Prakrit at any given point
would be virtual proof that the odd version was the one which had suffered change. But if the
ancestry of the Uv. includes a version, closely related to our Prakrit— and on the basis of present
knowledge this seems very probable— then obviously its agreement with the Prakrit in a case
like this would in itself carry little weight.
iadi in e is certainly a mere slip for tadiia, as in the preceding pada.

2 3 2 . Uv, vii. 5 gives only the material of the first four padas (with kuryat in placc of kitva)} but
in its following verse, it condenses the same sense into the first half of the verse, and in the second
half gives a conclusion not much different from the import of the final two padas of the Prakrit
stanza:
ilia catha para(rasau sukharp samatigacchati

(so in the manuscript of the revised version: read -adhigacihati with Chakravarti’s older
manuscript).
There is a doubt as to whether the second word in e should be read tuhc or st/hi, since the mark
to the left of the upright of the h seems slightly different in texture from that on the right, and
may perhaps be a natural mark in the bark. It is impossible to decide with certainty from the
photograph; but fortunately no question o f interpretation is involved in the difference. It
would seem, however, that the case-endings In this cliche require further investigation. While
the CPD quotes it only in the form where all three words end in -am, the Pali Vinaya (Maha-
vagga, i. 3. 4) has avydpajjham sukJiam lohe, with which Lalitavistara 380 agrees, avyabadhyam
xtthham lohe. (See sJso Wsldschmjdt, Das CatusparifatsiHra, p. 100.) This is evidently a phrase
in which the variations could have resulted from differing interpretations o f pre-Pali eastern
forms in -e, which have sometimes been taken as locative, and sometimes as accusative. In the
present Prakrit version, loke can readily be taken as locative, and this indeed would seem to give
the simplest sense to the phrase— 'he attains unassailable happiness in this world', here and now.
T he other words however could hardly be locative (or accusative plural), and it seems therefore
that the original eastern singular accusative forms in «e have been taken over intact here. A l­
though the CPD appears to give preference to the form avyapajja, the form with the aspirate,
-jjha, has every claim to authenticity. There was inevitably a contamination between this Tvord
and vyapada\but its separate existence is guaranteed not only by Buddhist Sanskrit (sec BHSD,
avyabadhya, av^'abSdho), but also by die occurrence in the Jaina texts of awabdha, in similar
senses to the Buddhist term (see Sbcth, Praknt.fJindi Did. s.v.). In Sanskrit, avadhya appears
in a very similar contest in MBh xii. 171. 52:
prtipyuzadhyam brahnapuram rJjcza syam aham

2 33 , 2 3 4 . In die Uv. version, 13 and 14 agree with the Pali, while 15 and 16 show a variant
similar to the Prakrit, but not identical: tie la tnig r i mcdpahiphyir 'sincc he has no eyes. (It is
improbable that ptajnd would have been so translated.)
(adoti'a: (P. fadapiya-, iaduptka; see slso BHSD s.v. vpaha) ‘since he has wisdom adcijuste
 CO M M EN TARY s 49
to the reading of t, d. I f we read ajedana, the word is regularly developed, and calls for no further
comment. It may, however, be thought that the scribe has written ajetaiia ; and a comparison of
other examples o f da in the neighbourhood make this probable (though the Mike appearance
may be partly due to the underlying lenticule). I f this is the writing intended, we may aynnw>
that the double consonant implied has arisen on the analogy of praktana , or is due to a blending
o f the two derivatives adyatana and adyatva.
mana-bfiam : in verses 24» 25 , and 54 the corresponding Pali has manta-. If any doubt still
remains concerning the meaning o f manla-bhSm in Pali, the appearance of mita- here as an
equivalent should settle the question. The Pali commentators had already lost the sense o f the
compound, and invented an explanation for it ia terms o f a stock phase, manta zatccali pa m a .
Although this manta was later taken as a fa n . sg., there is litde doubt that the phrase originally
meant it as a nom. p i.: ‘the term “ mantras” is used as a synonym forprajna'. Modem translators
seem for the most part to have accepted the sense o f 'speaking wisely', although doubtless many
have thought that this t o a very odd meaning to develop from 'speaking mantras'.
Senart remarked in 1898 , with reference to verse 54 o f the present text, that the Prakrit
reading indicated mandabhanin, and that this was decidedly more probable than the Pali
reading. Levi (JAs 19 12 , p. 253 ) drew attention to mandatn in Uv. iv. 16 , where the correspond­
ing Pali has manta (Sam. i. 57 ). These identifications unfortunately escaped the attention of the
P T S D , which continued to interpret the Pali word in terms of mantra. Luders reverted to the
question in BSU § 167 , and added to the evidence Uv. viii. 10 and xxviii. 8, both with manda-
bhasi (Tib. dal bus smra) where the corresponding verses in Pali have mOtiia-bJiani.
In the middle of a list of qualities desirable in a bhiksu, the Mahavyutpatti (126 . 29) has
mandabhasyo bhavati; and In the Uv. version of the present stanza, although the published
Sanskrit text has alpdbkarim, the Tibetan has again dal bus smras na, showing that it was trans­
lated from a recension which had manda- here also.
Lilders was reluctant to accept the sense o f 'speaking little’, and proposed instead ‘freundlich
redend’, which he thought fitted better with the frequent association of the word with anuddhato.
He therefore suggested that the original might have been mandra- rather than manda-, (If so,
the word cannot be a direct inheritance in the dialect here, since, on the analogy of candra, wc
should have expected mandra to appear here as *madra.) The meaning suggested, however,
seems a superfluous assumption, and ‘speaking in moderation’ is adequate in all the passages
quoted. The vice which is contrasted with this, auddhatya, may reasonably be thought to imply
noisy, rowdy behaviour; and the normal sense of manda would seem to be confirmed here by the
variants alpa- and mita-, and by Thg. 209 anuddhato sammitabham subbato.
Luders described the Pali word as ‘falsch palisieri aus *manna = manda oder mandra'. But
although manna is certainly the form in the dialect of the present manuscript, it seems unlikely
that such a form is involved in the history o f the Pali word. More probably the latter is merely
the result of a misguided attempt by redactors to producc a more literary appearance in their
text. It would seem that they had some awareness o f the Prakritic tendency to voice the inter­
vocalic voiceless stops o f the literary language, and in attempting to combat this tendency, they
occasionally overreached, and produced monstrosities such as Yamataggi foijamadogm. (For
sudi ‘hyper-Paliisms* sec Luders, op. a t § 122 , 14 1 .) It seems very probable, in view of such
mistaken substitutions of voiceless stops, that manta-bhum also is merely an attempt at clcgancc.
Cf. also note on anu’ija (P. anuvicca), 241.

238,239. Two distinct verbs have been recognized, layi-miy- ‘to contract* (appearing regularly
in contrast to prasarayati 'to extend’), and sam'iiij', as in the Pali stanza here, which is to be
linked with such expressions as Dhp. 255 nattlu buddhanam injitaiji (see vcrre 183). For a
 TH E GAN D H AR l DH ARM APADA

discussion o f the question, see B H S D W hether o r not the W o mortis are in ongm dutuct
(fo r it would be possible to argue that Buddhist Sanskrit tm m i/y-, ttt mnj•, neither of which u
quoted for Pali by the P T S D , are later analogical form ations) it is certain that the two sptDinjs
samtnj- and wmmin/*were frequently confused There ts thus no reason to doubt the possibility
that the spelling w ith -mm m ight be intended b y the scribe in the Praknt^crse here, although
the meaning agrees w ith the P ali satiunjantt
Since the w riting o f the subscript m may be ambiguous (see p 70), it would be difficult to
exclude the possibility th a t the w ord should be transcribed sammjadt T h is could then be com
pared w ith such form s as yvjatha (P yunjatha), w hich v,t m ight accept as being wntteft lor
yum}- Such an explanation ho\ve\er would im p ly a special conservatism in the class o f tusal
in fo verbs w ith •}• (as against vtnadt < vutdaix), w hile m other instances the regular deielojK
ment o f «/ holds good (kuHara < kunjara) I t seems sim pler therefore to take forms like yajab
and tjadt to represent non infixed forms, constructed on fo u rth eh m or passive bases, yyya,
tjya- 1( tfus is accepted, the transcnptton sammjadt would fit the situation better
In 239 , sabkijadt cannot be compared directly w ith the P a li samrah, and i t seems most prov­
able that it should be interpreted as sambfudyatc T h is (w hich is unmetrical) would appewto
be a remterpretation o f a form in the source-dialect o f the translation such as tmtj)adt(<saimr
} ate, w ith the normal P raknt development ry> j], Pischel § 3 8 4, tv here the present manuscript
shows ry > y) Since the verb in the second h a lf o f the verse would then comode exactly in
form (sarmjjadi < samtjyate), the stanza m ust certainly have been ta ie n as a play on the sound
o f the two words B ut whether the forms could have coincided as early as the date o f composi­
tion o f the verse is a question which can hardly be answered at present, and it may be that for
the original author ihere was no more than an approximate assonance between the two verb*.

240 » The U \ gives the tw 0 hah es o f the verse m the same order as the P ra in t-
The spelling p ro d k u , corresponding to Pali p oso, is p ro b a b ly t o be interpreted as anatteiuptbj
the translator (or a later copyist) to ‘restore1a more htenuryform T h is suppositionwould unplj
that the person responsible was aware of the nature o f the equivalence between his own dialed
and Sanskrit in the case o f such words as masura madhura T h e addition o f the -r- is doubtless
agestureinthesamedirection(seealsop 102). W hether o r not Pdiposa (Geiger § 30) Buddhist
Sanskrit /o/a, is directly connected w ith purvsa, the fo rm prodhu seems very unlikely to be a
genuine inheritance in the dialect (B ut see further H W Bailey, T P S i960, p 84 )
241,242 Th e U» inserts tn o « tra pldaa and om its r« /o f the second verse
yam lu ttjnahprdiamsanti hy aauyujya iubhaiubham
piaiamsd sd tamjkhjata tia tv ejnatr yah praiamsttah
medhavmam trttayuktam prajnam fflefu samcriam
ntfkamjSmbunadasyn a has tam mnditum arhatt
The Tibetan gives a verse o f six pJdas, 1e om itting the additional material o f the Sansknt
version ts « d l as the end o f the Pali and Prakrit. In 5, 6h la hphan m ma byun tat, the word
hphan seems to be unknown, and we ma> confidently emend it to hpha! (JJschke, hphal*3
incuion, indentation, notch, Desgodms, hphalga and hphal ka, T ib -T ib D ie t, Iphal M*3.
’ ft mo',line,figure) ThiSTtouldgireanadequatetranslationofatrAidra'.fthovitigthJthere M
in some other places, the Tibetan translator had before him a different recension o f the V *
from that at present available in Saruknt. (C f notes on 170 and 236 )
eru'tja ammtea There has been a strong reluctance to accept the vie» ©fthecommeotatort
tb it mvrvMu from exu ciJ A nd erxn {Pah Header, Glossary, s v ) seems to admit ni
25* TH E GÀNDH ÀRI DHARM APADA

how ever slightly better m the context to understand the word as ab! sg; o f the present participle
o f u til This \vQuld in effect be equivalent in sense to vtndyaka, ‘teacher’
samuia (sammuhya) the last syllable » uncertain, coming at the break between the fragments,
but the remaining traces are consistent w ith ia Fo r ia < hya, see p 105 For the sense, cf
Sn ftoatH]}áh'tyamraah¿moho,M « 219 33 avtjjaya amendsamtnohS, JStaka-m 3li xxu 32
itpah frutam moha tamah-pratndtkt sammoha-iatru vyathanSya {astraiti
budhana va adaíant c f 257
, where w hat » virtu a lly the same fault (not listening attemndy
to religious ins traction) is qualified as dhamaseva adaiane
Piymi in the Fait parallel quoted, vicine was presumably understood as o p t, and the Praint
could in form represent this also B ut a present participle is form ally equally possible, and seems
to lit the sense better here Sim ilarly, in A ng iv 3 yomso vteiae dhammampama/ atthm
upassati, a present participle seems to give rather better sense T h is phrase should thus prob
ably be added to the instances noted by Luders (B SU §5 228-30) o f pre-Pali participles w w
misunderstood as optatives
The bottom o f the fragments containing these tw o \ersea fits the traces of characters at the
beginning of the mam leaf thus establishing their position as the first two ^erses in this chapter
245 'Th e learned should be consulted m respect o f both meanings the easy, straightforward
meaning, and the difficult meaning (to be reached) by exegesis '
¡andavi (-tev}a) cf Jat m 306 addkahave tevitabbSsapaññdbahussutáyebahuttkdnaantmo
mea ( nUya) from the photograph it seems that >c; has been w ritten, and the vowel afterwards
erased I t is o f course possible that the erasure is accidental and that nice should be read
The reference of the verse is to the fam iliar Buddhist antithesis between (scriptural) stale*
m ints which are mtartha and those which aré néyárlhá (see B H S D s w . and E Lamotfe
Ilutare du Rouddhme indten, 1 554 fo r references) Th e form er have their sense already
explained (nlta, scilicet, by the words), and such meanings are here described as ucitdrtha,
‘ordinary, customary meanings’, sim ilar therefore (though not o f course in etymology) to the
làcydrtha 'literal meaning’ o f later Sanskrit linguistic theory T h e latter, being neyo, requie
some further ulti, explanation, before the/r real purport can be grasped
I t is possible that this verse may be to some extent inspired by the common association of the
pentita w ith two arthai Sam 1 87, Ittv 23 (*= U v iv 25,26)
oppamatto vbho attht adhiganhatt pandito
diflke dhamme ca yo attkoyo c'attho ¡amparSytko
Qtthábfosama) á dfifro pandito it pavueeati
D hp 256
na tena hott dhammatth/> yen' attham tahatS nay e
y o ea attham aaattham ea ubho ruccheyy a panftto
T h g 443 ( = Uv xx 12)
vbhirtnam attham carati ottano ca parata ea

(this last without panfila) In these, o f course, attha is ‘advantage’, not 'meaning’ , (with the
additional sens« o f ‘deciding a law suit’ in Dhp 256), but perhaps a bndge between thu tjpe
o f chch£ on ‘two arthaf and the present %erse may be seen in Sn 526
dulhaySni viety^a pandar3m
ajjhatlam bahiddhi ea tuddkpaflfb
kanhdtukkam upJtrratto
panetto iddi patveeate tathattd
 CO M M EN TARY 253
T he sense of paida.r5.ni in this verse however is obscure. [Since it is obviously intended as an
etymology for pannila, the reading profanarti in the same verse ia M v. iii. 399 is certainly a
corruption, in spite o f Senart’s preference for it, ibid. 520 - 1 .] The commentator’s explanation as
âyatana probably is inspired merely by the classification of the Syatanm into internal and external.

246, 247. ‘T he learned have the power to take away the sorrow of the sufferer, constantly
speaking with appropriate speech.’ (Presumably what is meant is ‘apt quotations from the
scriptures’.)
‘And the learned produce happiness even for the happy man, teaching as they do the immortal
doctrine which leads to the assuaging of suffering’.
T he amrta dharma may also be intended to evoke the idea of the asamskfta dhanna, NirvSpa,
equivalent therefore to amatainpadam.

248. ‘A wise man who wishes stili greater wisdom should frequent the company of those who
are moral, very wise, and learned in the scriptural texts o f the doctrine.’
¿ h arm a-3g a m a-b a!iusr> d âk seems die most likely sense. It would also be possible to interpret
the line as dham a-hSm â bahuèndâh, ‘desirous of righteousness, and learned’ ; but this seems to
be an epithet more appropriate for a beginner than for a bahuinita.
The Tibetan verse does not correspond exactly, bahusruta being omitted; but there is little
doubt that it represents in essentials the same stanza.
ichttdu: instr. sg.— see p. 8 r.

25 1. tamasarnudu, i.e. tamasS ornutaqi: see p. 81 In c we might have expected vijamanept,

252. Cf. for example Jât. ii. 389 evam eoa idh’ekacco puggafo Itoti tâdiso. (The Jâtafca edition
has evam m m , a form o f expression which it repeats with astonishing frequency. This can hardly
ever be right, and ought regularly to have been emended to evam cva.)
T h e Tibetan shows a slight variant in b: 'although he has intelligence’.

255. myi-drak$u’. the two words occur together also in 322: Hlamadu suyi-draftso, where the
corresponding Pali has sila-dassana-sampamam. It is thus possible that drahfa was thought to
be connected etymologically with dassana, and that the writing with initial dr- may have been
influenced by this supposition. It seems, however, very unlikely to be a real connexion. And
even if no popular etymology was involved, there are sufficient examples of intrusive -r- in the
HiaWt to allow us to equate the word with S. daksa. In the present verse, a translation such as
‘who has heard the doctrine, who is pure and intelligent’ seems hardly adequate. (The JStaka
edition, giving the corresponding phrase uncompounded, presumably took it in some such way.)
In the context, it is more probable that one who has heard the doctrine has his mind thereby
‘purified’— but rather in the sense of ‘clarified’. This interpretation is then in keeping with the
phrasC9 in the preceding stan2 a, prana artha viiodhedi, and artha iudha. The compound hta-
dakfa may thus be seen as virtually synonymous with the Rigvedic pata-daksa{s)- (Rcnou,
Études sur le vocabulaire du Rgveda, première stîric, p. 32 , ‘au pur vouloir’ ; also Sttcinâ kratunù
R V ii. 5 . 4 ; püta-hratu- (as proper name) viii. 68 (57). 17 ). While die Rigvcdic expression is
regularly an epithet o f deities, there is no difficulty in understanding the Buddhist phrase simply
as ‘whose intelligence is clarified’.

256. Iadvari: the possibility might be considered of reading this word as ittr v a r ì, thus corre­
sponding exactly to the more familiar Sanskrit word. This would involve interpreting the second
*54 TH E G A N D H AR l D H ARM APAD A

c h a ra c te r as consisting of th e b a s ic fo r m o f r , v, ith th e -v c u rv e attached to it Such a m ethod of

writing would however be quite isolated, and the u s u a l fo r m , w ith the t- written through the
item o f the basic va, is so common that it would be rather hazardous to adopt a reading-rw
here, and m view o f the existence (admittedly somewhat shadowy) of S bitaii, it seemed pte*
fcrabfe to adopt the reading iadtan in the text Although i t is frequently difficult to discriminate
tta and dca ftith certainty, it seems extremely unlikely that the character here was intended a
fta Since the established form {arvart appears as early as the Rtgveda, i t must eettauiljVe
accepted as the earlier, and since a development rv > <foor to is hardly to be considered it nay
be assumed that iatian fadtan is a distortion caused by a popular etymology—possibly ia
imagined connexion « ith (ad-, as has been suggested (Monier-WiUtams) See also p 96
In the Tibetan, nadpa uas tacidy changed to nan mo by Rockhill Beckh altered the test to
nanpa, but suggested in a note that nanmo m ight he the correct reading Neither of these giw*
any sense in the context, and Stura- in the Indian versions confirms sadpa
The Tibetan in its turn confirms the sense o f the original (though unfortunately not the syn
tax) fools behat e as if they were im m ortal, ‘but the man w ho » learned in the doctnne actt lib
3 sret nun at night'— 1$ constantly aware that he may not live to see another day (One rwglt
perhaps have expected mohas m rather than mtshan mohi, unless perhaps the phrase u taken
to mean 'ore suffering from “ nighl*iHness” ’ )
The corresponding Sanskrit text is unfortunately broken (JRAS 191s, 367)
bStd tkavtjanan(a{ carantt hy amari tta
tyanafamn m soddhamcmm Stare
T h g 276 has
y a id ta awjdnanta trt)0nty omard *xya
v\\5nanU ca ¡ e dhammam alutetu anatutd

C f alsojat m 236 (Orimha cm a rd v iya

None of these are really decisu e for the t) ntax of the Praknt In the Therag3th2 'ersc, the
le rie has been confounded b j the importation of the chch6 ¿¡turesvertStsrS, which otwrousl) u
at home in quite different contents There appears to be no way o f construing the Praknt vhicb
does not invohethe assumption o f some ellipsis, and the ambiguitj o f the orthogfaphj allow*
the possibility of ti'anada bang either nommatn e or gcratne plural, and o f iadvcm betngeiiher
scojsJtite or romm ntne lo r the participle, the Th g *erse would support the nominttnr.
a n d th elh thegenime The latter, being parallel w ith adurase^a, seems the more probiUe.W
wemaj interpret 'but for fhosewhounders land the doctnne, (existence in the world) is like fufcVt
(nom )lo a tic k m a n ' Alternative)), 'bot those who understand the doctrine livethrough(eaHrari)
the night o f a sick man. 90 to speak'
257 In addition to $ho*mg a number o f m inor spelling mistakes, the manuscript used by
Qiakrararti 11 certainty defective in the absence o f the word ktm I t is perhaps just pouiMc
that the compiler omrtfed ,f. and turned the question into a statement Hut the resulting set v
itso m firnorithefojreoftfrethird pjdabeingurtuallj destroyed) that the loss i t moreprobaMr
accidental, and we maj assume th it the ofiginall) intended the same general sense at tve
P n k n t ‘ How «lie than from l»<k of te lip o w instruction—life being as short as it i*—cm r**\
rnfape in quarrel* with aavone ’ .Aftotfc<r'c»»on appears in J it \i 17
yVTniJ)j fa aU^hero dhanttait9 c& ad&ifartd
i a fim jixita m «J'oinira «erow la yirJ lfia km ett
C f a1*» ¡*6h * e i & i i r a can ilu» be, txcrpt a* the result of l£r^•r«•e«,1
256 THE G AN D H AR l DH ARM APADA

normally kept out o f the writing, except in the numerals and derivatives o f -dr¡a, but the present
text shows one other example in prazerayadt (see note on 160 ) A few comparable instances
have been noted from Vedic texts (Bloomfield and Edgerton, VtdtC Vm anti, it 142) include?
one m the imtia] position in the word, where, as in the present verse, the preceding word ends
in a now el M S 4 9 13 134 5 mayi raksah, where the parallel texts m aie i t certain thai the
phrase was originally mayt dahah C f a ls o B H S G § 2 48 anavartigra Pali anamtagga, and
in the Jama texts ancnadagga, anavayagga In the Vedic mantra, once the change had been
established in the text, no difficulty arises m understanding the word to be the familiar ra&rak,
and similarly here it is quite possible that the P ra krit stanza was afterwards taken to mean
ramayann atmanQm Th e U v , howerer, preserved dam- (getgpus bdag fad gdul bar b)«) and
also agreed w ith the Pali otandito (sncmJos med) See also p 96
I t seems unlikely that ramaht should be understood as an imperative, and we should nthct
consider it as a present participle^ -ah being w ritten fo r the more usual -a’i (see pp 92, xi()

260 For similar groupings o f virtues, see, fo r example, U v xix. I (Dhp 144) ffadjha, Bit
nrya, MahSpannuranasutra (ed Waldschnudt, p 126) ¿raddhd, hri, avatrapya, vnya,prt]id,
and frequently elsewhere
In M v u 357, so so is obviously a scnbal misreading, and the line should be emended to 10
fJtomahSdhanobktnali
261 bho'c the U v agrees w ith the Pali in pitd, and we m ight therefore consider the word here
an otherwise unrecorded local expression fo r 'father' ('*bhavoka1) Alternatively, the »toe
would make excellent sense i f we could accept bheja, w ith the meaning ‘dependent* (see PTSD
s \ ) 'neither sons, nor servants, nor kinsmen’ The existence of thts meaning, houevef, seems
rather doubtful, and the etymology suggested by the P T S D js certainly unsatisfactory Thtrc
remains the possibility that thetiord represents simply ¿ % w ‘enjoym ent(of«or]diy possessions),
in which case an adequate paraphrase m ight be ‘neither sons nor economic prosperity’
The Pali commentator explains adktpannassa by obhibhutasso, and it is tt orth rematkmg tkat
the U v has abhibkutasya in the verse I t may thus be that this is a further example o f ihetjpe
of fluctuation of material betw een the traditional commentary and the text u hich has already
been observed on a more extensile scale in 153 (see note on that verse)
262 druprava'i it is possible that this should be read as drvpata’t, since the cune to thenpht
of the upright stroke o f pa is rather slight, as i f the scribe had hesitated between the two possi­
bilities The analogous instances o f diupoHu, drupamoksu suggest a dissimilation in drupra sn
the spoken language, but on the other hand, even in the m iual position pra-is not always ptt-
tcntd tec index under pra- and pa- in form, the word here cannot be though? to coirespor.ii
direiti) to the Pali, sir.ee an original .¡y-could be represented only by W e must therefore
conclude that the Praknt text represents a variant -praTrajamo r -prorrdjam I f the Utter» the
possibility may be considered o f interpreting it as a namul gcrund(which vsould also be formslljr
possible in the ease o f abhtramam) I f in fact the Original verse had a rare archaism o f this w it,
it m ight« ell hav c been replaced by the more familiar absolutn e, pravrajya, » hich, with a super*
fltious afiun Jra, would account for the otherwise rather mysterious pabbojjam in the Fall
There teems to be little chance o f reaching certaint) about either die form or meaning of the
onginil verse, but smec this was unlikel) to have possessed anj greater poetic distinction than
«» undt’ unguishcd «ueoessois the uncertainty need cause little regret Tor the tum tm g
•wm. tM method o f interpretation has yet been suggested, it seems which doe« not put t on*
•tdtnble »traft on the language, and the nunt hkcl) hypothesis tt that the composer was ifterelj'
 C O M M EN TA RY 257
an incompetent craftsman. For the future study of the history of the collections, however, it
may be 0/ some use to set out a few observations, without striving to teach conclusions on all
details of interpretation.
The Uv. agrees with the Prakrit in having a stanza of only four padas, without any mention of
a traveller (add/iagu). It seems very probable that in this respect the Pali shows the older form,
and dint the other versions descend through a manuscript which had lost through homoio-
teleuton die words between the two occurrences of dtikkhanupatUa, the final siya having pre­
viously been replaced by Maw (optative) or bJiava (imperative). Since the loss of the negative
resulted in a nonsensical injunction, it was then accessary to reinterpret this fast word ad the
noun bhavah ‘existence’ ; and this is what appears in the Uv., where Chakxavartj’g older manu­
script has preserved, with minor but insignificant uncertainties:
daspravrajyam du. . .
dulikktajt sattidntnaijmdso duhkhtimipatita bkavafi.

The revised version is given as:

dttspravrajymn duraontraimm duradftydvasiidgrhah
duhkha samanasairtvdsd dukhhdi copadta bhcvdh.

It would be uncharitable to suppose that the reviser thought he had a feminine noanoisaqtvasd.
It is possible that we are meant to understand duJtlJirih; but it seems more likely thit the begin­
ning of the second haJf-vcrse is a different blunder, by a copyist, for dubkho snmdnasamaso.
If so, this would support the view that the Pali should be understood &(a)$amfina- (both positive
and negative have at various times been tried); and the Tibetan unambiguously renders
asainSna-:
ties par rob byun nes dgeh ba
(thyim (/dug Oss rise» byed pa dag
sdug bsAal rnnam med slen pa dak
yaa srid sdug h n a l sogs par ¡sad.

This is then virtually identical -withthe revised verson, wgr pa translating upaciia-, but with an
amusing variant in rtsom byed pa, showing that die translator read in his Sanskrit manuscript
the corruption adhyavaHta- (participle from adhy-ava-so•) which he doggedly refused to emend
to the obvious adhyavasita- (from adhy-a^vap), preferring instead to extract the sense o f‘dwell'
((¡dug) as an implication from grha-.

265. sadailhn- is rendered by the Pali commentary as sake atthe, which is a slight eclw> of staha-
in the Prakrit text.

266. The Uv,, with artkonityaginSnt, agrees with the Prakrit in the first member, and with the
Pali in the second member of the compound.

267. kayosu’a could be kd ea osiya, but there is no need of ca, and the y - may be simply a
hiatus-bridger.
Against nlyamSndnart^ Vin. i. jfthssnayamdndnam in the same verse. Both the Uv. and Mv.
have naya~. The Prakrit is ambiguous, since the spelling ne'a- might result irom an earlier
niya-, but could also stand for naya-, with palatalisation of the vowel in the neighbourhood oi y.

269. naraka \ in the plate, a very definite mart crosses tbe vertical of the tta, and rite reading
nirdka is tempting. There would be no difficulty in accepting this as a spelling corresponding
to the Pali nirayaifi', and in the four other examples in the text, airaya is certainly used. From
Bstn 3
 CO M M EN TARY 2J9
to the fact that, instead of being written as a unit, it was first written as ta, the -u being added
as an afterthought. For tu, the pen normally is brought round to form, a small circle above the
oblique descending line; but when ta had been written in the first place, there was barely room
to do this, and the hook representing -u has therefore been added below the character.

2 7 1 . T he verse appears with a few other Dharmapada stanzas in the Niya document 510 . No
Prakrit, hoivever illiterate, is likely to have been quite so had as the published transliteration
suggests; but the plate is too faint to make it possible to propose better readings with any con­
fidence. It seems however reasonably probable that in place of

atvanam amectti tamana citamni hu

ire should read
olvano samtik$i[a] smani vi\ja]m?u [ca].

The syllables in brackets are even less certain than the rest; but enough is readable to suggest
that the text in general agreed with the present manuscript, and the Uv. reading,

Stmanas tu samik?eta smani vhamani ca,

and not with the Pali.
In both the Uv, and the Pali, the verse, which has nothing to do with flowers, comes in the
flower-chapter. But in both these places, and also in Niya 510 , it is preceded by the same flower
verse ( = 292 here). These two verses therefore have obviously teen transmitted as a connected
pair, which indicates that their placing in the Dharmapada collections is secondary.
In the third pSda of the Pali, va was thought by Fausbsl! to stand in the sense of eva. But
since the other versions have i and tu respectively, va is probably only a misreading for ca.

272. efu: this seems the most likely reading, and the marks which at first glance appear to indi­
cate i rather than e are probably flaws in the bark. If, however, i was intended (the assumption
then being that the character was completed with an almost dry pen), it would be easy to take
the syllable separately from the following?«, as the equivalent cither of hi (as in the Pali) or of ca,
upimadi: this indicates at-punati rather than *ava-pttnStt. On the Pali form, Dines Andersen
wrote {Pali Reader, Glossary): '( = avlpurati,/r. ¡a. apS-vVp (?) but probably confounded with
Vpu) to uncover, lay bare (? opp. chadeti) or to scatter, disperse’. This extraordinary etymology
would seem to suggest that one of the very few pieces of genuine poetry in a collection o f pedes­
trian verses has come into existence quite accidentally; and the motive for the rejection of the
obvious sense o f ‘winnow* remains obscure. The Tibetan translation phub wagtor baji b&in du
‘like winnowing chaiF, shows that the sense continued to be understood. For the Pali form we
may admit a slightly unusual development (ttppii- > fipu- > opu-: cf. in part jambunada- >
jambonada-, Geiger § 11 ) in an agricultural term in everyday use. Buddhist Sanskrit shows one
occurrence o f the same form, opunapayitavya-, Mv. iii. ry8. J (BHSD s.v., and Grammar,
p. 220). On. this, Edgerton quotes the form naklutoaptita (Maitr. Samhtta 2 . 6 . 5 ), which might
suggest that aoa- be accepted here; but the separation of the chaff by means o f the finger-nail
may well be contrasted with winnowing proper; and ut- also appears in utkara- ‘winnowing and
piling up com’ (Patfni i i i 3 . 30). The spelling opunaii in the Pali editions probably simply
n
reflects the common confusion of and » in late Sinhalese manuscripts.

273. T he metre suggests that lajadi is plural in a (Jajjanti) and singular in b (lajjati). This is
improbable, and perhaps we should emend in b to fajida (¡fljjitah), The Uv. has fajjtVatryc
alajjitdQt), altered to alajjina(h) in the revised version. It is of course quite possible that lajadi
2fi0 THE G AN B H A R l DHARM APADA

here is merely the translator’s replacement for an - r - form m his source, corresponding directly
to the Pali lajjare
The U v agrees with the Prakrit in having a single stanza o f six pSdas While the modem
reader will naturally feel that this is an aesthetic improvement on the Pali repetition, it would
be a mistake to imagine that any such consideration would have outweighed the superior reli­
gious merit of the larger number o f syllables I f the Pah form is the older, as is here probable,
it is safe to assume that the other version has lost two pSdas by pure accident of manuscript
copying
While the older U v agrees with the Praknt :n ihayadariavi, the later version has -dsrhno,
thus agreeing with the Pali, but presumably by entirely independent replacement of the less
common by the more familiar form

274 In place of du khu at the end of the verse, the U v has sangah (for sangah) Both versions
in fact appear m Pali, Sam 1 23 with duhhhS, and 1 25 with sangtt

275 In Chikravarti's U v manuscript (revised version only), the last pJda is raimgrahoym
anyaihS The Turfan fragment quoted by Pischel (p 970) shows the beginwng o f the verse and
the final syllable -nakt being thus closer to the Pali and Prakrit The Tibetan, with iagt Megs
sk y e bo phal pa ytn, may be assumed to translate 1taro jarnh, which has been taken to tneaa
‘common, vulgar people’ Although this is a well attested sense o f the epithet, it seems out c£
place here, and the normal sense ‘other* (as taken by the Pali commentator) is adequate forthe
verse

276 kudkti the same spelling represents the participle fovddka- in 282
, and it may bethought
just conceivable that the word was understood in the same way here ‘he whom an angry man
does not dominate’, that 1$, to the extent o f making him angry m return. But this is very inn
probable, and it is simpler to assume that hudhi is here a spelling variant for hoihu rather than
an error Therecan of course be no doubt that the original o f the verse had the noun correspond
mg to krodha-
L ik e th e corresponding expression in Pali, kuradi vaia m ay b e th ou g h t o f as a umtaryvetbal
phrase, in th e sense o f ‘overpow er*, and it w ou ld n o t b e su rp risin g if, o n th e analogy o f # ,
such a phrase should assum e a gen itive object, azyasa h ere O n th e o th er hand, the Pali phrase
regularly has a n accusative o b ject D h p 48 atittam yeva kamesu antako kurute vcsam, J it w
172 paRhSya tittam puruam trnhS na huruie vaum I t is p ossible therefore that w hat was in
tended h<rew asnot>’<3i< i,butiy a i a ( ! e y cm, w ith ta referrin g b ack t o krodhafi) T h is admittedly
seems rather clum sy
T h e phrase h m tte txsam (beside Sanskrit v a ie Ar-) is its e lf rather cu riou s Andersen
Reader, G lossary) w h ile adm itting th e possibility o f a noon, thou gh t that vasarn m ight here be
taken as an adjective agreeing w ith th e o b ject o f th e phrase T h is seems v ery unlikely, and the
occurrence o f t want ratteti as w e ll as vase vatteti ( P T S D s v vasa) suggests that m this phrase
tasam m ay b e only a mistranslation o f a pre-P ali (kurute) vase, w h ere the locative was taken v>
b e a M iga d h an accusative T h e w ord order in verses su ch as those quoted above would naiur
a lly b e cc m d u cir e to s u ch a r e n d e n n g I t is, how ever, equ ally p ossible that the phrase developed
quite naturally in th e spoken language, as a m inglin g o f th e t w o syntactic structures t ait hf-
and \aiam »)«, and th e accusative m ay w e ll h ave b ee n furth er strengthened b y t atam g<m >
w hich functions, so to speak, as a ‘notional p assive' to b oth o f th e o th e r phrases Jst 11 l 14 **3
kodhasta vasamgam, v i 5 7 1 thinam vasam na gaccheyyam I n t h e U v verses corresponding to
the tw o P ali exam ples cited , the phrase is taken over m tact x v in 1$ anlokah kurute ud&n,u *4
 COM M EN TARY a6x
prajnaya purtisatn upturn irsrta na hvrute vasam. In the latter, however, it would seem that a
reviser felt uneasy about the syntax, for in the Paris manuscript used by Chafcravartj theline has
been remodelled: prajnaya yo naro Irplo va bhtwasya vaietfl gatah.
m'neva: ‘and no censure remains attached to him’. The interpretation of the sandhi form as
tiinda with eva, rather than iva, seems preferable; but in either case the particle is little more than
a stylistic gesture here. The second half o f the stanza is reflected in Sa/p. i. 238 kodho tnayi
navahtthati, with the phrase sampassam attham attano in the foliowing verse.

277 . v iii: such a spelling could readily be understood as representing an utterance which had
become (more or less) disyllabic. Since, however, the fuller form is written in the related zriyida-
trirto, we may suspect a mere slip of the pen for viyidi. In the absence of further examples, there
is no sure means of deciding between the t w possibilities. CL, however, rafr:(seenoteen 343),
samghare: T he Pali commentator interprets this as attanogehe, and the Prakrit was presumably
understood in the same way. It makes perfectly acceptable sense in the context to say that under
such a king a man lives in happiness in hrs own house, in the cool shade. But svam-ghara- is a
curious compound; and it is perhaps possible that the composer o f the vetse was prepared to
preserve his metre by doubling the consonant, sa-gghare, and that the writing sam- is merely an
alternative method of giving metrical length to the syllable.

278. The same comparison of the king with the bull of the herd, but in a more extended form,
follows in the Pali Jataia after the verse quoted with 277:

gavam ce taramanSnaqi jitnharp gacchati pmngam

sabha tejimham gacchanti nettejimhagate sali.

Similarly (since it is desirable to be explicit), i f the king goes astray, so also do his subjects.
Further (since after all some o f the audience may still not have seen the point), it is as well to
repeat the whole thing, with ujma in place o f jmhatn. T he Prakrit stanza cannot be thought to be
derived from a watercd»down version such as this, and the comparison is differently articulated:
the righteous man is free from anger, like the bull in die herd (who, unlike the modem western
bull, is placid precisely because he is with his cows); and men pay honour to such a man, as if
to a righteous king.

279. T his verse appears to have been attracted here by the mention of the king at the end o f278.
While the comparisons are familiar, their normal application is in the sense o f superiority rather
than patience; but since the latter is required here, it is understandable that the elephant rather
than the lion appears as mrga-pati, while the other items are regular: the Himalaya being
(aila-pati, the ocean nadl-pctii, and the sun tapatam-pati. Cf. also Sn. 568- 9 , where only pre­
eminence is under discussion:
t5 )5 tmikham mamnsSnam nadinam sagaro mukham
nakkhattanam mukham eando adicco tapatam mukhaitt.

The last two p5das had been omitted in the manuscript, and have been subsequently added
between the lines, possibly, though not certainly, by the original scribe. T he difference in the
appearance of the writing could easily be due to nothing more than a differently cut pen.
The reading in b remains doubtful. Graphically, the end ofthepada could without difficulty
be taken either as -niva or as •damvu. In favour of the first is the closeness o f the two com­
ponents (in contrast to -dona at the end of a) and the rising tail o f the first Cm contrast to most,
but not all, of the other examples o f ¿a in the neighbourhood). Against the reading St, the chief
262 TH E G A N D H A R I D H A R M A P A D A

arguments would be the (act that the right hand component comes as high in the line as tbs Itfi
hand, and that the litter commences with a slight hook, which 1$ r a t e m n a , but common m m
Bath these features, though unusual, do nevertheless occur tn /fa in line i?o prana Both readings
present grammatical difficulties T he first, being a syllable short, would allow room to \nwtu
syllable to provide the genitive plural which set ms to be required te]a{nd ) h m a v a H iv a , but tbs
then leaves us with an unusual development of -an i v a through -<2« * y iv a T he process, however
is familiar tn Pali with t v a (Geiger § 66* c f ulso Pischel § 336), and no phonetic improbability
is involved The alternative reading, i d a h m a v a d a m v a , gives the equivalent of h cm av alan
which ftould be excellent, but for the neuter gender (sc ftkharamt) It is also difficult to inter
pret this unless again we assume a miswnnng for ielana, but this would give the line an extn
syllable A similar comparison in Sam 1 67,

seto hmovauu* settko ¿¡dicco aghfigamtnam

sdrtcuddo wiadhnam Jtiifio nahkhattamm va candtma,

with seto where the Prakrit here has M a , 13 almost certainly corrupt in this phrase since rtcw
hardly make sense to say that ‘among snowy mountains the white one is best1
In M a here, and in S d a m d u in the preceding vers®, the initial character shows a slight curie
to the right which might suggest the readings ir t la and in la m n ju Rut a comparison of the
undoubted ir - in makes it likely that in these two instances -r- is not intended

280 The same verse also in MBh v 39 58, with akredhenajayet krodham, while the Uv has
akredhenajayet kruddhm It is prob.ible tha t;« « is to be interpreted as an optative seep 82
kradavo see note on 228
281 daya This can hardly represent a form directly corresponding to the Pali dujjS, Uv
d a d y at Rather than assume an irregular development o f -#••> - j y (whether in this dialect or
the source*language of the translation), it seems preferable to wndeisrand the i*ord as lor
8
* d a y t> or perhaps *d ey y a (cf Pali d ey y a m , Getger § 143, Buddlust Sanskrit datt, BHSG
2
p 215) The first p da o f the stanza shows a similar contrast between the Prakrit k u v d a (fatf1)
i n i tke Pali h ifih ey y a { k r v d h )
g a ch a optative, as/iiw in the preceding stan2a
6
In , the Puli seems unlikely to mean 'One should if asked give even a little1, as some of the
translators take it T he Pali comiwntator, slightly embarrassed by the hue, quwntty explains
that the hftifcWw does not actually say ‘give* to the householder, but by standing at the door of
the house he does in effect (atth a to) ask for alms He does, however, correctly uoderst»d
a p p to m m as, virtually, a hanging locative absolute a p p a s m m p t d ey y ad h atn m e ujjO ”>a te
[appantatlakitHt p i da d eih a), 1 e 'One should gtv® when asked, even cf one has but little' In
comparison ivtth this, we may take c p a d u as ablative ( a lp a t a b ) , ‘One ghauld give even frotfii
sniaJJ store’ The alternative division a p a d u (alp a m ta) would agree w sense with the rnoditn
translators, but would leave d u as an awkward verse«filler The published Sanskrit vei&oa ®
broken at this point, but the T ib would seem to support c l p a m " slew l a c h an y o n t b y in p & b *

283. uta s a s e t note on 285

t&atarta wtule the spelling could equalty well represent a v ara n a m , it seems more likely that
« tho vld fee understood here as aidranatn ‘ miserable is the non-restraint of anger*, or 'the
misery resulting from anger is inescapable*
An approximate parallel to the third pida may be seen in Dhp 690, which appears m the
ediuons as m o d h n d maFinolt b a h Fausbell interpreted the first word as ‘adverbial1, equivalent
264 TH E GÀNDH ÀRI DH ARM APADA

alms to the begging monk J2 taka 5 3 5 , Sam 1 1 8 , D h p 242 maeeheram dadato maim , 262
macchan = U v xxix 9 ( T ) /guns dan Idan, M ahavyutpatti 2484 matutrak, ser ma can, Jg
chten (followed b y kadaryah, kjtms po, ^ hn) T h e insect, however, is ambiguous, and may be
either a fly or a bee In the context it seems reasonable to assume that the latter ts meant, and
that the sinner in question w ill spend his future existence hoarding honey
prahata ‘one who strikes’ (praharir-), and as a donkey he w ill himself in turn be beaten
ma sa it seems most probable that this is to be understood as ma m a , directly equivalent in
force, and perhaps in etymology, to Pali mSssu Since, however, a genitive is perfectly in place
with the verb krudh-f it ts not impossible that the sense intended here was ‘do not be angry with
him’, 1 e ma asya T h is would in an y case appear to be a verse o f a jStakd type, and the Pali
JSiakashews both constructions m 2 29 massu, bu t n 32 0 , v ^oZmSmehqjhirathesabha,ma
mSssa (var mdssu) kujjhi rathesabha Here naturally some allowance may be made for «inter­
pretations and corruptions in the course o f the Pali transmission

28 6,28 7. These two verses now follow as a sequel to the preceding, and describe ut contrast the
future destiny o f the man who is mild and gentle Since the first p ida is cast in the same form ss
the statements about the three types of sinner in the previous verse, we need not doubt that
bhadraSu is here used as a noun Indeed, even apart from the other verse, it is difficult to see any
other way m which the statement could give an y sense
T he common form o f respectful address to a monk, bhante, beside bhadanta (AM g bhayania),
has generally been accepted as a development o f bhadram te, but b y the tim e o f our texts the
word is certainly being employed virtually as a vocative In the same way, bhaddam vo has dearly
the effect o f a vocative plural in the familiar cliché tam vo vadami bhaddam vo, even although Its
grammatical origin has remained more transparent, and a rendering in these terras (Luders,
BSU § 24 ‘ das sage ich euch, ihr Herren') is more likely to convey the force o f the original than
the parenthetical insertion o f 'blessings on you’
It is perhaps understandable that the Pali phrase as it occurs in D h p 3 3 7 should have been
misconstrued by the early translators, who took bhaddam as an adjective with tam (Max
Muller, ‘This salutary word I tell you’) T h e mistake was pointed out b y Senart in 1898 m his
note on the corresponding verse in the Prakrit text (126) although he hesitated between the two
renderings ‘ Seigneurs!’ and ‘le salut sur vousl’ T h e latter has the support o f the Pah comment­
ary, for what that is worth bhaddam vo it bhaddam tumhakam hotu (which ts perhaps to someeztent
the innocent cause o f the mistranslation), but it would be rash to eliminate the vocative render­
ing merely on this evidence More surprising than the original error is its re emergence as late
as 1950 ‘I declare to you this good (counsel)’ (Radhaknshnan), and still more cunous is the
translation o f the corresponding U v ui n by Chakravarti,'C ’est l i la bonne parole quejevous
dis’, since this translation is immediately followed b y a reference to Senart’s note
Rockhill translated the Tibetan version as 'this salutary word I tell unto you’ , but this is
merely a reflection o f the translations from the Pali, and the Tibetan does in fact render faith­
fully the etymological sense o f the expression (*be happy’, virtually ‘greetings’)

hky td la smra y ts khyed bde log

Once the expression bhaddam to has come to be felt as a \ocati\e, virtually equivalent to
bhtkkhaio, it is only a short further step to use it as a nominative In the present dialect, where
the enclitic pronoun is j i t in place o f to (126 ta y u oadamt bhadrmu) the resulting form could
readily be thought o f as i f it meant bhadra jna-, and such an interpretation would facilitate the
use o f the word as a singular noun See also p 53
 COM M EN TARY a65

suho modadi: as in 173 , representing the older phrase sukJiam edhatl. Cf. also Sam. i. 208 :

saiimato sad5 bhaddam satimasukham edhal't.

dhamt: in the context most readily understood in the same way as the frequent dhamaia
hhalu ‘N ow it is the normal, regular course of events that. . The sense here is thus, in effect,
‘this is the destiny o f the meek and mild’, to become a monk in a future birth (or perhaps, in
view o f the honorific connotation o f the word, we should say ‘a church-dignitary’).
tadino; in form ambiguous. T he word-order makes it easier to take it as a vocative plural with
ed/iapaiadha, 'just look, your Reverences’. It could, however, equally weB be a genitive singular
with suradasa, and the very high honorific associations o f the word may incline us rather to this
(see B H S D $.v. tdyin). T he latter interpretation may also receive some support from the cm»
ployment in the following stanza o f edadiso, which doubtless carries some o f the awe and respect
which had become attached to tayin, tadi.
T h e two stanzas may thus be rendered: ‘The meek man becomes a reverend monk; the meek
man rejoices in happiness; this is the inevitable destiny of the meek and mild—just look!— of the
venerable one. Consider the reward of meekness, where, among such miserable reincarnations
(as insect, donkey, pig), a good and holy man, just because he is meek, escapes suffering.’

288 ,28 9. jatva4 . directly agreeing with this, the Pali in these verses hz$jhatva, while in 1 2 ,1 3 ,
where the Prakrit also has jatva, the corresponding Pali verses have hantva. There is thus no
reason to doubt that jhatva in Pali is in fact a synonym of hantva, and the suggested connexion of
the word with jhdpeti ‘to bum’ (PTSD) remains questionable. The context in the present verses
is decisive for the sense o f 'k ill': cf. also the paraphrase of the same idea in v. r4 r him su
mdhiivSna hadficisacaii. . . kodhamvadhilvd, &£.(== M v.iii. 370 ). The sense was also on occa-
s o n recognized b y the PaU commentators: ] at. jy. 5 7 turn m jhatvom gacchaii, where the
explanation is hantva; and on the present passage in Saip. L 41 , vadhitoa. On the other hand,
where the word occurs together with its doublet in Jat. ii. 262 hantvajhatoa vadhitvd, the com­
mentator, apparently insensitive to bathos, renders it by fulametva.
I t seems most probable thztjhatva is simply a dialectical archaism, and is in origin the same
word as kaiva, although possibly reinforced by *kfalva (kfati-). (For Middle Indian jh corres­
ponding to Sanskrit k?, see Pischel § 324 . The suggestion there that jh represents an inherited
Indo-Iranian voiced group has been frequently repeated; but the examples on which this
theory is based are so few that it cannot be regarded as established, and it remains possible
that the voicing in jh in such words was an independent development in Middle Indian.)
Although the meaning ofjhatva is contextually beyond dispute, the word has caused constant
difficulties. In the Samyutta-nikaya it occurs some twenty times in the Sag3tha-vagga (mostly
in repetitions o f the present verses); but the editor of the P T S edition has throughout preferred
the obviously corrupt chetva from his Burmese manuscript, and has even drawn attention in his
preface to the ‘surprising constancy’ with which his Sinhalese manuscripts were united in
upholding the ‘astonishing blunder’ of jhatva. This edition was published as long ago as 1884,
and much can be forgiven in the pioneer stages o f the printing of the canon. It is, nevertheless,
regrettable that, when the error had already been corrected in the Dictionary, this astonishing
piece o f editing should now have been embalmed in the P T S Concordance.
In Jit. ii. 262 and DhpA rv. 162 the Burmese manuscripts also have ehelvS, and it would seem
that this was a regular Burmese scribal correction. In the latter place, the editor has chosen the
right reading, but has quaintly printed svjhaiva as one word. The same two verses are quoted in
Netti. 145 , but with the spelling.j%ft»<f, apparently a compromise betweenjhatva andjitvS. It is
possible that the spelling with -r- is an old one, since the translator of the Uv., who also found the
266 T H E G A N D H A R I D H A R M A PA D A
nord a Stumbling-block, replaced it by Ai/tuf Although the manuscripts of both Sanskrit \er-
sions are somewhat broken, the reading is justified by the Tibetan, khro ba spans nos The final
pacfa, however, de bcompayis mya nan tned, suggests that the version translated, in spite of fata
earlier in the verse, ended with ptvd Jia Socah

290 The small projecting part on the right of fragment 366, bearing two pemtrokes, does not
in fact belong to the same fragment This can tie more clearly seen from the photograph of the
other side (on the left of 84)
ruytda while this is readily acceptable as a genuine form ( < rua(a-), the agreement of the
Uv with the Pali ructram, makes it probable that in the present context the form with -da tos
been introduced as a ‘correction’ by the translator or a senbe, who thought he saw in va a
vernacular pronunciation of the type exemplified by praverayadi (see notes on 160.25S)
While the old U v in xvui 7 (and presumably also in 6 , though the manuscript is bicto
there) probably retained the Middle Indian grammar in varnavantam (Chakmaru, p 225),
revised version in both verses gives t>amavat syat

292 pandi in the Niya document no 510 , where the verse occurs togeiher with that\»bi<h
follows it both in the Pali Dhp and the Uv (see note on 271), the corresponding wotd has been
read as pajtti, with an alternative given m a footnote It is impossible to recognize either
of these from the published photograph, although admittedly the writing is baffly r&tfced iftd
any reading requires some degree of faith The head o f the second character m the tvoidts,
however, consistent with t, though hardly wtth_/ or /, and i f some of the mails below this aw
assumed to be accidents o f dirt or smudging, the word can readily be visualized as paredt (dot
in any case -ft) If, however, these marks were made by the pen, the most probable ttadvpj
would seem to btpacedi, which could be interpreted as pratyeti In view of the consensus of tl*
other versions* such a reading would be a late variant The Uv manuscripts give-/¿/»(restored
by Chakravarti 23 paleti, but just as likely to have been paleti) and paraxti
In the first half of the verse, the Uv has
yathSpi bhfemorak puipad varna gandhav ahethayan,
where the Pah haspuppham This was quoted by Alsdorf, with other examples, in support of hs
interpretation of a few instances of -am in Jaina Maharastn as ablatives [BSOS m , 193S"?*
319 ft), both versions beingunderstood to mean the same 'As the bee, without rnjurtng the colour
or scent, takes the nectar and departs from the flower ’ K de Vreese (BSOAS xvii, 1955 370]
while agreeing in taking puppham with paleti, disputed the interpretation o f -fmasanabbtM*.
and preferred to see m it an example of a Middle Indian tendency to employ an accusative wrth
imraniiti\everbs— riot in itself a very convincing suggestion He added, ‘commonlypttpphiMis
joined to ahetkayatt, -which does not make sense It may be added that the modem translators,
in taking it thus, were merely following the Psli commentator, who thought that it dtd nuke
sense, as indeed we might concede that it does, in a somewhat lame fashion puppham at tamtfc
cc gatidham ca ahetkento Meanwhile, the collection o f Pali examples made by Luders (BSt!
f§ 16S-95 , published about the time when de Vreese's article went to the primer) would set®
to establish the reality of the phenomenon -am m Pah in a number o f places where an intcrpre
tation ad an ablative seems essential (This does not, however, prove the real existence t>(1
MSgadhan ablative o f this form on the general question, see further p 79 ) The present u # 5
is included by Ludets among his examples, with the comment ‘H»er 1st jedoch pupphmn cut
pakti m verbmdefl’ But in the contact of the verse, ‘von der Blutc daronflicgt’ seems hardly
better sense d a n the traditional interpretation and there now seems little doubt that thts'tttt1*
should be subtracted from the examples of ‘ablatives ¡11 -am'.
 COM M EN TARY 267
The employment o f a. double accusative -with a number of verbs is well known in Sanskrit
syntax: Pacini i. 4 . 51 akathitam ca, where the commentators give, in addition to the familiar
gam dogdfii payah, examples such as pauravam gSy bhikjate, and vrksam avadnotiphalani. An
extension o f this syntactic structure to other verbs with similar sense is readily understandable,
and de Yreese (toe. a t ) quotes an example which he appears to have thought o f as a Middle
Indian aberration, but which is in feet precisely parallel to vrksam avacinott phalani, namely
M v. ii. 450 aharn vapitn padmani grhmydm. In the light of such examples, it is dear that
puppikam is not to he construed with ahethayam(ss the commentator and transferors it), nor
yet with pa&tf (as Alsdorf, Lfiders, and de Vreese), but with adaya. This being so, the appear­
ance o f pitspad rasam Siaya in the Uv. can be Been as merely an alternative method of expressing
the same sense, and was correctly translated by Chakravard in this way. Like so many other
features in the revision of the Uv., it is in fact merely a move in the direction of better Sanskrit;
for although the double accusative with 5-da- is easily understood on the analogy of ava-ct'-, the
latter is specifically sanctioned by the grammarians, and d~da- is not included among the tradi­
tional examples to the sutra akathifatn ca. A similar alternative alongside the double accusative
can be seen in the passage from the Mv. referred to abore, where a few lines earlier we find
(ii. 449) vapisu padumdni grhnisyamali.

294. pttfani: the bottom of the characters being lost, it is possible that puspam was written here.
yeva : only the vowel sign o f the first syllable survives, and the vowel could have been •<■In
view of the direction of the vowel-stroke, the restoration}«« seems the most likely, since with
y- the -t stroke tends to be more nearly vertical than with the other consonants.
ada . . . : this could correspond either to adaya in Dhp. 47 or to antako in 48 , the former
implying only an alteration in the word-order, the second suggesting the Joss o f the trrin-stanza
through an accident of copying. Since the variant stanza appears also in the Uv., the latter seems
most probable. The traces of writing remaining in 371 seemed too slight to admit a reading into
the test; but it is conceivable that, such as they are, they would be consistent with a restoration
such as: ada[ko k)u[rd\di va[ia]. On the other hand, nothing which could correspond to Dhp. 4 "d
appears to S t It therefore seems very probable that verses corresponding to both Dhp. 47 and 48
were originally present, and that they have been telescoped through the common scribal error of
homoioteleuton. Another example of the same mistake occurs a few verses later (see note on 296).
The fragments here have been allowed to overlap, as can be seen juore clearly from the photo­
graph of the other side (lines 8&SS), and it is therefore almost certain that the ends of this verse
and the preceding one are still preserved, though not at present visible.
For another variant of the same verse, see 334 = Dhp. 287. It is of interest to observe that
■die Utter is -widely separated from the flower-verses in the Pali and the Uv*. also. Cf. also MBh.
vii 169, 13 , 17 , where the two veree-begmnings, separated in the Buddhist versions, appear
together (Chakravarti, pp. 231- 2 ):
piifpamva uidnvantam anyatragatamanasam
vj’kivoranam Ssadya mrtyur adaya gacehati
tarnputra-posu-sampannam zyasaktavtSnosam narom
mptatn vyaghro mrgam iva mrtyur adaya gacchati.

(The critical edition gives faspcni for pttfpaw, and in place of satnpannatjt has satnmallom, but
marks the latter as doubtful. Since the Dhp. verse is cited in the footnote, it seems probable that
the Pali reading has influenced the editors’ choice, and it is not clear from the apparatus criticus
what support sammaitctfl had in the MBh manuscripts. On the Pali reading, see further note on
334.)
 CO M M EN TARY 269
299. pratjina: although the lower part of the character has been lost the curve of the top to the
right makes it virtually certain that pro-, notpa-, was written. The -r- is of course in any case
an intrusion.
The commentator gives no explanation of the oddity of specifying an autumn flower rather
than one blossoming at another season. We may assume that an incompetent poet who saw
nothing wrong in filling a hole in his verse by adding the absurd detail that the lotus is plucked
V rth the hand’ would naturally be incapable of perceiving the destructive effect on his verse of
using ‘autumnal* to stop another gap. Doubtless he thought it was a ‘poetical’ word.

300. After the break in the second pada, the syllables deft are certain; and enough remains of
the preceding character to establish that it was not bu. H ie traces, however, suggest ihti; and
i f this was in fact written, it would seem that the aspiration has been noted in the (historically)
wrong syllable, assuming that the word here did in fact correspond to the Pali •budhSno in its
stem if not in its termination.
papavuse’ana: although only the tops of the first two characters remain, they are too nearly
vertical to adroit either to bepra-. This is presumably only an accidental dittography.

301. T he phrase yataa-lokaji was read by Senart from a fragment (C vi) which now seems to
have disappeared. There is, however, no reason to doubt the words, which in any case recur in
the following stanza.

302. Uv. saikfah, agreeing with the Pali, suggests that there ¡8 here a prima facie case for con­
sidering budhu in the Prakrit stanza to be the replacement. The Buddha, on the other hand,
might be thought a more appropriate ‘conqueror of the world’ than a mere beginner (sekho), just
as the Utter more appropriately collects and arranges the well-taught verses of the doctrine.
The Buddha may be presumed to stand in no need of seeking out the verses.

304. The U v., while agreeing with the Prakrit in the preceding stanza (samkara-kuia-), here
agrees with the Pali in sense: phyag dor phm. (The Sanskrit version of the relevant phrase is
missing in both Chakravarti’s manuscripts.) It is thus very probable that soghasa-dhama- in
the Prakrit is an alteration. A t the same time, it is not meaningless in the context, if construed
with j ovaka at the end of the verse: 'similarly the disciples of the Buddha, who have realised the
dhanna (who are arhants), shine forth by reason of their wisdom, while common mortals ate
blind’. The word has perhaps been attracted to this w ise by a memory of its use in contrast to
prthag-jana in contests such as Sn. 1038 :
ye ca samkhata-dkammassye ea sekha puthu Oha.

While the term sometimes appears in Buddhist Sanskrit as soakhyala'dltotma- (cf. Mv. iii. 435»
cited with verse 3 13 , where the corresponding verse in the Uv. is also shown to have had
tv-akhyala- by the Tibetan legspat gstins pa), this is eertamly the result o f a confusion with the
genuine svakhyate- ‘well taught’, as an epithet of dharnta. Pali also has szahhhSta in the latter
sense, but ♦T»»is not intended other in the present verse or in 3 13 ; and the Praknt form agrees
with the Pali stmkltaia- ( > samghada- > saghadlta-, with j for : see p. 96). In both insumccs
in the manuscript, the head o f the third syllable of the word is obscured, and adventitious marks
make h at first sight t^mpring to read dlia; but a closer examination establishes sa in both places.
Although fragment 419 was still in position with the main le d in Senart’s facsimile, no infor­
mation has been lost by the fact of its having become detached. The lower part o f the characters
had already been lost at that time; and while we may with virtual certainty assume that^A, not£,
 TH E D A N D H A R l DH ARM A PAD A

295 The revised U r agrees with the Pali in the verbs ett in the first and thud p&Jaj wd
ptavaii (mss pravadt), while the old manuscript has prav&yate T h e second pada, on the other
hand, agrees with the Prakrit in having candana- as the third name, but has a replacement for
mail'a na t Shnijat tagardc candanSd va T he verse is also quoted in Toch Sp r, B p 74, vnA
na ¿ahnqdtx from the Berlin fragments
There seems little doubt that the last word in the Prakrit stanza is a later substitution- The
only interpretation which suggests itself is pratayate (tan-), but this is hardly convincing and it
seema more probable that we have Jiere only an accidental corruption for pravn'tdt Tbe untul
syllable, doubtfully read &%pa, may m /act be pro, but the almost horizontal mark at the foot of
the character may not be a pen-stroke, and the kink m the right-hand limb is unusual in fa
(though common m pha, which can hardly be intended here) N o alternative reading, b o w er
seems possible in the context Perhaps vt might be read, but the writing would then be unusually
ill balanced
In spite o f these doubts, the word is clearly a support for the Jagati ending o f the verse as tn
the old V v pavdyate It should therefore be noted that H C Norman, in hi* edition of the
Pah commentary (1 42 a) quotes pavdyati as a Burmese and Cambodian reading Such a form
could scarcely be thought to have ari«en as a secondary corruption, and it is clear thapaiataa
the Pali editions is an example o f precisely the same type o f normalization of the metre as is
shown tn the later U v revision topravati T h e (onapavSyati should therefore be restored to the
Pali text

296 The connected group o f four verses, Dhp 54- 57 , appear together also in Uv vi 16-19
In the Prakrit as transcribed there are only three, and in view o f the fragmentary nature of the
present verse, it might at first sight be suspected that space should have been left for thenussiPg
verse This, however, is impossible T he portions of 2 9 7 follow immediately on the same tog-
meats, and the fragment containing the end of 295 is directly attached by the original thread «
is more clearly seen on the photograph o f the other side, between lines 8S and 89 Nor ccuM it
be conjectured that the attachment of the thread was illusory in the photograph, and thit a por
tion of the manuscript containing a verse had been lost between 295 and 296, for tha would
entail not only the further assumption that the scribe had mistaken the number o f verses m tha
chapter, hut also that he had made an identical mistake in the numbering o f the correspcodiflg
chapter (Thera) on the recto of the leaf
The Pali stanza Php 55 , ending with tilagandho anuttcro, is followed immediately by 5&
ending in iSti deiesu uttamo T he final pada o f the Praknt stanza thus declares itself to be a
conflation of w o earlier stanzas corresponding to the two in the Pali, with a similar homoio-
teleuton accident to that in 294

297. In place c f the Pah sampenna sildnam, the U v has t-thiddka hlanant In spite of the treat
m the manuscript, the Fraknt here can be seen to agree with the Pali in this, the traces being
consistent with [sa]lana , whereas -ivdlta «ould not fit at all In the last pJda, ho«e\er the If'
agrees with the Tali (The old manuscript is not available for this ^erse)

298 The old U\ manuscript, like the Pali and Prakrit, has the jasmine here, tarfakl, buttful
has become rar/d/u in the re\ ised \ ersion, a corruption which has compelled the introduction
o f another fk>wer*name in place of the adjective at the beginning o f the second pjda. Thu
appears in the Samkm manusenpt as raguro, but is transliterated m the Tibetan in the tnote
fanuliar spelling baktla- In this i>er*e the Tibetan depends on a reMsed >ersion, having alio
¿byor 'summer*, corresponding to the Indian monsoon season
 CO M M EN TARY 269
299- prantna: although the loner part of the character has been lost the curve of the top to the
right makes it virtually certain that pra-, not pa-, was written. The -r- is of course in any case
an intrusion.
The commentator gives no explanation of the oddity o f specifying an autumn flower rather
than one blossoming at another season. We may assume that an incompetent poet who saw
nothing wrong in filling a hole in his verse by adding the absurd detail that the lotus is plucked
‘■with the hand' -would naturally be incapable of perceiving the destructive effect on his verse of
using ‘autumnal’ to stop another gap. Doubtless he thought it was a 'poetical’ word.

300. After the break in the second pada, the syllables dn'i are certain; and enough remains of
ths preceding character to establish that it was not 6u. The traces, however, suggest bhu\ and
if this was in fact written, it would seem that the aspiration has been noted in the (historically)
wrong syllable, assuming that the word here did ifl fact correspond to the Pali -iudhSw in its
stem if not in its termination.
papavttfe'ana: although only the tops of the first two characters remain, they are too nearly
vertical to admit either to be pra-. This is presumably only an accidental dittography.

301. The phrase yama-hkaji was read by Senart from a fragment (C vi) which now seems to
have disappeared. There is, however, no reason to doubt the words, which in any case recur in
the following stanza.

302. Uv. knfqoh, agreeing with the Pali, suggests that there is here a prima fade case for con­
sidering budku in the Prakrit stanza to be the replacement. The Buddha, on the other hand,
might he thought a more appropriate 'conqueror of the world’ than a mere beginner(seAAo), just
as the latter more appropriately collects and arranges the well-taught verses of the doctrine.
The Buddha may be presumed to stand in no need of seeking out the verses.

304. The Uv., while agreeing with the Prakrit in the preceding stanza (somkara-kula-), here
agrees with the Pali in sense: phyag darphud. (The Sanskrit version of the relevant phrase ;s
missing in both Chakravarti’s manuscripts.) It is thus very probable that saghasa-dhama* in
the Prakrit is an alteration. A t the same time, it is not meaningless in the context, if construed
with savcika at the end of the verse: ‘similarly the disciples of the Buddha, who have realised the
dharma (who are arhants), shine forth by reason of their wisdom, while common mortals are
blind’. The word has perhaps been attracted to this verse by a memory of its use in contrast to
Prthag-jana in contexts such as Sn. 1038:
ye ca samkhSta-dhammase ye ca sekJidputhu idha.

While the term sometimes appears in Buddhist Sanskrit as rvdkhyata-dhamo' (cf. Mv. iii. 435,
cited with verse 313, where the corresponding verse in the Uv. is also shown to have had
sv-akkyata- by the Tibetan legspar gsuAspa), this is certainly the result of a confusion with the
genuine svakhyata- ‘well taught’, as an epithet of dharma. Pali also has svekkhata in the fatter
sense, but this is not intended either in the present verse or in 313} and the Prakrit form agrees
with the Pali samkhata- (> samghUda- > saghadha-, with s for dir. see p. p6). In both instances
in the manuscript, the head of the third syllable of the word is obscurcd, and adventitious marks
make it at first sight tempting to read dha\ but a closer examination establishes sa in both placcs.
Although fragment 439 was still in position with the main leaf in Senart’s facsimile, no infor­
mation has been lost by the fact of its having become detached. The lower part of the characters
had already been lost at that time; and while we may with virtual certainty assume thatgh, not/,
370 TH E G AN D H ARI D H ARM APAD A

was written (since the word m ust certainly be the sam e as that in verse 3 1 3 , line 393) the restora
tion o f the inflexional ending remains more in doubt Senart gave dhamaa in his transcription,
but added in a note that the final letter cou ld be e or i Barua and M itra adopted dhamae 'for
symmetry’ (whatever that m ay mean), and suggested that this m ight be understood as equivalent
to Pali dhammakt (or dhammakS, rf th e leading -aa w ere kept) S u ch baseless conjecture «etna
to call for no detailed refutation Since in fact on ly the head o f the a lif remains visible, the
graphic possibilities are not lim ited to a, i, e, and there is no reason fo r excluding u and o from
consideration Since from the context a nominative plural agreeing with savaka would seem to
be required, the most reasonable hypothesis w ould seem to b e that w e have here the equivalent
o f the A M g nom pi m -do (Pischel § 3 6 7 , tw o possible examples in •ayo noted for Buddhist
Sanskrit, B H S G § 8 82 ), in which, case th e writing her« nu ght have been dkama'u or dhama 0
Alternatively, i f beside ayo a more ‘M agadhan’ form in *-aye existed, either in its own right or
as a compromise between -ayo and -asc, the manuscript here m ight have had dhattta’e or dham 1
(See al«o notes on 8 8 ,8 9 T h e reading prace'a i,prace'a'u in 8 8 is also doubtful, with a slight bis»
in favour o f t, which could in that context be interpreted as ca It w ould o f course be hazardous
to a t e a conjecture here in support o f a conjectural interpretation in the earlier verse, and we
must at present be content m erely to indicate the possibilities, and to leave the question open
until further examples can be quoted )

306 t ayana for this word Senart read gaiana addm g in a note that the appearance of the
second character was indecisive, and might have been read asy a H e preferred ia, on the assump
tion that the word represented VehgithS', and quoted in support ithla for sitkila In the latter,
however, the second i is the result o f an assimilation to the initial palatal, and except in such
circumstances only the dental t would be a possible replacement fo r dh lnvanaifa, P tanaOtoja
the palatal character o f the earlier -j- has extended its influence back to give i in place of f (d*
palatalization being also seen in •«•), though it is possible in this word that anoie'a, in a rhyming
position in the preceding verse ( 88 ), may have been in part responsible Luders, without hanrtg
seen the fragment, preferred ya, and suggested that gayana w’as a mistake for toyana Now that
the fragment can be seen, it is gratifying to find that Luders’s conjecture is fully substantiated.
T h e second syllable is quite unambiguously y a , and for the first, the s c r ib e had indeed written
ga (his eye having strayed to gadhano m the parallel verse, 308) but then corrected it by writing
t a rather heavily over it
In this and the follow mg three \ erses, the scribe has amused him self b y giving four different
spellings for the one word feiha, fthu }ehol and febha See also p 9 7

307 T he reading in the second p3da is slightly obscured at first sight b y the fact that, at the
break in the manuscript the lower portion has been slid some distance to the left (approximately
3 5 mm on the scale o f the plate) W hen allowance is made for this, all the syllables are seen to
be present

3 10 tnedt this variant, beside arh~ in the classical form o f the cliche, agghati in the Tali, afld
orghatt in the M ahlrastu, is capable o f a number o f interpretations T h e U v parallel 11 not
available m Sanskrit, but the T ibetan has phod, which, in the same phrase translates etgtmlt
inHevajra tantrat vui 48 (ed Snellgrov e, Part II , pp 30 , 3 1 ) A n alternative expression, which
appears in Tali as na <atu bhSgam eh, is translated in 3 2 1 na cadu bhaht redi, where the la !
word may be onI> a sandhi form resulting from edt, but m ay have been understood in tha
dialect as the equivalent o f upaiti (In the Uv equivalent o f 3 2 1 , the Tibetan again has phod)
It IS thus possible that avtdt is written here for ttvedi, the u quality o f the initial being for thi
 CO M M EN TARY 27r
scribe adequately indicated or implied by the on-glide to the a Barua and Mitra suggested
ameti; and since this normally spears as amedi, the spelling ovedi might possibly be used for
the same word. The meaning, however, seems scarcely to fit Other formal possibilities, aparti,
aotdti, seem open to the same objection. Senart translated the word as 'at gagne pas’, and per­
haps thought of dpayatt. This would be satisfactory in form, and since Buddhist Sanskrit shows
some examples of the word in a non-causative sense (BHSG p. 205), it cannot be definitely ruled
out here; though it seems slightly less likely than upriti.

312. sagi: the diacritical strofce which distinguishes g from g appears in this instance to have
been added as an afterthought.

313. saghasa-dhamefu: see note on 304.

314. It seems hardly possible to conjecture what die third pida contained. The two small
traccs of ink at die beginning are consistent with neva (as in the preceding stanzas), and this
could reasonably be added to the text. For the penultimate syllable, Senart hesitated between
teandre; bat it is certain that f should be read, since an r is unlikely to have curved so much to
the left in its descent, and would in any case have continued far enough for part to show below
the break, where the original bark is intact. On the other hand, to the right of the character, a
layer of bark has peeled off (as can be seen more clearly on Senart’s facsimile). It is therefore
possible that the original wordhere ended eitfierin-toa, or •&■#!/, or Senartsuggested,with
some probability, that the verse might be compared with Uv. xxiv. 32, which, with byamspaseats
porhyedpa, might indicate a pada containing [metri-d]lesti. Blit until the Sanskrit is available,
this must remain doubtful.
It is, however, possible to exdude with certainty the proposed restoration pot forward by
Barua and Mitra, (neva sabana&fyju as a parallel to Mv. iii. 435. 18 »a *> zompartnaSiSnam.
While this makes perfectly good sense, it is not the verse which belongs here. The surviving
syllables o f the pada were quite as dear ia Senart's iwsinuJes as in the new photograph; and
the fact that -lesu. should even have been considered seems explicable only on the hypothesis of
ignorance of the Kharosthl script

316. muhuttt: here and in the following verses the (Jv., with nwi zag, agrees with the Mv. and
Pali ekaham; but in the verses corresponding to 320, the other versions agree with nathula.

319,320. jVr>~Senart suggested that this might support a correction of the Pali tojatu; but
jmtu is supported by the Tibetan (mi), and the Prakrit spelling could represent either word.
There is thus no justification for changing the Pali text here. The doubt seems 10 have arisen
in the first place from the fact that Fsros&aJTs edition hadjanlum. If is, botrerer, possible that
this may be an isolated manuscript error. The edition of the commentary has only janlu, with
no variants noted, sad recent editions of the text likewise givtjantu.
While the Pali and the Uv. agree in a six-pada stanza in place of these two verses, Mv. iii.
435 has two full stanzas, but diifers completely from the Prakrit in the two padas which are not
represented in the other sources:
¿10 ca varsasata>[ij!ve agmpsricefam caret
patroharo chavduSsl karonto vividhain Icpattt,
The process of corruption is dear in the first half of the verse :jtve is amply imported from the
group of serial repetitions which begin in the same way, and caret is a SanstriuaaooR o f cere.
272 TH E GANDH ARI DH ARM APADA

which is itself a very easy m iscopying fo r vane

in N epalese script. In the second half verse,
chatatast is unlikely to mean ‘having a wretched dwelling’ (B H S D ) In company vnthpairahcra
'living o n a diet o f leaves’ , it seem s m ore probable th a t i t w as intended to convey ‘wearing
clothes o f bark’— a common enough idea fo r forest-dn elling ascetics (Alternatively, it mightbe
understood as ‘with only akin fo r clothing’, i e ’naked’ ) I n either case chava-
will represent
chan- , and the fact that the other manuscript is reported as reading chavovasi
suggests that both
readings are descended from a miscopied chavt-van
Barua and M itra (Introduction, p xxxvi) suggested that in the Prakrit and the M r ‘the two
verses seem to have been constructed o ut o f one older verse o f three lines b y thrusting one extra
line within its first two lines' T h is, how ever, involves th e acceptance o f a very striking coma
dence, that two texts, only remotely akin, should have decided to fill o ut in this way at exactly
the same place, although in fact aix-pada stanzas are frequently accepted as they stand A mote
probable hypothesis would be that the Prakrit stanza, where the sense fits well, represents the
original in essentials, but that in another line o f manuscript descent, in the common ancestry of
the other three versions, the second half-verse had becom e illegible at one point, that the scnbe
o f the ancestor o f the Mahavastu version, seeing directly from h a exemplar that a half verse had
existed at this point, supplied one b y his own initiative, bu t that the manuscripts leading to the
Pali and the U v respectively had sim ply passed over the illegible portion. T h is hypothesis o
itself not free from difficulties, and is certainly not to be taken as a definite solution of the prob­
lem , but it seemed worth setting out here, as an indication o f the type o f possibilities which
should be investigated when the general question o f the nature o f the interrelationship of the
versions comes to be examined m detail

321 pufiatekfa although only minute traces rem ain o f the last syllable, these are consistent
with kfa, ha,
but not at all with w hich the analogy o f anatehtno might have led u s to expect The
M v here has punyapreksi
cadu bhakuveil alternatively, this ought have been transcribed -bhahrvedi, assuming that
~v* is the representative o f the ~tn o f the original accusative In other instances— admittedly ft*
— final -am has not been observed to appear as -um (-uc ) before a word beginning with s vowel,
but either remains, or appears sim ply as -a, or -u See also pp 1 1 0 - 1 2 , o n v n a I t is o f course
possible that the present instance is an exception, bu t it seems possible that the word in the
present version was understood as t edi upatti
< See » 1« note on 3 10
A fragment o f a Kuchean bilingual o f the U v has survived, containing from this verse tan
nacaturbh&ga, and fragmentary portions o f the immediately succeeding verses, U v xxv 1 ,2 s*
22 8 ,2 2 9 in the Prakrit text (Sieg and Siegling Toch Sprachreiit, Sp r B vol u , pp *96- 7 )

322 tuyidrakfo see note on 25 5 It is not impossible that it was the fact o f this word coming
to be felt archaic which led to readjustments o f the verse in the Pah and the U v In the latter,
Chaktavarti s old manuscript has preserved only fragments o f the second half o f the verse The
tcvucd version has

dharmasthamhlasampatmamhrlmantamtaiyavadinam
Stmanah atmJnah)karakamtantamtamjanahkurutepnyam
(m s

323 bho a Scnatt here tcad bhoha, and commented that the word was certain as to the COR*
sonants but that the A appeared to be accompanied b y a mark denoting the vowel *it This be
thought might possibly have been written in error b y the scnbe {fyafahhohu pouryafubhohal).
A s a transcription, how ev cr, Ihoha is impossible, and the choice lies bet» een Ihoho and bho a A
 CO M M EN TARY 373
closer examination establishes the latter with certainty, What Senart thought was possibly as -w
stroke is the tail of the alif; and the fact that at first sight this tail seems to have been attached
by a separate stroke o f the pen is an illusion due to the rising end of the vowel-stroke in Mo-
crossing the alif.
tmyadi: the Uv. agrees, with vrajate, against bhajati in the Pali. Cf. also in Pali Sn. 2143
yam yam disam vajati bhSripanno.

324. With the first half of the verse, cf. Jit. v. 147 (Franke):

tia panfita attasukhassa helti pSpani kammani samacaranti.

For dhamTo, Senart read dhamiho; and here the decision between k and alif seems less certain
than in the preceding stanza. The leaf is brokenjust to the right of the doubtful character, which,
nevertheless, appears to turn to the right at the foot of the stem. If the tail was continued farther,
there would be no reading possible other than ho. On the other hand, it seems possible that the
curve to the right went no farther, in which case it may be interpreted as a mere checking of the
pen. Such a stub on the right docs in fact occasionally appear sporadically in characters which
normally end in a vertical or a pen-drag to the left, although it is virtually unknown in an alif.
This feet supports the reading ¡10; but the general appearance of the character as a whole gives
tather the impression of ’0. The latter has therefore been adopted in the text, though without
any certain conviction that it is right.

325. The Jataks parallel to the last pSda is due to Barua and Mitra. In c, however, avaja can
hardly be taken here as ‘Sk. avadyak, low, bad, inferior’ (presumably a misprint for avadyali).
Rather, it is equivalent to a Pali dpajji: cf. 66 bhikhu vtipaia mavadi, where the last word is
parallel to P. mapddi. It is indeed possible, since the manuscript is broken there, that in 66 also
we should read avaja rather than ovadi. Pali knows both forms of the aorist of 2-pad-.

327. O f this verse, only the final pada appeared in Senart’s facsimile, and the fragment con­
taining the first two ¡»das was not recognized as belonging hero. In the absence o f a Pali parallel,
it is not at all a matter for censure that Senart misread a few syllables, both in the fragment and
at the end of the verse; but these few misreadings so completely disguised the appearance of die
stanza tbat the identification of the Pali parallel, die correct attribution of the fragment, and the
emendation o f Senart’s readings by Franke (who, it must be remembered, did not have a fac­
simile for the first three-quarters o f the verse) was an outstanding achievement. The samf
brilliant reconstruction was, however, later made independently by Barua and Mitra, who saw
fit to chide M. Senart for readings (in the fragments they had not seen) which were ‘hardly
satisfactory*. To demonstrate this further, they emended the last pada, where the facsirai/e was
available, to {sa)da samajate vata; but it has not been possible to follow them in this re-reading.

329. cavadhivadida: this was read by Senart as two words, to correspond to the Pali capato
patilarp, there being no very obviously better explanation to propose. He did, however, express
in his note considerable doubt as to the interpretation of cavadhi as the equivalent of an ablative.
The problem, however, does not really arise in this form. If, as seems reasonable in the context,
the participle is accepted as equivalent to the Pali patilm, then the spelling -vadida absolutely
forbids us to take it as a separate word. The only possibility remaining is to take the whole
expression as a compound qualifying the arrows: ‘shot from the bow*, capa-adhtpatila-. Since,
however, adhi-pat- is not altogether satisfactory, it might be suggested that the word is written
here for -adivadida, i.e. originally representing c&pitipatila-. Such a form would agree
B Stll T
 COM M EN TARY 275

3 3 1. T h e fragment above the break ¿as been placed slightly too far to the left, and what at first
sight seems to be the bottom o f the syllable ku belongs in fact to bhu. The vowel-sign which
really belongs to the ku can be seen below the jo ; and the ta o f bhuta appears below the head of
da, I t is improbable that bhuto was written, unless perhaps a small part o f the surface layer con­
taining the o-stroke has broken off.
In the third p2da, the Uv. agrees with the Pali in the word-order. The traces remaining in the
manuscript here, however, could not be read as -Jtla, and ire must assume that the Prakrit text
had the two words in inverted order. Since the distinctive pan o f the penultimate characicr is
missing, the word might in theory hare been either bkune’a or bhuje’a. On the analogy o f ytmj-
(see p. ic c ), the latter seemed slightly more probable. (In either case, the ending •/''a wtjald be
equally consistent with the remains of the writing.)

332. In the Uv. version, the manuscript reading must be corrected in some manner. A correc­
tion to spandano mariyo involves the least alteration from the manuscript reading; and the nomi­
native can be easily understood as the subject of the first statement, i f the final pada is taken as
a separate sentence. A nominative plural would involve the same degree o f change. Chakravarti
emended to spandanam mariyam, which then makes the whole stanza into a single sentence.
In this place, the old manuscript of the Uv. is missing, and the revised version quoted beside
the Prakrit is undoubtedly a later alteration, reducing the stasua to an ordinary anu^fubh. The
tristubh form o f the Prakrit is clearly the older, and a stanza directly corresponding to tliis must
have stood in this place in the Uv. at an earlier stage; for the Tibetan translation is;

hdi ni bya ba byns sin don kdi bya

de dag byas iuu bdag gis hdi byaho zes
de har mi kdi yons su {ampa na
rga dan nod bcas hchi Bos mnon du bcom.

T he change to the nine-syllable line from the usual seven-syllable is a very strong indication
that the Sanskrit here bad the longer metre; and the matter is placed beyond doubt by the
renderings jvwir su iom, for pori-spand- (for iompa, the dictionaries give'prepare, put in order,
arrange’, but we may doubtless assume in this contest that some flurry and bustle are implied
by the word), and mnon du bcom for abhuraard-.
In the last pada o f the Prakrit, only the tails o f the characters in jara can be seen (Senart’s
facsimile, which a minute fraction more at this point, docs in fact show the junction of
the left-hand stroke in iheja ). T he restoration is, however, certain, having the support of;«;2
in the Uv. (and rga in the Tibetan o f the other Uv. version), and also a dose parallel in Uv. xv. 5
so 'tikramq jattjaram sasokam. In place o f the last word in the present verse, the Tibetan has
nad beat, which may imply a variant sa-roga-; but since the appearance of disease in such con­
texts is so common, it may be no more than an interpretation of the type of M o implied.
Cf. also MBh xii. 169 . 19 (cited bv Luders):
1'dam krtarn ¡dam karjam idam anyal kriohtam
ccam ihasukJidsaktam krtantah kurute tcit;

and JAs 19 11 , i. 440.

333. karifcmu: Uv. kansySm, against the Pali rasitson. In the ending, on the other hand, the
U r. agrees with the Pali. Sena« drew attention to the fact that in 66 a1<o the same
appears: phufamu beside Pali phutsarr.r, fcut fch ttut it tras hardly pftssible to drtiilc whether
this was a genuine plural ending, or 2 singular 'nvee une orthoprsphte ir:eT2c;e’. (In pljceof »he
 COM M EN TARY 27-
property’ (Jaschke, hbyorpa). This would suggest 3 Sanskrit version mthsampall!-, compounded
with vydsakta-manasatn.
In the Prakrit, -dft- could not represent an earlier -it-, and it seems neccssary to understand
it here as a sporadic writing of the aspirated consonant for the unaspiratcd (see p. 100 for other
examples). If the reading sammattam were accepted as genuine, we could understand the
Prakrit as equivalent to -sammadam, giving virtually the same sense with a compound of different
structure. But in view of the very strong support for a derivative of sam-pndit seems preferable
on the present evidence to take it as equivalent to saiupddam, or sampcida- compounded with the
following word. Although the participle is regularly sabana-, sabam awith the expected develop*
ment of -mp- > -b-, the appearance of samajadi for the indicative (¡ampadyatc) gives us a com­
parable example for the development involved. (Sec p. 107, § G6 a.)
(Theoretically, the Prakrit spelling could represent smmnatatj!, which was the word translated
by Max Miiller: 'praised for his children and flocks’. But this is certainly no more than r.n over­
sight, and seed not be considered as an authentic variant in the Pali tradition.)

335. It is very probable that fragment 525 belongs to the beginning of the second pHda of this
verse, though from the photograph it has not been possible to reach complete certainty. If the
placing is correct, it may be assumed that, unlike the other versions, the Prakrit had the second
and fourth padas identical (except for minor spelling variations). Wc should then assume that yo
here is written fotya ( < ea), and is equivalent tD i in the final p.ida. It is perhaps just possible
to consider the charactcr as intended by the scribe to be ya.
Senart in fact suggested that the second pada might begin with no i; but this was only on the
basis of the parallelism with the fourth pada. The Jataka parallel was identified by Scnarj, and
discussed by him in an appendix printed separately from the edition of the test, but in the same
volume, JAs 1912 , 545- 8 ,
padjagare'a-. only the tails o/thc last two characters have been preserved, and the fendin':
-re'a, already conjectured by Senart, is suggested on the basis of the Uv. pralijUgarttti. It mu^t
be admitted that the curl at the foot of the supposed r is very odd; but it has not been po«ib]e
to visualize it as part of any other character which would fit any better. From the shape alone,
one might think of -¡agadc'a (with -d. as a mistaken restoration of -r-, as a 'learned1 spelling);
- ..4 the line of writing for this to be likely.
278 TH E G A N D H A R I D H A R M A P A D A

vyathayati, and t ahanti has no support from the T jbetan T h e precise manner in which
P vyadhen has come into being here is not d e a r, b u t it should be recorded that the Burmese
manuscripts are quoted w ith the unaspirated byadest, byatest T hese, however, could easily be
secondary, and in themselves carry little w eight T h e pada is sim ply a paraphrase o f the familiar
cliche khano to ma upaecaga (cf 131 ) F or ade'a (a facsimile not being then available) Lflders
suggested the interpretation atiyat, and the same \erb w ill serve as w ell or better with the
corrected reading (w a t i »•) T h e T ibetan appears to have translated a reading in agreement
with this byas paht dus g'yo bas dan po ‘ before the tim e for doing passes by’
padikama at first sight this might be taken to indicate ‘doing each task as each arises*, but
since the tenor o f the \erse is that one should do the task before it arises, it is reasonable to
assume that the word here (as also the Pali patikata) is either a replacement for, or a mistake for,
the word which commonly appears in Pali as patikacca o r patigacca Corresponding to this,
Buddhist Sanskrit has the correctly interpreted form , prattkrtya (noted b y B H S D from Lalita
vistara, and frequently Mahavastu), bu t in addition shows on occasion pratiyatya (missing in
B H SD ), due to a misunderstanding o f a Prakrit padtyacca In the present verse, the has
pratiyatyahannam, and in U v iv 16 (Levi, p 253) prattyatyeva tat kuryat, corresponding to
Sam 1 57 patikacceva (var pattgaeena) tam kaytrd T h is rendering into Sanskrit is presumably
influenced b y a fancied connexion with pratiyatta- ‘ prepared’ (only one instance noted, from
M v 1 24 13, by B H S D , bu t Pali patiyatta- is more frequent) F or prattkrtya Edgerton gives
the m eaning'm advance’, and the word may indeed be translated in this way without undue
distortion. In many places, however, it continues to carry the connotation o f ‘makingpreparations
to meet a contingency’ ( P T S D ‘providing for the future’) T h e beginnings o f the semantic
development may be seen in Brahmamcal Sanskrit in phrases such as M B h v 35 41

ayatySmprattkarajiias taddtic drdharmcayah,

‘know mg how to take precautions fo r the future, and making definite decisions in the present

336 T h e Theragatha parallel (also ibid 261) was identified b y L u d ers, and Franks pointed
out the same verse, w ith a variant third pada, in Jat 1 319 and D h p A ( P T S ediUon ui 409)
hatu this was read b y Senart, together w ith the preceding w ord, as jafcin/ Franke, while pro*
posing the correction sutu for turn (see 334 ), added in a footnote, 'S o vielleicht auch karu ststt
des zu erwartenden hatu ( = Pah hdtum) in C™ 39** \erlesen, ‘ T h e same proposal was made
independently b y Barua and M itra, who also corrected and placed in 334 the fragment read ss
stavga b y Senart, and b y a cunous coincidence, they also cast their footnote in the form of s
question ‘ Could it not be read fakatut' N o w that the facsimile is available, it can be seen that
the word is indeed hatu I t is only necessary to add that this does not correspond directly to Pah
kitum, but represents the regular development kattum < kortum
athadu this seems the most probable reading, w ith the ablatiral formation ( < ortha tah)
parallel with luhadu in the following p 3da Since, however, a small sliver o f bark has been lost
(which has also beheaded the tw o succeeding characters), it is ju s t possible that the reading
should be atha tu (artkdt tah) T h is w outd agree better w ith the shape o f the Pali parallel, though
without an) alteration in sense But from the general appearance, du seems rather more likel)
th a n » .

337 T h e U v has two term s here (JR A S 1912), adding after the first half iotalt ¿ufhjts*
kjtcti ioeate durgattmgatah, and similarly (mutatis mutandis) after the second In Pischd*
manuscript, only the first o f these presumably new creations has su m » ed, but the loss is betrayed
by a break in the numbering (5a in th is\eraon) T h e Tibetan has all the material, but cunously
 CO M M EN TARY 2;9
has sorted it o at again, and the additional half-verses (which from their nature seem unliJcelv to
have been originally self-subsistent) appear now formed into a separate verse (45 ) immediately
before the reconstituted representative o f the Pali andP/airit verse. We mar note a/so that in the
latter (46), the Tibetan translates the padas in the order bade, which may o f course be onlv a
coincidence. T he other facts, however, strongly suggest a descent of the ITv. through a manu­
script either broken or confused at this point.
Against akatam dukkalam seyyo in the Pali, the Uv. has ahianj kukrtdc da'cyoh, r.nd die verse
was cited by Liidcrs among his examples o f -am in Pali appearing in placc of an ablative (BSC
§ 189 ), on which see also p. 79 .
In the third pada, nu is very dearly written, and the syllable could not be transcribed as du.
Since, however, the two characters in question can sometimes in hurried handwriting approxi*
mate very closely one to the other, we may suspect that tiu here may be only a miscopyirtg o f da
in an earlier manuscript.

338. Senart remarked that two lines were lost in the manuscript between those numi'crcd
O ' 40 and 4 1 . T he second o f the missing lines can now be seen to be the first four padas of 339,
o f vrhich Scnart’s 4 1 forms the final tno pudas. Fragment s:f is BrnSy established as brJon^ri*
to the first o f the missing lines both by the traces of the initialya (divided between the main leaf
and the fragment) and by the fit o f the traces in 523 with terse 337. This identification ihcn
allows us to interpret the traces of the third pada, in themselves unreadable, as consistent with a
reading corresponding to the Pali. The whole verse appears also in Sam. i. 2 .$, and the recond
half in Sn. 254 .

339. Senart already saw that C r 4 1 (line 426) might form the last two padas of a six-plda stanza;
and this is now confirmed by the appearance o f the punctuation mark at the appropriate place,
below fragment ¿22. The latter fragment was identified by Franke (without a facsimile available)
as equivalent to Dhp. 292, and corrcctly placed here. The Uv. agrees with the Prakrit in having
28 o TH E GAN DH ARI DH ARM APAD A

\ ice w hich the author o f the verse had in mmd It is tru e that the revised U v , both here and in
vi 13 (where the corresponding Pali also has mutala-), has replaced the word by uddhata,
which in classical Sanskrit regularly has these sen ses, and m bo th places the Tibetan h a it m s-
rlompa, also with the m eaning ‘proud’ T h e o l d U v m anuscript, however, has aw’d
lated it by
danam (in which presum ably the dental *<f- is a quasi-Sanskntization, halfway to unnaia)
It » , of course, quite conceivable that the w ord in this verse is no m ore than a term o f abusé, w
which case ‘arrogant’ would fit as well as anything else Dut i f the statement is slightly more
meaningful, we may see in the \erse a chiasmus those w h o neglect their duties are pamatla
while those who actively do evil are unnaja T h e general sense in dicated w o u ld thus seem to fall
withm the range o f 'boisterous, unseemly behaviour, frivo lity’ or som ething similar And this
is at least part of the range o f meaning covered b y the term auddhatya in its specifically Buddhist
usage
It may then be suggested that the constant occurrence o f the tw o w ords in company m the
cliché uddhata, unnaia, capala (which, we may assume, m ay have originally com eyed approxi
mately ‘conccited, boisterous, and frivolous') has led to a blend ing o f th e semantic fields of the
words It may also be remarked that, w h ile tornata m Classical Sanskrit scarcely has the sense
o f ’pro u d , Praknt vnitaya regularly has this m eaning, and sim ilarly P ah unnata (which is ut fact
explained by udihacta, SftA 492, P T S D s v ) T h e identification o f an originally distinct unnaia
with this developing sense o f the M iddle Indian descendants o f unnata would in the circum­
stances be expected to assist in the transfer o f the earlier sense o f unnaja to its partner uddhata
T he etymology given for Pali uddhacca b y the P T S D is n o t convincing (‘substantivised ger
o f ud-dharati'), and there is no need to consider that 'th e B S k auddhatya shows a strange
distortion*
I f the explanation o f unnaia as m erely a dialect form o f unnatais rejected, a number o f alterni*
ti\e possibilities suggest themselves I f the main lines o f the above discussion can be acccptcd,
it would seem probable that the word started its career m the Duddhist texts with such connota
tions as 'boisterous, unruly, playing the fool*.
In his notes to the first edition o f the Dhammapada (p 389), Fausboll, who translated the
word as 'insolens', made the tentative suggestion o f un-naia ‘ q u i baculum engit’ There is no
objection to this in form, bu t the meaning seems hardly possible, unless perhaps naia is to be
understood tm m ohtceno, in which case vnnada m ight be rendered 'lascivious*. There «etra*,
how e 'e r , to be no e\ idence for such a use o f naia, and all that can at present be cited in its favour
is the fa n that tettóia, with a closely related literal sense, is attested in this usage in RV x
95 4*5
Fqually possible formally, and more promising semantically, w ould be a derivation from
•«n nfia-, in which the stem could be analysed either as nft-a- ('dance*), o r as Tn the
latter case, ‘ unttfta- would in origin describe one w h o exhibits an excess o f the heroic frenzy
characteristic o f the wam or, nr- (On nrta-, see I I W , Hailey, J R A S 1953, 103 (Î )
(In the Rip* eda, rff/- 'to dance', is already established, and dancing m ay b e an occasion for
p i c t j — x 18 3 tiftaye hasSya— and U$as adorns herself as a female dancer, nr/tf, 1 92 4 In*
similar fashion, lndra clothes himself as a dancer, \ i 29 3 , bu t in the same verse, his heroic
mtfcht is also stressed dhtjnur ro/rf {<nas3 In other places the epithet is applied to In d a 11
company with words such as cjat, iafat, ugra, tirj-, and while it is admitted!) difficult to avoid
such words m «pcaVing of Indra, the juxtaposition often suggests tliat the quasi pun between
nr- w d nrtv, c rp h ot in \ 33 6, * 29 3. was regularly before the m ind o f the poet It u of
rotine possible that, h istorical), rather more tlian an accidenti! coincidence is involved t V
«uipn o f Indra'» epithet ma) have been nr tu• 'heroic' (comparable then in formation w
• o r hi- undeilvirg the I j t i n abstract rrriur). which w ould have inevitablj become tingled
 COM M EN TARY 28!
with nrl-u- ‘dancer’ ; or alternatively nrt-‘to dance’ may itself be ao extension of the root nr-, in
•which case the meaning would have been generalized from die antics of the war-dance. I f so,
t . 33. 6 nnmar.i itrtamanak is perhaps less o f a play upon words than has been supposed. But
this is i matter which can hardly be pursued further here.]

341,342. Although these two fragments (and also 467in verse 339) were fbirad by Scnart with
leaf A , they show flic darker colouring of the baik characteristic of the verso o f the manuscript.
Since the other side of 450 contains verse 139a, the position of verse 341 is guaranteed at least
to the extent of being not more than one or two verses distant from the end of the preceding
chapter, allowance bang made for the marl* denoting the end of the chapter after 340.
In view o f the difference in case, -su against dontena (also dantexa in the Ur.) the identifica­
tion o f342 with Dhp. 323 remains doubtful. Since the punctuation mark appearing on the frag*
meet shows that this is a verse-ending, and sincc there is no place for it in the main leaf (or
indeed ¡a the earlier part of the verso), it must certainly comc after the main leaf, and there is a
high probability that it comes very closely after. While, therefore, it is not proved to be the
immediate successor of 341, it must at least be a close neighbour. It therefore seems as likely as
not that it does in fact represent the verse equivalent to Dhp. 323.

343, 344. 'When the night bad passed, a deity approached, and after saluting the feet of the
sage, asked these questions: “ O f what morality?— of what conduct?—of what virtues?-—by what
action? and endowed with what qualities?— Who are the people who go to heaven!” ’
These verses are written on the back of the manuscript, in a veiy different style o f handwriting,
acd have presumably been added by a laier owner of the manuscript as a.sort of motto or genera)
introduction to the work as a whole. It is the son of thing, in fart, which in a modem book
might well appear on a half-title page. We should « p e a such a scribble to came on the outside
of the book when closed, Le. veiy much nearer the beginning. The fact that it occurs approsi*
mately oa the reverse of verses 42 and43 probably indicates that the book had at the time been
wrongly folded.
The unmetrical pradipmcha in the first verse shows lack of skill in composition, and the verse
must be a Jate piece of work, possibly even composed by the mao who inscribed it on the
manuscript Its material, however, is familiar: Udana 23 ; Sn. p. 17 , &c.:
atha kho anfiatara ¿evataalikhartayaratiiyS. . . yena bhagavaten’ upaiankami, upasan-
kamitvS bhagavantaip abbbadetva ekamantam afthast.
T hj. 564- 5 :
paveditamhi kalamhi vehasan uptuaniamim
ztmditoS satthuxop&de ekamantam nisid' aham.

Tbe first line is a syllable short with ratri, P. rattiyS. While this may be a mere slip of the pen,
it is possible that it represents a genuine development of an obiiqt/e asc-form, •/»* > *»: cf.
vidt 277, written for viyidt (P. vijile)', Niya dhanr.opri beside dharmapriya (Burrow, Gremr.cr
§ 70). Pischel § 386 records for Apabhramia such forms as ¡dtli (farfvo), puhati,pnkari {prllav-
yam). See also p. 84, [j 27 .
taditvai wfule the language o f the manuscript rcjufarij- has n < rd, the introductory vcjre
(also outside the main test) has budlumadi ( < -rardin). It is thus quite possible that the 'vnrii
here represents canditra] but equally possible that the form has been conflatcd with (o?7;:’}r«cfr¡i
(see the two Pali passages quoted above).
prosotia is a noteworthy attempt at a Sanskriuc form.
karmana and jana are here transcribed with rn, the diameter in thee tv.o icitar.cti bcinr;
282 TH E GAND H ARI D H ARM APADA

more rounded than na T h e difference, however, is not very great, and it 1$ possible that til
should be written in these two words also T h e usage m these two verses m any case diverges on
this point from that o f the main work
The second verse is naturally not to be understood as a direct representation o f the Suttam*
pata verse Rather, both are independent versions o f a doggerel which was in general circulation
among the custodians o f gnomic verse, and which turns u p in several variant forms For the last
pada, c f Sam 1 3 $
kesam dtvS ca ratio ca sadapunnam pavaddhati
dhammattki stlasampanna he ¡ana saggagamtno

From the MahabhSrata, it is sufficient to cite xn 222 1 , 269 1

hmillah hmamScarak ktmvtdyah hmparayanah

prapnott brahmanak stkSnam yat par am prabter dhruvam,

xiu 145 1 (Bom bay edition)

hmiilah kitnsam&c&rah pvrusah kati ca kam dbhh
svargam samalhpadytta sampradanena kena vS

And similarly xiu 144 3

kena itlena vrtiena karmand ktdriena va

samacSratr gunatr hair va svargam ydntiha m&nav&k,

in the answer to which many stanzas end with the refrain te narah svargagdimnah In the same
way, the answer to the question in the Samyutta verse quoted above ends with tejanS saggogi*
tntno
And since this preoccupation with the attainment o f heaven may, in the eyes o f some modem
exponents o f Buddhism, appear to be no more than a rather discreditable borrowing from
Hinduism, it may be salutary to conclude w ith a verse from A iy a Sara (SubhS^ta ratm-
karaQd* 2 )
rtamayamdurlabhamprapyavtdyutsampatacancalam
bhavakfayemotthbdryabhavopakaramfUva
E\ en for the de\out Buddhist, heaven was an acceptable second-best to Nirvana
 CONCORDANCE I
M A N U S C R IP T L IN E S T O VERSES

Verse Line or frag- Verse Line or frag­

number ment number number ment number
1-5 6 95 45 134
56 a 95 46 I34a
57 97 47 135 83
58 98 48 136 84

59 S9 49 536a 81

186 100 50 137 85

36 101 51 138 86
35 102 52 139 87

34 10} 53 140 88
33 104 54 141 89

36 J05 55 142 90

37 106 56 143 91
107 56 a 144 92
38
103 57 145 93
39
109 58 146 94
40
no 59 147 97
41
111 60 148 98
42
112 60 149 99
43
m 61 150 100
19 1
114 62 151 101
190
115 63 152 102
189
116 64 153 103
188
117 65 (54 104
182
US 66 155 105
183
119 67 156 106
18 4
120 68 157 107
18 5
121 69 158 108
186
122 70 155 109
182
123 71 160 110
183 161 11 1
124 72
18 4 162 112
125 73
190 163 113
126 74
189
127 75 1« 114
188 165 114
128 76
18 7 166 115
186 129 77
167 11 6
130 78
18 5 163 117
184 131 79
169 118
132 80
183
44 133 81 JM 119
 CONCORDANCE I

Verse Line or frag­ Verse Line or frag­

number ment number number ment number
120 214 16 4 260
121 215 16 5 261
122 216 166 262 216
123 217 16 7 263 217
124 218 16 8 264 218
125 219 169 265 219
126 220 170 26 6 220
127 221 171 267 221
128 222 17 2 26S 222
129 223 17 3 269 223
130 224 174 270 224
131 225 175 271 225
132 226 176 272 226
133 227 17 7 273 227
134 228 178 274 228
135 229 178 275 229
140 230 17 9 276 230
14 1 231 180 277 231
1 19 232 181 278 231
142 233 182 232
12 0 234 106 279 232
143 235 10 7 280 233
144 236 190 281 234
145 237 191 282 235
146 238 19 2 283 236
14 7 239 19 3 284 237
148 240 194 285 238
149 241 195 286 239
150 242 196 287 240
151 243 19 7 288 241
152 244 198 289 242
153 245 199 3» 244
154 246 20 0 301 245
74 247 201 302 246
155 248 202 303 247
156 249 203 304 248
82 250 204 305 249
15 7 251 205 306 250
158 252 206 307 251
150 253 207 308 252
159 254 208 309 253
82 255 209 310 254
160 256 2 10 311 255
161 257 2 11 312 256
162 258 2 12 313 257
163 259 2 13 314 258
 CONCORDANCE I

Verse Line or frag­ Verse Line or frag ­

number ment number number ment number
259 361 300 407 326
260 362 299 403 327
261 363 298 409 328
262 364 297 410 329
263 365 296 41! 330
264 366 290 412 331
265 367 243 413 324
266 368 244 414 307
267 369 244 415 306
268 370 243 415a 307
269 371 294 416 332
270 372 296 417 318
271 373 295 418 333
272 374 297 419 304
272 375 298 420 334
273 376 296 421 335
273 377 297 422 336
274 378 298 423 337

275 379 299 424 338

276 380 300 425 339

277 381 301 426 339

382 302 427 340
278
383 303 428 340
279
384 304 429 135
279
385 305 430 13Be
280
386 306 431 135
281
387 307 432 96
282
388 308 433 138c
283
389 309 431 136
284
390 310 435 135
285
391 311 436 136
286 437 135
287 392 312
393 313 43S mb
288 43? I3Se
354 314
289 440 135
395 315
289 441 137c
396 316
290
397 317 4i t 137ft
291 44) 137c
39S 3 IS
292 ¿ii I37<#
293 399 319
445 13Sa
294 400 320
I3SC
343 401 321
44T 1 .1 ^/
344 40: 146
ii< 161
295 40} 322
HI 106
4M 323
294 t'O 3ÎJ
293 405 324
l.V 'a
292 4M 325
288 C O N C O R D A N C E II
X09 172 160 173
! 5* *93
110 152 19 +
III *53 *95
11 2 316 196
i5 4
113 3 17 13 9 a
T55
11 4 15 6 13 9 b x v Sukha
»5 318 166
197
xti Atta 198
ix Papa 157 19 9 165
11 6 15 8 227 200 168
117 207 *59 201 180
118 208 160 202
119 16 1 203 163
120 16 2 330 204 162
IZt 209 i6 3 264 205
122 2 10 164 258 206 175
123 16 5 207 17 6
124 16 6 265 208 177
«5
126 xin Loha xv i P y a
12 7 16 7 12 1 209 266
128 16 8 110 2 10
169 328 2 11
x Banda 170 2 12
129 17 1 213
130 172 12 2 2 14
13 1 173 2 15
132 2 x6
174
133 175 2 17 322
»34 176 2 x8
x35 148 *77 2 19
136 178 220
13 7
138 xiv Buddha xvn Kodka
! 39 179 221 274
140 (2 1 1 ) 180 222 275
14 1 18 1 223 280
142 80 182 263 224 281
*43 183 225
144 18 4 226
*45 185 227 23 7
18 6 228 240
*1 Jara 18 7 241
229
146 143 188 230 242
*47 189
231
148 142 190 232
149 1 5 4 ,1 19 1 (247) 233
150 284 192
*34 51
 C O N C O R D A N C E II

278 107
279 108 341
235
236 280 113 3*3 342

237 281 324

238 282 325
283 93 326
239 13 2 ,( 1 2 6 ,1 3 1 )
240 284 94 327
2 41 285 299
242 286 333
287 334 33°
243
221 288 261 331
244
222 289 332
245
246 333
s i. Pakinnaka
247 290 164 cdv.
248
291 179 334 91
249
292 339 335
250 340
293 33&
251 12 (12 6
294 337
252 272 12
295 333
253 (3 3 9 ) 100
296 339
254 297 10 1 34»
255 (1 8 3 ) 302 95
29 S 34*
103 95
299 342
dx. Dhammattha 104
300 343
256 105 92
301 344
*57 262 169
302 343
258 323 170
3°3 346
259 1 14 171
304 347
260 182 259 34S
161
305
261 1 S 5 , (4 5 )
349
262 18 6 ocii. iV /ray a 35°
263 187 306 269 (96:i
3 5!
264 188 307
265 1 8 9 ,(1 ) 308 331
333
266 67 270
j»9 3.; 4
267 6 8 ,( 1 ,1 8 3 ) 310
268 215
3>l
269 312
270 3*3
271 65 337.
3*4
272 6 6 ,( 1 3 4 ) 131
315
2Ç0 CONCORDANCE

36S 61 384 14 404 32

366 62 385 35 4°5 18
367 79 386 4 8 ,( 2 5 ) 406 29
36 S 70 387 50 407 27
369 76 388 16 408 22
370 78 389 li 409 19
37» 75 390 15 410
372 58 391 23 4 x1
373 55 39 2 3 412 4 6 ,(18 3 )
374 56 393 1 (4 0,3 6)
4*3
375 5 9 , 60 39+ 2 (47)
4*4
376 60 395 38 20, (33)
4*5
377 298 396 17 416
378 397 4*7
379 (60) 398 42 4 18 (33)
380 419 44
399 28
381 (72) 400 (44) 420 4 3 ,(2 6 )
382 40t 21 34
42*
402 3 0 ,( 2 7 ) 422 4 1 ,( 4 9 )
xx\i. Drâhmana 403 4 9 ,( 2 5 ) 5
383 io 423
 C O N C O R D A N C E III
U D A i-5 A V A R G A 1

2 18 1 iv. 1 115 vii. 5 232

14 3 2 11 6 7 52
3
155 4 11 9 S 51
4
6 14 4 11 1
7 5
15 1 6 11 2 viii. 1 269
8 15 2 8 12 1 - 25S
10 14 6 10 117 10 54
ii 14 7 12 1 2 9 ,1 3 4
149 13 13 3 ix. 2 331
13
148 14 270
15
14 8 19 339 (IS 5)
17 x. 7
28 160 20 340 323
S
29 140 21 11 4 (260)
9
14 1 22 190
30
14 5 23 191
33 Kl 1 9
14 2 24 120
34 2 15
15 3 27 132
35 2 16
158 28 69
36 S 262
15 6 29 74
37 10 330
333 326
38 3° n 1S2
334 31 70
39 ( J .1 S 3 )
2 61 32 73
40 13 ISS
35 110
41 332 189
36 124
16
169 123
5 37
6 170 3S 125
109
96
266 106
11 178 v. 9
131 6 107
J2 178 17
322 10s
24
(94) 26 230
3
, 91
(73)
xiii. S 61
95 vi. 7 (62)
16 295
95
296
11 ( 12 M 257
' iv- ^
(13
 CO N C O R D A N C E III
10 0 XXI. 8 267 22 208
10 1 30 205
10 2 xxu. 2 256 206
32
103 3 2 5 1-3 34 203
104 IO (2 4 2 , 249) 36 204
105
1
XXU . 2 259 XXIX ■ 3 213
335 3 305 4 214
273 6 22 7 7 192
12 2 9 265 8 193
327 9 187
284 XXIV i 306 10 186
2 309 15 2 17
139 a 4 3 16 16 218
139 b 6 3 17 21 329
209 12 318 24 12
210 17 3 1 9 , 320 41 337
337
225 26 310 42
27 3 11 43 235
28 3 12 44 236
301
29 3 15 45 237
302
93 33 3 13 46 240
34 3 21 47 241
94
48 242
299
290 XXV. 1 228 49 239
291 s 229 60 161
6 248
292
271 13 233 XXX. 1 180
303 *4 234 2 179
304 15 233 5 328
293 16 234 16 224
298 H (17 6 ) 25 175
294 *5 177 26 176
(138 b) 27 173
300
XXVI 6 162 164
30
81 7 163 43 165
83 12 76 47 166
168
49
xxvu. 1 272 52 226
118
3 221
341
4 222 xxxi 2 137b
342
26 92 8 136
9 137a
274 11
XXV I. 6 137d 2 19
289
7 231 17 220
281 8 2 4 ,6 9 ,( 5 4 ) 23 201
280 16 264 202
275 21 207 137c
28
 CO NCORD AN CE I I I 293

31 75 35 30 39 36
32 113 36 6 5 ,6 6 43 48,(44)
35 «Sb 57 87 44 49
47 195 63 82 46 20

50 57 65 85 47 18
51 138c 72 90 48 29
52 138d 75 »? 49 27
77 88 50 47
xxxii, X 62 53 (33)
2 62 xxxiii. I 80 55 43
7 60 8 2 57 5
58 6
8 53 9 2
ix 1 59 44
9 64
17 61 41
10 55
ip 23 63 31
11 56
20 22 64 38
17 79
2T 28
67 137a
18 67
23 32
69 42
19 68
25 (46) yi 10
20 70 72 12
21 72 27 35
29 19 74 »
23 (72)
30 30 77 3
24 132
•?2 46 S3 14
25 69 85 50
25 58 33 34
86 50
35 21
26 59 87 15
27 59 37 40

a’i (a )jm ) 5 9 , 1 5 3 , 2 8 6 , na’i
(nayarp) 1213, 1 3 4 , §§ 220,
77
a’edi fayanti) 9 5
akakaáa (akarkaía) 2 2
akakfu (2kln k ;a n ) 2 4 9
ukadaggadi (P akatharpkathí)
4 7 ,§ § 1 1 , 4 9 , see kadaka- 90
akadaño (akftajña) 1 0 ,ak id afta
77
-akama (agama) 248
akamana’ i (ágamanáya) 88
akam i;adi (agami?yatt) 209,
210
akara(ág3ra)55,2 1 9 ,2 2 0 ,2 5 1 ,
-e 55, § 7 7 , na íak ara 12 3
akaroda (P akarontarp) 338
tkavuru?a-íevida (akipu ru sa-
sevitaj 7 1 .
tkijana (akiñcana) 1 7 , 3 4 , 1 6 7 ,
16 6 , 2 7 4
t a k iji(P okiñci) 1 5 ,ríú£ /kiji
akida(akfta) 3 3 7 ,k id ak id a2 7 1
akidaña íaltftajñá) 7 7 , $ 43b ,
akadaño 10
akuyano (P akOjano) 9 7
ak m ad u (a-kurvatth ) 2 9 0
akothcna (akrodha) 2 8 0 , § 42
akodhano (akrodhana) 2 7 8 ,
-asa 2 7 7
skrod h u 40, 45» I 51
a k r o it (!•) 2 8
sgana‘a (acandhaka) 2 9 0
agí («rtu) 3 , 4 , 7 4 , 3 1 9 , 3 3 1
•agi’o, see athagi'o, pajact'cna
*KJ-pankiry»'i (*gni-pancar>3)
+ . « « 0 . 38
•Ci«<iho\ am ofagni iilh op am a)
331
•p -h o tr a (*írni*) 3
•cada ( i i p n b ) 3 30
•c a n n a (icarana) ( , { ( 6
•chidra-vuti (-\-fttí) 2 4 1
• R r f* rr » fe s a r cto te n e * n u tn b e r s an d to sections ($$) o f P art I I o f (h e Intfoducttofl T h e ii g n t
m aiks earlier rradincs now rtjccte d , a fe w o f « h ic h h a\e b een in clu d ed in the in d ex, w ith cro«-
r t f f r e n m to the m d in fit in th e p reten t edition T h e p u rp ose o f these e n tn es 1* m erely to
form s » h ic h I m e appeared in p rin t elsen h ere, an d w h ich th e read er m j j w ish ta \ erify in the
pUtes
INDICES
I. D H A R M A PAD A '
ajakam o ( P anhagam a, adhi* anu’abisa (anukampin-) 315
gam-) 8 1 , § 22 anu’ija (anu-vidya) 2 4 1
ajatva (adhyátma) 53 anukamim (anugamwi) 202
ajayado (a-dhySyant-) 58 anuthehadu (P snutthaháno)
•ajavasana (adhyavasana) 262 113
t ajinaiarta, read ayina-áadi’a anutapadi (anutapyate) 337
ajetana (adyatana) 237 anulara (anuttara) 15 6 -9
aña (anya) 26 0, añi 2 2 7 , añe anu*thula (P anuip*thularp)
ISO; añe$a 6 1, 272 7 4 , .ani 1 , ano-thulu 19
«ña (ajña) 297 anudhada (anuddhata) 2 4,2 5,
aña’i (ajñaya) 250 - o 54
añatra (anyatra) 257. anudhamacari 19 1
Bñi, afte, tee »ña anuparyaya, tee ana*
afha¿j’o(s?}5ng]ka) 10 9 ,$ $ jo, anupaámo (anupiáyin*) 266,
186 áuhamipaii 2 1 7 .
-afta (artha) 3 9 , § 18 6 , set anupova (anupürva) 146
atha, artha anuprato (anuprspta) 2 5.
afhi(asthi) 284, -im 155 anupnjvma (anupunena) 32f>
anakare (enSgara) 2 0 , § 7 7 , -ehi anubhavadi ( P . anubhavanti)
32 19 7 .
anatva (anátman) 108 anuyara (anucara), /«» najan
anatha (anartha) 30&-9 anuyujadi(P anuyuñjanti)lt7
anadana (an3d3naip) 17, 29, anuyo'a (anu>oga) 2 44
34 a»urak¿adha 12 4
anadara (anantararp) 13 anuva(hida (anavasthita) 137«,
[a]nano (ánanda) 143 5 25, p 5»
anaparyaya (P anupan>ay3) anuvadadi (anupatanti) 171,
19 6 , §25 274, -vadida 262
anayara (anucara) tee sanayara «nuvadi’anu ( P anupJdijSnu)
anatra-, set anuvafhida, anuva- 19 1
?uda anuvadid.» (am/patita) 262
an a v ilo (P an im ila)4 0 , 2 2 5 anuvayasa(amjp3ylsa) 4 5 , *aíp
anavehino (¿napek;uv>) 17 0 , 4 0 , § 14a
J 7 i.fja anuvajuda (P atuvaisuta)
anaspru (P an3sa\a) 4 8 , § 5 7 , 1 3 7 d ,5 § * S , 57, P 5°
tee asa\a anuvikatadi (anu-vi-tft», P
antea (an ttja) 1 0 6 , 1 8 1 , $ 66 anukantati) 2 1 5 , 2 1 6
aniho (P anlgho) 1 2 , 1 3 , -a anu> icida’o (anus lanwjan)
« .§ 4 « 6 3 ,6 4
a n a , tee anu-thula anuSaya, see anofc'í
[-an ]u’a ( P «m iga) 1 7 4 cnuiaiadi (anu-Sls*) 230,
anu’abadi (anu-kám p-) 19 5, •áaát’a 2 2 7 .
» 9 9 ,5 38 anusu'a (anutsuka) 165

anusvato (anmtnaran) 63, 64;
-u 139b; § 77 .
-aneka(anika) 28; § 1 ¡.
ano-, see atju-thula.
anova-sari (anoka-sárin) 32.
anoée’a(anujaya) 88 ; §§ 21, 37 .
ata-dane?u (atta-da^a) 29.
atadrida (atandrha) 62; -i 60;
-o 319.
t atimahetu, read atva-hedu.
t afuma [not in text].
atmanam. (átmanatn) 227;
§§ H. 53 ;««atva-.
atva- (Jtman-) atvana 132,
259, 266, 276, 305, 321,
330; atraansra 227; aVvano
16, 30, 203-6, 264, 271,
372, 299, 322, 324; atvani
279; §§ 14, 53 , 63. See abo
cpds. folíowwg, and apana-
tha.
atva-kaña’i (P- atta-ghañfiáya)
258; §§ i 2 , 4 1 .
atvatha (átmártha) 265.
atva-dada (atina-danta) 341.
atva-hedu (átma-hetu) 324.
atha(P. atha, atho) 5, 51, 96,
208; athasa (ath’assa) 14;
see adha,
atha(attha) 25,265,266,282;
athadu 336; -«na 245; -asa
19 0,191; ¡ee atlia, artha.
athatba(P. ath'ettha) 96,208;
§ 24.
aths*da¿avi (artfu-datsávm)
31.
athsdu (arthatoh) 336.
athasa (P. ath’&ssa) 14.
ada (anta) 125.
ada[ ] (Sdáya, or antaka) 294.
ada’i (SdSya) 292.
•adana (ádána) see anadaria,
sadartfe^u.
adara (antaia) 2 .
adaSani (adarsaca) 243; -e
2 5 7 ;-ena 175.
odi(adí) 59.
adí’ndi(P. ádiyati) 19.
adikame’a (ati-kram-) 274.
adikradaya (atikrSnta-) 343.
adicu (iditya) 50; -o279.
adina (P. adirnta) 19; § 45.
adida (ntita) 131.
adima (antúna) 44.
adimañadi (atímanyatc) 62;
-mañe’a 61.
adivaka (P. ativíkya) 329.
D H ARM APAD A
adutha*citu(adusta-dtta) 195.
aduthu (adusta) 28.
adura(P. atula) 237.
adurena (Stura) 15 6 ; aduraswa
(*asya iva) 256.
t ade’a, read vade’a.
adepa (P. antakena) 261.
adha (P. atha, atho) 50, 65,
160; see atha.
adhava (atha vS) 226; in sense
‘and’ 223.
affrá’ o (adHkaí P . .Rtigo) 78;
§43«-
adhikachadi (-gacchatí) 9, 61,
129; pi. 2 13, 2 14; opí.
-k a ch i7 1,72.
•adhtvadida (-patita) 329;
§43Q-
adho (adhah) 199.
adhvana (adhvánam) 176;
§ 63'.
ana (andha) -u 282; aña-hodi
304.
anakarasma (andhakSra) 143.
in
-f- anatma [not í« tj.
t anasavu, read anasiru.
aña-hodi (undha-bhüte) 304;
§44-
ani’ama-saya (P. nanikama-
seyyarp) 270; §§ 38, so.
anika$ayu (a-ni?tas5ya) 192.
anini’a (anindita) 237; §§ 33,
66.
aou (andha) 282; see ana.
apa (alpa) 114 , 139a, 150,
1 9 1 ; -u 209, 210; íoc. -asa
2 57; apadu 2 S 1; aparado
(•tara) 145, § 64; and epds.
/o¡leming.
apata (aJpaka) 149.
aps-kiea (alpa-kjlya) 39.
apajha (alplrtha) 39.
apanatí\a(atmano ’rtham) 265;
§§ 52» 63.
apadu (alpa-tah) 281.
aparado (alpatara) 145; § 64.
aparitam (apititu) 200.
apa-labho (alps-libha) 62.
apaáu (a-paíj’an) 317, 318;
i 77-
apisa (alpa-) lie. ¡g. 257; see
apa.
apahara (alpáhíra) 39.
api cha (alpeccha) 32.
apu (alpa) 209, 210; see apa.
apodakc (alpodflka) 545.
oprakabhína (npragalbha) 222.
295
aprañasa (aprajña) 58.
aprati (aprápta) 133, 134; -e
66.
apramata (aptamsita) 115,
124; -u 118, 125; -o 129,
1 3 0 ,1 3 4 ;-a s a lI2 .
spramada (apramáda) 73, 74,
11 7 , 120, 126, 127, 128,
13 1, 132; -u 115, 223;
-ena 1 1 1 , 1 1 9 ,1 2 0 ; -i 116,
12 9 ,1 3 0 ;/of..asa 116.
aprnmada-vihañna (-\ih2rin-)
297; -ri’o 128; § 78.
apraha’i (apraháj-a) 9.
apri’a (aprij-a) 71, 72; -o 230.
aprudhajana-sevida (aprthag-
jaits-) 66.
aphala 290.
abha (abhra) 122.
abhaya 97; -i 273.
abhaya-dadario (•darsinah)
273.
abha'.'U (P. sbhabbo) 73.
ahhasamana(abhá$amána)235.
abhi-, see afso aví-,
abhjña (*jñá) 5.
abhidunasa (P. abhitunna,
-nna) 26!.
abhimatrdadi (-mardati) 1 H ;
-madadi 332; § 44.
•abhiramu 262.
abhiro>-adi (-rocati) 304.
abhhuyu fabhibhüya) 71, 72;
§44-
sbhüdfl-vadi (abhüta-vSdín)
369.
amarm&a (amSnu;a) 55.
amatraño (a-mütra-jiía) 217.
amara 256.
amí (ami) 197,269.
amitrehi 176.
amuña-labha (apunv.i-ljbha)
270; 1 36.
amuda (amrtaj 115,235 ,2 47;
-u 56.
amedi (anvcii) ¡33.201,202;
§ 36.
f amodi. read amedi.
aya, su a>u.
ayaca (ijití-) [$« § 71].
nj-aüu (fijanya) 173.
a>-aj-u (-icaya) 207.
sj-ara (a-jara) í 59.
ayan (jcSra) 60 : § (A.
aj-aeii (acaran) 2 1 0 ; -u 209.
a p w 'í (ájjpavc») {ir-- $ 7.*!.
.ip.?3, tee fi'j.
2 96 IN D E X
ayina-áadi a (ajm a-íatf) 2 avacithadi (avatis{hate) 2 76 a?utva (a-árutva) 252
ayircna (acirena) 153 avaja(a p a d - ) 3 2 5 ,ff avadi 6 6 asa (asya) 18 2 , nasa 1 1 , atha»
aynra (ajiva) 6 0 , - u 6 2 , -ena avaja 1 (avadhyayi) 3 1 1 4 , yasa (ca asya) 1 5 , hra
222 avajadi (apadyate) 270 (hi asya) 233—4 , svadi-sa 98
ayu (ayu h ) 1 4 5 , a y a 148 (§ 22 ) , avanedu (apanetum) 246 asa (ayasa) 169 (perhaps to be
ayo 17 2 avathani (apasia) 154 entended to ayasa § 27 )
ayujadu (P a*yojayaqi) 2 6 6 avadi (P apadi) 6 6 , see avaja asañadu (a*samyata) 325 331
ajo, tee ayu (T h e reading in 6 6 1 $ doubt­ asana (asana) 259
ayo’fl (ayoga) 243 v . 1 266 fu l became o f the break, and asata(asakta7) 7 9
ayo-ku^u (P ayo-guio) 3 3 1 , it is ju st possible that avaja asatsitha (asamsrcta) 32, § 17
| 66 should be read here also ) asada, read probably asata
ara (arat) 339 avaya (apaya) 5 asadhu (asadhu) 280, *oiu
araksida (>ta) 219 avara (apara) -e 3 5 , § 7 7 264
arage (ara-agra) 2 1 avarana (avarana) 283 asabhe (asabhya) 230
arañi (aranya) Ò, 259 avaramu (P apalambo) 98 asara (asára) 2 1 3 ,2 1 4 , -i 213,
aradi (arati) 33 avare (aparam) 3 5 , § 77 «ado (-atah) 214
aradha viryava(árabdha virya- a vaiai a (abalaiva) 1 1 8 , §§ $5 , asava (asrava) 26, 339, -kjayc
vant) 218 68 6 6 , 133 , 1 3 4 , anaspru 48,
aramu (arama) 63, 64 avavajt (P abyapajjham) 232 5 57
araha (arhant-) 22 3, -ada 26 , avi’anada (a-vyanant-) 256 asavudu (asaqivjta) 217
-adu 258 avya (avidya) 26 >»a 1 243 asido (asita) 7
arahada (arhantarp) 26 avijapu (i/ P abhijappa?) 31 asu’a (asuya) 267
arahadi(arhati) 1 9 2 ,1 9 3 ,2 4 2 avifhidu (a-vyutthita) 144 -a s p u , i « anasfvu
arahadu (arhatarp) 258 avirudhu (aviruddha) 29 ase’a (P asetha) 277
arahado(P arabhato)316 avivasadx, read probably \ iva- aseyane 0* asecanaka) 72
arahadha (P Srabhatha) 123 sadi aseva’iti(¿sevayitva) 211, 212 ,
an’a (arya) 177, 195 224, aviSiSadi (avaiifyate see com­ §8 0
289, -ana 116 , 175, 258 mentary on verse 20 0 ) asta-gachadi (astaip-gacchantj)
+ Srudhu, for udakarudhu, avi;a’i (abhi §aj-) 2 2 , § 44 14
read udake oru- -a[ve]kfa (-apek$a) 3 2 1 , see asti 2 3 , astu 14 0 , see ñasti
f aruyu, read amáu aveha, § 52 asvaduna(a smftimaot-) 113
aruíu (anihya) 1 1 9 , §§ 5 , 61 avek§idi (apeksate) 1 1 9 , § 52 asvi (asmin) 1 10 ,3 2 8 , § 53
aroga (arogya) 162 avcdi (see note on 310) 3 10 -1 5 aha (ahaip) 9 8 , see ahu
•amudu (tcntlen for -om udu, aiedu(apeta) 192 aha (abhut) 240
S ümuta, omuta) 2 5 1 , § 22 averana (*a-vainn-) 166 aha (aha, ahuh) 15, 16 9 ,170,
artha 24 ,2 5 4 2 5 5 ,-ena 24 5 , aveha(apek§a) 1 6 9 , see avek$a, aha 2 6 9 , »«ahu
see atha, a{ha §52 -ahara (abara) 39
Arthanupalino (-anupaíym-) -avehino (apek$m-) see anave- ahitsa’t (ahurisS) 104
266 hino ahidana (ahitaru) 264
- a l a (-Itila) tee ufh an e-, k ic i- , avradu (avrata) 188 ahin’ena (ahrfka) 2 2 1
$38 avha’i( a bha-) 5 0 , § 33 ahnradana (abhi'adana) 172,
ala’u m ( ilib u * ) 1 5 4 , §§ 34, •aia -u (a£va) 1 1 8 , see aipa­ 3 2 1, $44
68 n nica ahu, aho (aharjO 1 7 f f , 183,
tla g id o (alaipkfta) 60 -aiuha (aéubha) 1 5 6 -8 , see 275 , 3 2 9 , aha 9 8 , u,
• l i ji d a u (alajjitavya) 2 7 3 ¿uhaiuhu I 4 d, 21
•’ »lasa (P -VMamhi) 1 1 3 , aluhanupaii (aiubha-) 218 ahu (P ahu) 5 3 , see aha
5 38 aSe$a 83 84 [ahu (abhOt) see «ha ]
alasi'« (àlasya-, $ ao) 1 1 3 aioka 1 19 ahcija’i (P ahtlhayMp) 292-
•I iiU (a lú a ) 1 1 3 aipa, 1 « -ala §49
- '» li( - U le ) 3 3 5 ,$ 38 aipa-\?ka (s&va mcdha) 1 9 6 , aho (ahaip) 1» ahu
alt’a (il¡k a) 18 8 2 6 8 280. 5 55 aho-ratra (P aho-rattirp) 50
a lintna («lina) 2 2 2 ajifca (osanna) 4 j Sha («ntJ» íotig vowel tmttf*)
alolubhu (P aloluparp) 3 9 a jiju n ira (P asa^jam i nani) 2 6 9 , see aha
a« 274
- iv V u (iv ah a) 2 5 4 , f 39 ■tadhehi (airaddha) 228 1, see ca
a v a lu d j (ip jg a ta ) 15 3 ajamanadha (airavanatl) 2 5 7 , igida(P iñjitanO *83
n i b m i i l i ( i{ u b ] m i n ii ) 2 6 S §43« icíu (icch i) 188
 DHA.RMAPADA 297
ichadi (icchati) 179,330,336; f udakàrudhu, read udàk« «veda (upeta) 48, 193; uvidu
opt. ichi 324; ichi’a 178; 113.
pres. ptc. ¡dio 9 1 , § T ìi uda-kuhbo (-knmbha) 209, uvedi(P> vedi) 5 ,4 4 ; see vedi;
ichadu 248, § 22 . 210 . §3S-
i?ha(P. ettha) 126; cf. athatha, udaga-atu (tidagra-citta) 71. uvedi (P- uptti) 160, 269;
udacha’i (P. udacchidà) 84; uvehisi 161 ; cj. vedi.
ida (idam) 0 ,7 5 ,8 7 ,14 2 ,19 0 , §§ 33- uvehÌsi(P. upchisi) 161.
191, 200, 237, 325, 332; uda-binu (uda-bindu) 209, uvW i (ubhaya-) 269; uVu’i
(P. imarp) 122, 300—2 ; see 210 . 32;§44.
ima-. f udaita, read udake. usavha (isabha) 278.
-ida’i (-hitiya) 136; § 39 . udavahi (P. udabbadhi) 83; u?ivi (ut-iri-) 236; § 65 .
idara (itara) 275. §43. usu’csu (utsuba) 165; 5 65.
idTÌ’a (mdríya') 59; -o 53; uditha(P. uUiRhe) 110 ; §§ 24 , •uha’ì (ubhayarp) 32; § 44 ; ut
-esu 2 l7, 218, 326; § 37 , 65 . duhaya*, uvha’i.
idha (iha) 112 ,20 5,20 6 , 252, udira’ i (uditayet) 2 2 . uhij (P. ubfao) 4<j.
333; idheva 30. udumare^u (udumbara) 8 1;
ima (imam) 76; imina 156-8; § 46 . elea 137a, 195, 305-9, 315,
imasma 125; § 14 ; imi 100- udhva (ùtdhva) 199; § 63 . 3 20 ;-u 259 ; - 0 53; -t *51.
105, 343; ìrnani 1 5 4 ,1 5 5 ; udhvaiadha (ud-ht-; P. cka’jya’iieka-orya) 259 ;§ 32.
tee ida. uddharatha) 132; § 25 . «ka“o ((iaka) 259.
t imasa read imasma. unadana (P. ormata-) 339. eka-khano (P. cka-ghana) 239 ;
-iya’i, see cka-'iya'i (-carya) upajúi (P. uppajjitva) Z6 ¿ ; § 4*-
259. § 80. (etógra) 57.
-irya, ice sama’ìrya (-caryi) 3 6 , upada (utpáda) 18 1; upaya cVacu (ckatya) 252.
iva 237, 243, 244, 279; 263; § 33 . ckfltvu (-t\am) 9 ; § 1Afl.
•aseva, 242, 2 5 6 ,25 7, 266 ; upadida (utpatita) 8 2,275. ebuM P. ckadj) 152.
see aho va, ba, vìva, upaya (utpáda) 263 ; set upada; efcadi (ctìififa) 240.
is't (rsi) ifayu 236 ; isina 236 ; §33- eka*dhama&a (-dharma') 288.
Tayer$ajTJ 196. upu^adi futpunáti) 272. ekasana (ekàsana) 259.
i$u’i (*!r§ukin-) 186. uyane (udyána) 0 ; H 65 »66 . cka-sa>-a (cka-éayya) 2S9.
iha {reading doubtfuF) 8 6 . uyidatheija (ucita-artha) 245. ccasari (ati*sr») 86,8 7 ; § ; :a ,
urako («Riga) 81-90. cnc-jaga (ainsja'jinplia) 39.
u (P, nu) 145. [umudü, see amudu.] cda(ctani, vtad) 8 , 116, 163,
u¿?ita (u&sìpts) 42. uva-, see abo va- (5 35 ). 1 7 0 ,171-,-ina 1 5 ,9 9 ; -trra
ucayu (uccaya) 208, uvatadhadi (P. upakaddhatí) 8 ; «ehi 281 ; edahi 6 .
ucavaya (1?. uccàvacarp) 226. 2 1 5 ,2 1 6 ; §33. edadila (etadria) 99; -0 287.
«china (P. ucthinda) 299. uvaca'i (upa-ati-6 am*, P. edarahi (etirhi) 240.
ujídasa (P. ujjhit&smirn) 303. upaccagá) 46, 131. cdha (P. «ha) 286.
ulju] 136. uvadhi, see vadhí. cmam eva (evam eva) 150.
uju’o (rju-; equivalerti to P. -uvamu (-Upama) 138b, 300; 252 ; $ 5 6 .
ujjuko, vot ujuko) 97. -o 331. emù (evaerì 147, 14S, 219,
uju-kadesu (j-ju-gata) 321. uvarada, ice varada, 220,225, 239,253. 290-3,
ufhanamada (utth&Tia-vant-J uvavaja (opap 3d>*a) 197. 298; | 36 ; eva 257; etiam
uvavajadt (upapadyate) 232; tV9 150,252.
ufhaijc-’alasa (P. ufthSina-kà- vavajadi 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 ; uvavaja cva(cvnn») 257.
lamhi) 1 1 3 ; §§ zza, 38 , 65 . 197. «va 3 0 ,4 2 . 9 6 .91), 14 4 .14 9 ,
ufhancfla (utthüna) H I , uvaáadu (upaiánta) ISO; $ 3 5 ; 150, 175, 237, 252, 27f».
•udasai-ktya, see saga«») 303; tee vaiada. 299, 320, 323; rrnjfm svs
§38. j(u pa&tnyate)306-9 250; srt nt\-3.
uinma (uttoma) 296 ; -u 8 , 49, in-afomo (upa-) 181 ; ut c«idi(P. th r if 76.
vaénim, sagharavofamu. 10 6 ,10 7, IflS; 272.
298 INDEX
oru (P oram) 82, 88 karan a (karana) 18 6 k iliie ’a ( P k ilissey ya) 2 2 7 , c f
oruhanena (avarohana) 4 k a ia n i a iu (k aiaiu y a) 3 3 6 kele£a 8 5
[ omudu tee tamasa ] kan[ ] 332 k ii a (kfSa) 3 8 , 3 9
madadi (ava vad ) 230 k a n a (karya) 3 3 2 k i l il a (P kim -silo) 3 4 4
-ovi’a (P -upikà, tee tad-) k a n ’a (P k are yya ) 2 28 k is a (P kissa) 2 8 8 , see ki
234 k a n s a d i (k an sya ti) 1 2 5 , -am u k u k id a (k u k rta) 3 3 7
oha (ogha) §§ 39» 4 *. oha*tmo 3 3 3 , §25 k u ju (k m d h ya ) 2 8 5
7 8 , mahoho 85 294 f k aru read k atu k u n aru (kunjara) 1 2 3 , 1 3 2 ,
oharanaseva (avaharana >) 149 karod t 1 1 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 2 6 9 , §46
ohanna (P ohannam) 170 pres pic a-k arod a 3 3 8 [k u d a (kuta) see sagara-’u d a ]
ohasedi (ava bhas ) 1 2 2 , § 44 k arm a (karm a) u 20 0 , -ana -k u d u (P -g u lo ), tn a y o k u d u
344, see
katna 3 3 1 ,§ 6 6
ka(ka) 154 1 5 5 267 k a la (kala) 1 9 7 , 3 1 0 —1 5 ku nalesu (ku nd ala) 1 6 9 , §§ 4 5 ,
ka ena tee kaya k a la (kala) - u 1 3 3 , - e 3 3 5 , m 46
kajant 16 8 , tee kjjana cpds - ’ala ku d ayin o (kadacana) 2 6 5 § 2 2
kaji (kamcit) 2 2 , (P lumci) kalan a-p avaka (kalyana-p ap a- k u d h u (krod ha)2 7 6 ,see kodha
141, tee kiji k am ) 2 5 2 ,2 5 3 k u d h u (kru d d h a) 2 8 2
-kaña’i (P -ghafmaya) 2 5 8 , k a li (kali) 2 7 2 k u b h o (k u m b h a) 2 0 9 , 2 1 0 ,
§§ 12 ,4 1 k av u ru sa (k ap u rasa) 7 1 , - ch i §§ 48, 66a , see ku nu novam u
kadakaseva (kantaka) 258 228 k um araka (kum araka) 2 8 5
kada-kesu(P kala keso) 184 k avod akaiu (P kap otakam ) kum udu 2 9 9
kadigara (P baltngaram) 15 3 , 15 5 ku m u lana 14 5
§ 10 k asaya (kasaya) 1 0 2 , 1 9 3 k u m m ovam u (kum bhopam a)
katavi (kartavya) 293, §§ 220 , k asayu (kasaya) 1 9 2 1 9 3 13 8 b , § 48 ,see k u b ho
77 U (lam ) 1 4 5 , 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 2 8 8 , k u y a (kuryat) 2 0 7 , 2 0 8 , 2 9 3 ,
katu (kartum) 3 36 , § 28 n k im 1 4 3 , 2 5 7 , k isa 2 8 8 , see 3 3 0 ,3 3 8
katha 1 (katha) 246 kija, k ijana, k iji, k i-iila , k e - k u ya d i(* k u ry a n ti S ku rvanti)
kada (krta) 203, ¡et kida k ic a (krtya) 3 9 , 4 8 , 3 3 5 , 3 3 9 , 257
kada (-gata) 43, 47, 48, • 1 1 7 4 3 3 5 , k e c a 3 3 2 ( § 21 ) k u rad i (kurute) 2 7 6 , 3 2 2
100-3, 3 4 0, -ena 24 5 , k iea-k ari (k rtya-k anft) 3 3 5 k u laya (kula-ja) 14 8
-MU 321 kica-kale (krtya kale) 335, k u lu (kula) 1 7 3
kadaka [ ] (P kathamkatho) k ici- a ll 3 3 5 , § 38 ku v a d u (kurvatah) 2 9 1
90, akadaggadi 47 k ic i (krtya) 1 7 4 , 3 3 5 , §§ 22a, k u v i>a ( S k u r v ita , but not fo r ­
kanana (akandha) 56 7 7 , see kica mally equttalent) 2 0 7 2 29 ,
kani (krand-) 75 k ic i-’ali see kica-kale 250, k o m ’a 2 0 8 , § 11
kapa (kalpa) 89 kicha (krcchra) 2 6 3 , -e 2 6 3 , k u v e ’a (k u p ) 2 8 1
kama (karma) 63, 2 1 1 , 212, § 7 7 > -asu 2 8 7 , §50 k u ia la 6 0 1 2 7 , 1 9 5 2 3 2 ,3 0 1 ,
269, -u 63, 203-6, 211, kicha kad ena (krcchra-gata) 302
2 1 2 , .0 206 .asa 1 1 2 , 245 k u sid u (kustda) 2 1 7 , k u sidhu
-ani 324 see karma kija (kim ca) 1 8 4 3 1 6 , §430
is m s (kams) 9, JO, 20, 75, 96, kifsns (*kimcsna-) -esu 167, l e - flim - J see ke-gaaa, ke-
170, 17 1 178 , ehi 2 1 , 16 8 , kajani 16 8 , see akijana samacara
•ana 178 -esu 184 kiji (knncit) 1 5 , kaji 1 4 1 , keja k e 3 4 4 , k e h i 3 4 4 , k e yi (kecit)
kama kama (P kama-kama) 321 8 8 ,8 9
226 k itv a (krtva) 2 2 3 2 ,2 6 9 , 3 3 7 Ke-guna (ku p -gu rw -) 3 44
Lama-guna (kama ) 75 k id a (krta) 2 0 0 , 2 0 4 , 3 3 7 k e ca (krtya) 3 3 2 , § 2 1 ,see kica
kamanunu (karma aratila) 63 kad a 2 0 3 , -gad a 1 7 1 k e ja (P k im a ) 3 2 1 , see kiji
-kami’a ( gammatp) 2 4 7 , § 78 k id a-k ica (k rta k fty a ) 48 kena’i (k e n a a t) 2 5 7 , kenayi
baya (kaya) 103, 138b, 2 1 1 , kid akid a (krtakrta) 2 7 1 19 8
2 12,3 4 0 -« n 300 u l 5 3 , k id ava (kitava) 272 kena 344
ka’ena 23, 51 52 114 , k im , see ki k e y i ( k e a t) 88, 89
15 6 -8 ,2 3 2 , § 3 7 k iy ad i ( k n jn te ) 3 3 9 k e va la 3 7
la y a kada (kaya-gata) 340 k irta (kirti) 1 7 2 , §§ 24 , 26 keleSa (kleSa) 8 5 , t f kiliSe’a
ka>a Sunna O^ka àura) 2 2 1 , -k irya’i (-carya) 4 , § § 2 z a , 38 , 227
§38 see p a n - ke$u (kela) 18 4
-kara190 k ilith a (klisfa) 2 0 3 2 0 5 , tf ke-sam acara(P kirti-sanxacaro)
karako ( U n b ) 322 sagilitha 344
3oo
ja, tee a
Ja, tee §5 6-64
ja i (dhyaya) 75
j a i (*dhyayia- S dhyamrt-}
4 7 ,4 8 ,ja i5 0
ja’e a (P jayetha) 303
•jaga (-janght) 39
jagaru ("jaggara-, not formally
equivalent to P jagaro) 118
jada 1 0 <>ta) *. 2 . § 3 9
jana (jsaa) 1 17 , 119 , 275,
3 4 4 ,- o 322, bahojano 151,
329
jana Jana (dhyana) 58
janada (P janato) 14
janadi (janati) 243, 244, 282,
pi 43, 235
janayadi 247
jitva (P hantva) 12, 1 3 , (P
jhatvà) 288 289
jada-(jata) ena293, -asa 14 7,
•ana 279,296
jadi (jati) 125, 1 6 1 , -i?U 287,
m i aayaca
jadi k?aya (jati ) 5
jadima(jati-mant ) 252
jadu(jantu)38,3 19 , u?a221,
222
jabodanaseva (jambunadasya
iva) 2 4 2 , §§ 48 , 64 , 66<j
P 50
jaya (jay®)
jayadi(jayate) 173
jayadi (dhyayati) 92, ptes pn
jayadu 129, ja- 130, 134,
jayada 38
jara(jara) 111, 148,160 161,
223 332 . e 140
jala(jila) 171
java (java) 2 0 1 , 202 pure-
javu 98
jahadi (jahati) 81-90, 178
jahi (P jahe) 51, 52, 78,
274.
ji tee ca
[)i]kiisa (jighatsa) 163
jiña (P Jine) 280, jmi 305,
§24
jinaOiipa) 8 1-9 0 ,1B2
jidavi(jitàvii>) 47
jimi Calmi) 140
jiyadi(jiryanti) 160
jjyamanenafjjrywnána ) 159
jiva (j'va) 233
juano 322, r/ jmno
jivamuQivama) I65«8
jivi (jivet) 141, 316-18
IN D E X
jm nofjivm*) 1 1 2 ,258,jnrano
322
jivida (jtvtUt) 363, 316—1 8 , -1
J 5 i, 257
jenadi (P jinati) 19 8 , § z i ,
ecus na yava 1 19 8 , § 72
joda’i (dyotayet) 236
•fia (-jria) tn akidana, matrafio,
flatva (/riatva) 10 87, 1 1 6 ,
1 6 3 ,2 14 , 2 6 5 ,§ 19
nadihi (jòati) 1 7 6 ,2 6 1
.{ha (-stha) 1 1 9 , -{ho 119 ,
322
{liana (sthana) 268, -ehi 23,
2 8 1 , -nani 270
fhida dhamasa (sthita-dhar-
ma) 277
dajamano (dahyam3na) 75,
-nena 159 , § 65, 61
d&hu (dahan) 7 4 , § 77
na (P nam) 3 , 1 1 201, 202,
207, 208, 242, 278 , §§ 45 ,
67
nadaka (snataka) 41 [reading
uncertain See commentary
to which it should be added
that i f the word is read as
hadaka, a closer parallel is
provided by Niya 320
grheyati, Rapson, Khar In­
ter 111, p 321 ]
ta(tam tat) 56 62, 126, 169,
173 ,178 189 200 209-10
2 17-18 , 249, 264, 274
289 321-2, 334-5, 338-9
tarn 17-49 53 183 275
takara (tagara) 295
takaru(tat kara) 190
tam(tani) 154 155
tanu (tanu) 194
tata (tapta) 331
tatra 152, 200 303, tatrai
(tatra ayam) 59
tada(P ta to )l! 341 see tado
tada (t?da) 106 107, 108
227, 282
tadafil (cada anyan) 227
tadi see tadiia
tadmo(P tadi ) 286
tadlia (tadria) 57, 177, 231,
3 3 5 ,tadi 231
tadu tee tado
tado (tatah) 15, 76, 2 0 1,2 0 2,
tada, 1 1 , 3 4 1, tsdu 60
tadow a(P tadupjta, -lya.B S
-upaka -upaga) 234
tadn (tantra) 149
tadha (tatha) 59,96, 330
tadhakada(tathagala) 2 6 7, -asa
43
tadhavidha (tathavidha) 249
taáheva (ttthltva) 96
t tam read tadn
tam, tee ta
tamasamudu(tamasi urnutam)
2 5 1 ,5 *2
tamu (tamas) 282
tara-gana (tata ) 197
taruva (P darujarp) 169
tava (tavat) 143 287, tavada
67, 114 , 182
tarada r*iva (tapatam) 279
tavadi (tapati) 5 0,28 3,337
tavena (tapah) 8
tasa «mttm/or \t%i 340, § 23
taja (trena) 84, $f 9 5 0 , tee
tasina
tasa (tasmlt) 16, 238
tasa (tastrun) 207
tasa (tasya) 54, 98, 172, 182,
19 8,327
tasina (tj-$na) 223, see taia,
§50
tina (tima) 90, -o 78
tidiksadi (titiksate) 28 , -ami
329 -e’a 279
tiya (tiryak) 199
tuchu (tuccha) 153
f tunati, read dunadi
tun ena (turya) 57
tusi-bhavena (tusnim-bháva)
2 3 7,§ 9
te (te) 1 2 8 ,1 7 4 ,2 1 3 -1 4 339,
§67
tena 1*55, tena teneva (o j place)
323
teyasa (tejas ) 50
telena (taila) 319
te?a (tesam) 145, 174 181,
339 tentten tasa 340 23)
[ ]tesu (broken) 314
trakehi (p cakkehi) 97, see
cako
Crana 1 ftrána) 261
tranadha (tranata) 261, § 43 a
ttasesu 18
tridi a (trtiya) 270
tnhi (tnbhihj 6 , 7, 23, 281

tredasa (trayodaáa) 223.
trevija (traividya) 4; -u 6 ,
tvaya (tvacarn) 82-90.
thalc (sthala) 137b,
thavaresu (sthávara) 18.
thina (strinárp) 174.
thula (sthüla) see anu-.
thera (sthavira) 183; -u 182,
223; -o 185.
dana (danda) 18, 80; -e?u 29.
danena (dána) 280,
dada (danta) 3 4 1; -u 80.
dama (dama) 192, 193; -epa
8 , 111.
daya (P. dajjñ) 281.
dora (dSráfj) 270; -e?u 169.
t daruva, read taruva.
darmehí (dharma) 344; else-
vihere imiten dh-.
darlaga 175.
daráapo (daráin-) 273; daiapa
2 3 1; daáígo 213; §§ 23 , 58 .
darlavi 273; daáavi 31.
dala’itha (dálayitvS) 85; §§ 1 1 ,
49 , 80.
daáana, see daráano.
daéabaloveda (-upeta) 48.
daáayadi (daráayaati) 226.
düéavi, see daré-,
daáino, see daráano.
dñéiina (P . dassiva) 73, 74.
dahara 146, 152; -u 184; -o
152.
di (iti) 1, 6 , 7, 6 fc.; 182, 185,
187, Éfc.; § 6 7 ; mitten du
68 , 7 9; § 35 , p. 5 1 .
di (te) 2, 76; de 75; § 67 .
ditha, -o (drsta) 151, § 60 ;
•e va dhatmi 197; di(ha-
dhama- 135.
difhí (drstí) 98, 121, 258,
273; § 58 .
diva (dirá) 5 0 ,1 0 0 -5.
diva-ratra (divá-rátram) 319.
divu (P. dípam) 1 11 .
dila (P. disS) 9 7 ,29 5 .
dliadi (P. dissanti) 151.
diáo diia 155.
di^pa (drftvi) 203-6; dispani
15 4 ,1 5 5 ; §§ 55 , 58 .
du (iti) see di.
du (tu) 1, 62, 244,256; § 6 7 ;
(P. ca) 114 , 1 17 ,1 2 2 ,1 6 0 ,
176 ,19 3 ,2 14 (torítten nu?),
222, 235, 340; (P. ve) 68 ,
DH ARM APADA
193, 234, 264, 2 7 5 ;y o d u
(P. yo dha) 19, 20, 46, 68 ,
183; see nu.
dukha (duhkha) 106-8, 250;
-am 75 ; -u 176, 180, 207,
262, 274, 283; -asa 30,
130; -usa 125, § 25 , p. 5 1 ;
see duha, dokhu.
dukhariuvadida (P. dulckhánu-
patito) 262.
dulíha-vasama-kami’a (P. duk-
khüpasama-gáminarn) 247,
dukhusada(P. dukkhass’antam)
125,
dugadi’o (durgati) 52; § 11 ;see
dru-.
duijadi (P. dhunáti) 69;
dhupBíha 1 2 3 ; § 49.
duduhi (dundubhi) 235; § 48 .
t dubakati, read -du batsadi.
duragama (P. dürangamam)
137a.
duha (duljkha) 16 3,179 , 201;
-u 13 3 ; -ej?a 226; see dukha,
dokhu.
duhaya (ubhaya) -ayasa 183;
-a’cija 245.
duhayatra(P. ubhayattha) 205,
206.
duhino (duhkhín-) 246.
de (te) 75 ; see di.
deva 43, 47, 62, 242; «ana
120, 281 .
devada (-tá) 268, 343.
deáada (P. desenta-) 235, 247;
§ 23.
desida (-ta) 3, 299; § 19 □.
deáedi (deáayati) 24, 54; -ehi
236 (§§ 22a, 39); -áada 235,
247.
dokhu (duhkha) 246; see
dukha, duha.
dosa (dvesa) 76, 298; -o 26,
27,284.
dosi (dvesin-, düsin- T) 13.
dosu (dosa) 185.
draksu (daksa) 255; .0 322.
drigha(dlrgha) 1 9 ; -am 176.
dridha (drdha) 16 9 ,17 0 ,3 16.
dru[ ] (P. dubbaniia) 140.
dru’ajavasana (dutadhyávasa-
na) 2 6 2.'
dru’abhiramu (durabhirama)
262.
drukara (duskara) 264.
drukida (du?kfta) 23,337.
drugadi (durgati) 203, 273,
301
325; dugadi’o 52; drugga*
d e’o 5 1; §§ : r , 49 .
drugahido (durgrblta) 215.
drugha (durga) 132; § 49.
drucarida (duicaríta) 328.
druchana (duéchanna) 219.
d rujivu (duqfva) 222 .
drudaáa (durdfáa) 272.
drunivarapafP. dunnivárayairO
136.
drupañu (duipr^jña) 2 1 1 .
drupamok?u (P. duppamuñ-
cain) 170.
drup rava’i(dufpravríjam ) 262.
drubala (durbala) 217.
druina-patra 69; § 19 .
drumedha (durmedha) 2 ; -o
258.
drumedhino 117.
druraksa(P. dürakkha) 136.
drulavhu (durlabha) 173.
d ru lili’a (P. dussilyarp) 330.
drulilo (duhálla) 329.
droparamutho (dusparíim fjf3)
2 15; § 2 1 .
drohini 77.
dvayu 12; dva’esu 14.
-dvara (P. -ddara) 35; § 62 .
dhak$¡na (P. dhaip$in3) 221.
dhapa (dhana) 117, 162, 260.
dhama (dharma) 37, 98, 108,
127, 201, 202, 244, 252,
253, 256; -o 236; -u 64,
80, 110, 114, 225, 233,
234, 236, 247, 255, 282,
286, 318, 328, § 7 5 ; -epa
156-8, 267; -asa 191, 257,
277, 288; -i 126, 132;
-a’u 304; -ana 109; -esu
313; ditha-dhama- 135;
sadhama 256, 263; -ena
267; -i 126, 132. See
dharma, andeompoundsíisUd
separatdy.
dhama-kada (-gata) 1 0 1 .
dhama-cari (-cario) 1 1 0 ; -yari
328; anndhamacari 19 1;
§ 66.
dhama-jivino 112, 258.
dharaa-fho (dhanna-stha) 322.
dhamapi-sadhada (P. -san-
thata) 38.
dhama-dhara (dharma-) 249;
-o 114.
dhama-pada 301, 302;
dharma- . 0
303 IN D E X

dhama-pridi (dharma priti) nadhi (naddhi, naddhn) 42 nivana (P. mbbana) 93

324 nadhikachadi (na adhi-gaccha- nivana(ninSna) 76,162,163,
dhama yan (dharma-carin*) ti) 61, 213 299; -aseva 73, 99, mr*
3 2 8 ,-can 110 , § 6 6 nanadi (nandati) 204, 206, vanasa 58
dhama-radu (-rata) 64 §§ 45.46 ntvatadi (nivartate) 144,nivar-
dhamaramu (dharmarama) 64 nanahi (nandin ) 228, § 24 tadi 15
dhama-vma i (P dhamma- nani (P nandi) 36 r.ivadena (nipáta) 209, 210
vinaye) 125 nabhimardadi (na abhi-) 1 1 1 nivara’x [vmtten navara’i] (m*
dhami'a (dhaimika) 278, -o nama (nama) 79, 274, -u 17, varayet) 230
324 § 39 97 ruvartadi (nivartate) 15, mva>
f dhamiho read dharm'o nama (návam) 7 6 , § 36 tadi 144
dhaya -u (dhvaja) 236, § 63 nama-rm asa (P nama-rupa- mvasa (mvasa) 5
dhara (dhara) 38 249, -o 114 srrum) 274 invmadi(P nibbindati) 106-8
dhara’i (dharayet) 275 namase’a (P namasseyya) 3 nivudu (nirvjta) 29
dharma 24, 54 55 57, 63, 64, nara 152, 294, -u 186, 190, mvcla'i (mveiayet) 227
67, 69, 121, 160, -0 3, -u 282, 0 252, 270 mvnjdlCnmfti) 159
250, il 9 7 , 2 2 4 -esu 1 4 , naralca [perhaps to be read infama carino (P. msarnma-
darmehi 344, dithe V3 niraka] 269 karino) 112
dharmi 197, sadharma 63, nan (nan) 152 msa’j (P nissaya) 258
6 4 ,. u 250 , see dhama + natethina, read na te thina nisedara (m;tddharaxp) 231,
dharmakama (-agama, or per na\acithadi (na avatisjhate) §§ 49. SO
haps dharma kama) 248 276 msedhe(P nisedho) 1 5 ,5 1 49»
dharma*trakehi (P dhamma navaja1! (na a\adhya>0 31 50
cakkehi) 97 na\ara‘i (mvarayet) 230, § 24 niha’j (mdhaya) 18,80 , § 42
dharmapadssa (-asya) 0 dha- na\ijapu (na abhi-dhya*?) 31 nihina kama (nihina karma)
mapada 301, 302 navisa'i (na abhisajet) 2 2 , § 44 269
dhaimino 181 navedi 3 15 , see avedi nu 143, 241, 288, perhaps
dharmuyane (dharmodyana) 0 nasa (na asya) 1 1 wntlen for du 253, 337,
dhi(dhik) 11 140 nasti (nasti) 23, 58, 79, 168, (214?)
dhira (*i) 41 (?) 45 9 6 ,16 9 , 23 7,2 38 ,2 6 1 nudadi 119
170 1 7 7 ,2 2 6 ,-u I19 210, -m ama (mkama) in am ama, ne’amanana (nlyanuna) 267
O 1&4 270 nekhama (naiskramya) 66
dhunatha (P dhuoatha) 123 , nikhamadha (nis-kram-) 123 necasan (P na accasan) 86,
dunadi 69, § 49 niihu (niska) 242 8 7 , § 22a
dhorelea áila (dhaureya lila) mgiáa vadi (mgrhya-vadin) neda (nida) 142
*7 7, §3 8 231 § 6 1 nedi (nayanti) 267, § 27
nica (mtya) 11)0-3, 1 4 7 ,1 5 6 — neva (naiva) 233, 3 11-13 ,
na 1, 4, 9 ,1 1 , , §§ 45 , 67 , 158, 172, 222, 238, 256, vmtlen nevi 3 10 , § 24
72 3 4 0 ,-am 1 7 5 , -e 147 no (na u) 276, 335
na’i (tu ayatp) 133 ,13 4 ruca (mtya) 245
naiara (nagara) 284 nina (ninda) 238, 239, 270, paka(pakva) 146, ana 147
nako (nago) 329 276 pakaia (prakara) 284
nsksatra-patha 177 ninadi (njndanti) 237 paksiti (praksipte) 143
nijakamo (P na ajjhagama) nimdu (mnditum) 242 paga (panka) 132
* 1 § 22 ninido (nindita) 240 § 33 pacha (palcat) 34, 122, 283,
nafiesa (na anyesam) 61 nine* a (nmda era) 276 3 3 6 ,3 3 7 , -adu 161
nada(? nata) 85 mmedha (mr-ma ) 156-9 paja (paSca) 36, 78 , paje 78,
nadakara (P nalagaram) 123 nua esu, tee juraya § 22 a , pajasu 326, § 50
nanutapadt (na aim-) 337 miagada (P niraggalam) 196 pajagi’ena (P pañcangiiena)
nanubha\adi(na anu.) 197 mratba (tmasta) 153 57
nanuvadadi (na snupatanti) rara>a 2 15 ,2 7 0 , mra’eju 131, pa(j]valide(P pajjalite) 143
274 2 1 1 , naraka (niraka7) 269 padikoma (pratikarma) 335
nanuvikatadi (na ami») 216 nimjadi (mntdhyante) 181 padikoladi (pratikrolati) 258
natva- (na atmt.) 324 nirovadhi (P nirüpadhi) 194, padijagare’a (prati*jagj f "SSS
nadi ( 1) 148 232 ptdiruva (pratirüpa) 60, -a’l
nadimañadi (na at*-) 62, -e’a nirvana» (nirvana) 58, see 246, pradiruvj 227
61 mvare padaviju (piati-vyadh-) 70
 DH ARM APADA 3°3
p a d isa d h a ra (P. p a tisa n th S ra ) •páramutho (parimrsía) 215, pavuse’ana(prapuípakáni)300.
60. 216. pasadi (palyati) 5, 106, 108,
padha'i (prthivl) 153 ; § 34 , paraya’a (parájaya) 180. 25 1, 253, 262; imper. pasa
p. 5 4 ; pradhavi 196, 302. parayano (paráyana) 141. 2S7; paáadha 92, 286; píe.
padhama (prathama) 14 4; see porayidu (parajita) 180. paáadu, -O 194, 317, 318 ;
pradhamu. para[vara] (P. párápárarn) 35. neg. apasu 317, 318 ; opt.
pangiju'abisa (prana-anukam- parasa (P. paramhi) see para, paái 164, 231.
p in-) 3 15. pari (P. pára/n) 35, § 7 7 ; see paáu (pasu) 334.
panada, see panida. para. pina (pinda) 3 31; § 45 .
pana-bhata(P. panna-bJiSraip) f parikama-, read padíkama. pidara (pitararji) 1 2 .
2 7 ;§ 45- parikiea (parikrtya, kmtati) t pu’a’e, reaá puya’i.
pani- (pipi) see prani«. 178. puña (punya) 204, 206, 208,
panida, -u, -0 (pandita) 116 , parikirya’i (paricaryl) 4; 321; -e 46, 183, § 7 7 ; -u
i l 9, 135, 177, 224-35, §§ 2 za, 38. 195; -ena 210; -asa 208,
238-9, { 45 ; -aija 230 ; patite ina (-kslna) 20, 33, 36. 210 ; neg. amufia 270, § 36 .
pagada 231, 234, § 24 . panca’i (parityága) 164; § 22 a. puña[ve]ksa(punyápeJífa) 32Í.
patra (pattra) 69; -e 2 1 ; § 19 . parica’i (parityajet) 178. puriapunu 95, 207, 208, 246»
patsukula (pámsuküla) 38 ; f parijaga[ ], read padí-. punarbhava 4 5; -u 7.
§ <7- pañjinam (-jírna) 142. punu (punar) 1 6 1 ; § 6 9 ; see
padu(P. patham) 1 7 7 ; -i 201 ¡ paritasadi (P. -tassati; see also mana, mano, muño,
-e 303; § i t . BHSD, paritasyati) 37. putra 26 1, 334; -esu 169.
pada (pada) 53, 70-72, 109, pandi (P. paletí) 292. pudi (pQtí) 14 2, 156-& ; -ina
114 ,3 06 -9 ; see also dhama-, paríphanamana (-spandamàna) 158.
dharma-. 332. pudi’a (putika) 268.
pada (pàdau) 343. parimajasi (-magasi, S . -márk- pupha (?)(pu?pa) 8 1; «eepu$3.
pada’idi (pratáyate?) 295. ?i) 2 . puya’i (pOjayet) 320.
padanado (patanatah) 147. parinwcadi (-mueyate) 179. puyara (püjaná) 320.
padumu (padma) 303. paríyara (paricaret) 3 1 9 ; § 24 . puyadi (puryate) 209, 210.
pajdjvalide (?) (prajvalica: see parivako (-pakva) 182. puyidu (püjita) 323.
note on verse 143), parivajedi (-varjayati) 141 pura (P. puré) 1 6 1; -e 34.
panodi, see pranodi. (broken); opt. -a'i 7 7 ; absol. purera (purána) 81-90.
papavuse’ana, read pavus-. -eti 127, § 80. purufa 1 7 3 ,1 9 6 ; -u 207,208,
payipadu (P. padnantam) 294 ; parivaya (parivrajet) 2 0 ; § 24 . 277; -asa 96; see kavurusa,
parivararia(P. -váranarp)98. poruña,
» j;-
payijidi, see payefjdi. parivrayadi (-vrajanti) 170, purufayafiu (-Sjanya) 173.
payuvasadi (paryupSste) 233, 171 ; opt. parivaya 20, puru?a-veka (-medha) 196.
234, 273. pari?a (pari?ad) 13. puré (P. pura) 34; -a 161.
payedi (P. pacenti) 148. parihana'i(P. -hanáya) 73. purejavu (P. purejava^i) 98,
paycsidi (P. pacessati) 301; parihayadi (P. parihSyati) 63, pun^-nivasa 5.
-i$idi 302; § 5 1 . 64, 336.
para (para) 67, 265, 270 ; gen. parihasidi (paridhlsyati) 192. .
puvag 8ma(pürvam-gama) 2 0 1 ,
202
-ass 324; ¡oc. -asa 110, 328, pare?a (pare^árp) 190, 2 71. puvi(púrva) 1 2 2 ,336; -e 335.
§ 53 1 -e$a 190, 2 7 1 ; paratri psrva’ido (pravrajita) 16 ; -asa pusa (puspa) 301,30 2; -ti 290,
269. 99, 29 1; -ani, -ana 294, 298;
para (P. párain) 8 1-9 0 ; 35, parvada (parvafa) 218 ; pra- § 5 9 ; see puspa, pupha,
47, 48; -i 35, § 7 7 ; -ko (P. vada 119. pavuse’ana.
pjragú) 14, 161. parvahi'a 1 6 ; § 39 . puskara 2 1 .
para-kada (para-gata) 47, 48. palare (paivaia) 139a, puskalama’i 1S6.
parakamu (paiSkramya) 9, 10. pálida (palita) 182. puspa 292, 29 3 ; see pusa.
parako (P- páragü) 14, 16 1. pava (pápa) 203, 205, 207 ; -12 pesalehi 229.
paratri (paratra) 269, 223; -asa 207, 209; -e 46, poranam (paurSna) 237; -nani
paratheiia (parártha) 265. 183, § 7 7 ; -ena 209; -ani, 1 3 9 b ,298.
para-darovaseví (-dáropasevín) -aga I, 16, 6 8 ,18 9 , 324. porusa (P. porísü) 146.
270. pavaka (pSpaka) 31, 69, 2 1 1 , posadhu (P. uposatho) 327.
p aram a 1 5 6 - 9 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 2 6 4 ; 252, 253. postaka (pustaka) 0 .
»u 13 4 , 2 5 5 , 2 6 5 ; - 0 16 2 , pavi'a (püpiks) 228,256. pra’ ujadi (prabudhyante) 10 0 -
163. pavi’u (püpfyafj) 231. 105.
3<>4 IN D E X
prakabhiija (pragalbha) 2 2 1 pram uni(P pàpune) 1 3 0 ,3 2 6 , preca (pretya) 20 5,2 0 6,26 9
p nkarodi 195 § 3 6 , s e e praaodi precasan (pratt sf-) 86, 87,
prakhamno (praskandin-) 2 2 1 , pram oja (pramodya) 7 2 , -u § 224
§5 45. (22 ) 5 6 ,2 4 7 . prodhu (P poso) 240, §§ 43 ,
prace’a (pratyay») 88 pram odadi (pram odate) 204, 5«
p rafia (prajnà) 49, 58, 119 , 2 0 6 , -l’a 116, 129, 130
185, 233, 234, 2 4 1, 248, prava’i (pravraj-) 2 6 2 , set phagu (phalgu) 327
254, 255, 260, -Rai 107, òm -. phanana (spandana) 13 6 , § 54
113 , 304, -fiaya 106, 2 5 4 , pravatara (pravaktàraip) 231 phala 146, 28 7, «am 9 1 , -ant
§§ »1. 37 pravada (parvata) 1 1 9 , par* 258, .ana 1 4 7 , u e aphala,
piana (piSjna) 1 7 7 , -asa 59 vada 218 saphala
piana ¿rana) 1 9 5 , see pana- pravadi’a (pàrvatiya) 148 phaladt(P phallati)258
prana bhudana (prana-bhùta) pravadido (prapàtita) 27 phali’a (pangha) 4 2 , § 39
109. [pravaya]di (ptavrajanti) 146 phs?a (sparii) 3 7 , § 58
pranayo (*prani, S -in) 150, pravsra 49 pftasa’i (spr¿.) 1 1 4 , | 5 4 , set
§78 pravithasa (pravifta) 55 phus-
pianina (prànin-) 148 praviéi (praviSya) 251 philunehi (piluna) 228
pranina(pani-)2 9 9 ,§ 51 pravucadi (procyate) 1, 6 , 7, phufha (npR^a) 226
pranuyu (pranuda) 9 ,1 0 , § 3 3 1 8 5 ,1 8 9 phusadi (spriati) 128 , §§ 54,
prata (prapta) 128 , -o 5 , see pravedidt (-vediti) 224 5 8 , phusamu 6 6 , § 2 5 ,
aprati pTaverayadi (P pavedayanti) pha?a’t 114
prata’a (prSpti) 127 1 6 0 ,§S 43 fr, 64 phenovamu (phenopama) 300
pradiprocha (P pappucchi) pravha (prabha) 1 9 7 , § 44
aor 343 pravhagu-(P pabhangu ) -una ba (-ip va) 3 ,4 0 ,6 9 ,1 2 3 ,1 3 3
pradunukhe (pratirnok$a) 5 9, 1 5 6 , -uni 155, t f § ioa 153, 154, 2 1 7 , 29 9, § 68 ,
-khasa 326 pravhaguno(P pabhangunarp) see v a
pradiruvi (pratirOpa) 2 2 7 , see 142 batsadì 336, see bhatsadi
padi- praSaJa (praSarpsj) 2 3 8 , «asti baña (foarjdh?) 2 8
pradilabhu(pratilabha) 263 238, 239 banana (bandhana) 146, 169,
pradivadd (prativlta) 295 praiajadi (praiam santi) 62, 170 , am 92
pra[divu] (pradipa) 143 120, 2 4 1 ,2 4 2 , 2 8 9 , § 6 6 bañava (bandhava) 261
pradivena (pradipa) 253 praSajidu (praäamsita) 240, babaka (balbaja) 169, § 38
pradisvadu (pratismrta) 184, 242 baia (baia) 28, 172, ne; avala*
>0 33, 96a praiafia (praäna) 343 118
pradu (pratar) 151 prasada (prasada) 119 baia (baia) 1 17 119 , 176 , -u
pradu^hena (pradusta) 201 prasadssa (prasada) 3 10-12 209, 223, 233, 336, -ehi
pradhamu(prathama) 13,2 2 7, prasanu (prasanna) 69, 7 0 , 1 7 6 ,2 3 5 ,-ana 175, 230
padhama 144 -nena 202 balaneka (P ballnlkam) 28,
pradhavt (prthiv!) 196, 302, prasahadi (prasahate) 180, § «i
see padha'i 2 1 7-18, 276 bali (balm) 113
pranodi(prapnoti) 134, panodi praha’i(prihaya) 3 7 , 125,170, bahire (P bahiram) 2 , § 77
255, § 4 5 , set pramuni 171 bahu?uda (-äruta) 249, see
pramajadi (pramàdyati) 114, prahanani (prahana) 135 bahosuda
12 2 , -e’a 1 1 0 , absol -eti prahata (prahartf--) 285 bahett (P bahetva) 6 8 , § 80 ,
12 2 , § 80 prahat\ana (pra-han-) 20 . set brah-
pramana-kida (-kfta) 200 prahare’a (pra*hr ) 1 1 , § 79 baho (bahu) 114 , 190, 232,
pramata (pramitta) 75, 115, prahodi (prabhavati) 2 4 6 , § 44 260, 278, 293, § 2 1 , see
1 3 3 ,-u 190,270, -e$u 1 18 , prahona (P pahutam) 195 cpds following
pramaftana] 339 p n ’a (pnya) 71, 72, 2 6 6 , -u baho-jagaru (P bahu-jàgaro)
Pramati (P pamado) 75 3 2 2 ,-0 2 3 0 ,.ani 15 118
pramada (pramada) 1 17 ,12 6 , p n ’a-gaha (P piya ggàhl) 266 baho-jano (P bahujjana) 151,
134 , -u 115, 119, 120, p n ’apri’a (pnyapnya) 71, 72 329
•ena 12 1 , -asa 133, -1 73, pridi (priti) 56, 224 baho.bhanino (P bahu bham-
74 pruju (püjya) 4 7 , § 51 naip) 237
pramucadi (-njueyate) 250 prudhajana (pfthagjana) 66 baholu (bahula) 7 2 § 21
pramujadi (pramuficati) 298, prudhijane (pfthagjana) 304 baho;ukena (P bahuaaccena)
•e'a 283. pre’anadi (prajànati) 3 0 , § 22a 6 S* l§ 33. 38
 DH ARM APADA
b3hosuda (bahuíruta) 344, bhatsadi (dhvamsate) 268; t bhichavj, read bhik$aw.
245, 246, 247, 248; -ehi batsadi 336; §§ 49 , 63 . fbhujje’a (P . bhuñjcvya) 331.
229; bahumda 249. bhada (bhranta) 275. bhuta (bhubta) 331.
bi (-m pi) 1 1 4 ,1 6 0 ,1 7 0 ,1 7 1 , bhadaka (bhadrs-ka) 2 1 2 . bhuda (bhuta) 199; -u 163;
190, 19 1, 195, 209, 210, bhadx’a (¿hadriká) 229. -ana 109; -n i 18, SO, I9S;
233, 234, 306, 308, 321; bhadiañu (P. bhaddara \o) § 19 n-
§ 6 S ; see vi. 126 ,28 6 ; p. 53 . -bhuda’i (?) 300.
binu (bindu) 209, 210. bhadrasu (hhadrüsva) 118 ; blnuna-jln (bhümi-«tha) 119.
bisa (bisa) 83. §55- bhurnsa (bhüyas5) 24S.
budha (buddha) 69, 70, 100, bhamana’i (P. bhá\ anáya) 105; bhuyu (bhüj-ah) 203, 204.
123, 249; -u 4 1 , 44-48, § 36 . bhctsidi (bhctsyatc) 142, § 17 .
50, 302; -asa 43; -i 310; bhamaru (bhramara) 292. bhesidi (bhamyati) 76; tcrtUnt
•aria 243, 263. bhametsu (*bha\emsu, -imsu) bhcsida 240, § 24.
btidha-kada (buddha-gata) 7 5 ; § 36 . bho’a 261 (see eovm¡a¡tary).
100. bhava (bhnya) 7 3 ,7 4 ; -o 14 7; bho’a (bhoga) 323, § 39 .
budhariadi (buddhanandin) O. - 1 273. bhoka (bhoga) 20 .
budhavarmasa (buddhavar- bhava-dar&ni 273. bhodt (bhavati, -anti) 1 , 6 , 8 ,
man) 0 . bhayamariana (bhajairüna-) tfc., 182, 184; bhodhn 93,
budha-saáane (buddha-áásima) 231. 1 2 6 ,1 3 1 ,1 3 2 ; bhodu 124.
69, 70, 123. bhayi (bhajct) 231. bhoyanasa (bhojana) 2 1 7 ,2 1S.
budha-savaka (buddha-árá- bhayt (bhaye) 273. bhonm (P. bhünm) 248.
vaka) 249. bhayidavi (bhajitavya) 248; bho-va’i (bho-\udin) 17, § 33 .
busu (busa) 272. § 22a.
brama-, see also bramma-. bhave’a (P. bhajeyya, -ctha) -m-, junction its sa-m-tva 320.
brama (brahmá) 223. 60, 177, 249. ma (P . me) 203-4; see me.
bramana, brammanrt (brSh- bhara (bhjra) 27. ma (m3) 6 6 , 75, 129-31; m i
nrnna) 9, 10, 17 fi., 289; -o bhava (bhata) 33, 36, 96a; sa (m3 srna) 283, 2S5, 325.
I, 3, 4, 6 , 80; -o(flfí.) 27, -asa 16 1; -a’i 89; -asu maknda’o (markaja) a) 171.
§ t i ; -u 6 ; -i 1 1 , § 7 7 ; -asa (-e?u) 81, § 23 . makwha (maíjhrivan) 12 0 ;
I I , 15; §| 14 , 46 . bhava 262 (*« commentary). §§ >=. 4»-
bramaynri (bmhmacánn) 184; bha\a (blúva) »ena 237. mak't’a (marfil,j) 2S5.
•ram- 80. bhaxa’t (bhaxiva) 89. mr'k'u {íiiral «a) 27; -o 2S4.
bmma-yirya(brahmacarya) 77; bhava’i (bh.íva\ct) 78. maca(m'irjra) 113 ; -xi 97,106,
bramma-jirjunn 8 ; §§ ::a, bha\adi 59 ;(-anti) 269; rom» 10 7;-am29 9;-o I0S({ 1 1 );
32- ally bhodi. -<n3 223; *ani 109; srt
bramona (P- brahmunj) 242; bhavayadi (bhl^ayati) 194; mnrj;a*.
 IN D E X

mano (mána) 2 8 4 , -a 8 3 ,2 7 4 , micha-dithi(m ith}a-dr?tO 121 , ya (yarp) 111, 276, 2 8 2 , yo

•u 27 273 231, 241
mano (manah) 15» 104, 105, m icha-vinayadu (mithyá- ya (>S) 150, 1 6 9 , yam 144,
113, 201, 202, 211, 2 1 2 , vinayatah) 243 ya’i 22
manena 51, 52, 2 3 2 ,mana* micha saggapa (mithyâ-sarp- ya’i (yaya) 22
sa 23, 195, 201, 2 0 2 , (P kalpa) 213 ya’e’a (P yajetha) 3 10-15
•so) 15, (P -sarp) 294 m itra 60, 162 yaca (jatya) 1 , 4 , § 7 2 , see jadi.
msno-kama (manah-karma) m itnsa (P mettarpso) 198 yafie (ca anye) 150
211,212 miyadi (m uyante) 11 5 ,1 5 2 . yatha (ya?ta, S i?ta) 321
manoramu 303 mi?a (miára) 2 3 5 , p 54 yana (yana) 9 9 , -ena 99
m atra (mâtra) 17, -ena 65, m u (P no) 168 yanimani (yam imam) 154,
186 muci (?) 138d 155
m atra (matra) 164 m ucu (m jtyu) 3 3 2 , -uno 115, yatra 173, 284, 287.
m&trafio (m atta jña) 2 1 6 , 1 2 3 ,u n fte n m ru -1 4 1 ,1 4 8 , ya th a (yatha) 57, 225, 272,
amatrafto 217 § >5 2 9 0 -2 , 2 9 8 , see jad ha,
matsa (mataya) -e 139a, «ana mujadi (muñcati) 1 1 , -e’a I I , y a d a, §§ I I , 42, 49
1 4 5 ,§ 17 5 79, m uju 161 ya d a (yatha)2 9 3 , §§ n , 430
matsa (márpsa) 284 (§ 17) m uni 5, 9, 2 9 2 , m u n m u 3 4 3 , ya d a (yada)14, 106, 107
m atsa» 186, 285, § 17 munaya 174 12, 13, 118,325
y a d i (yati)
madara (mataraip) 12, (P -n) m uño (punar) 197, §§ 36, 6 9 , yad o (yatah) 15, 56
94 tes mano yadha (yada) 119, § a 43
m adi'a (mâtr-kâ) 133 m uto (mukta) 9 2 ,1 2 2 yadha (yatha) 115, 147-9,
m aduru (maruta) 6 9 , § 64 m udu (mj-ta) 115 215, 216, 219, 220, 239,
mana-bham (manda*) 24, 25, m uninu, tee m uni 251, 253, 303, 3 3 0 , see
54, 2 3 7 ,§ 4 5 m uya(m rga) 2 7 9 ,m ru y a 133, yada, yath a, §§ 1 1 , 4 2 ,4 9
mama’ida (P m amlyita) 79 §í <5i 38 yadha-bh udu (yatha-bhutam )
marañado (-tah) 147 mulasa (müla) 2 8 9 , -sya 38 163
maranaseva (maranasva eva) m uha (mukha) 2 6 8 , -ena 54 yam (yam) 144, see ya
150 m uhuta (m uhurta) 234, 3 2 0 , yam a‘ena (yamaka) 223
m anyi (marici) 300 -u 3 1 6 , Z \ 7 ,vm tten m ohotu yam a loka 301 302
maro (mara) 2 9 7 , -asa 300 318 yayadi (yajati) 3 2 1 , opt ya’e'a
margamargasa (P maggamag- m e 209, 2 1 0 , m i 3 3 2 , m a 3 10-15
gassa) 4 9 , t f maga 20 3 -4 yayamana (yajamana) 196
mala (P maíaip) 16 m etra (m aitia) 194, -ena 199, yayida (yacíta) 281
mala-guna (mala-) 293 -asa 197, § 19 -yari ( carra) bram m a- 80,
m ah'a (mallika) 295 m etrayadi 195 184, dham a 328
matu’a (P maluTá) 330 m etra-vihara 7 0 , -1 69 yava ióápayet) 198, § 72
mavadi (P mápadi) 6 6 , see medhavi (medhavm) 4 9 , 111, yavajiva (yavaj jiva) 233
«mmentary on 325 1 1 7 ,1 8 5 ,2 3 1 ,2 4 1 , 255 yavada (yávata) 6 7 ,1 1 4
ma sa (m i s ma) 28 3 ,2 8 5 ,3 2 5 -f- mokçu, read mak§u yavaditha (P yävant’ettha)
masa mast, -mase (mase-mase) monaso (mánasa) 161, 5 22 126
3 1 0 -1 5 ,§ 73 m odadi (mudate) 173, 286 yavi (capí) 199 269
masuragasa (madhura-agra) moyaka (P -m ojavam) 72 yala (yaáah) 112 323.
289 moha (mogha) 182, -am 260 yasa (ca as>a) 15
m asuru (m adhim ) 5 4 , i f m ohotu, see m uhuta yasa (yasmat) 3
m ahoru, §5 42 ,4 3 m rucu, see m ucu yasa (yasnun) 58
m aha-dhína 260 mruya, see muya yasa (yasya) 3 4 ,3 5 4 3 ,7 9 ,8 8 ,
maha pathe 3 0 3 , { u 8 9 ,9 9 ,1 4 5 , 1 8 3 ,2 6 0 ,2 7 6 ,
maha prafta (maha praiña) y-, junetion ¡n ka y-asu’a 267 3 3 0 , see yasya
248 ya, see ca yasya2 3 ,2 6 ,2 7 , see yasa
maha-vira (mahi-vira) 267 ya (cet or ye? P ve) 226 yi, see ca
m ahoru (madhura) 2 83 , 5 4 2 , ya (yat) 149, 169, 182, 200, -yiyava see bramma-
tee masuru 264, 3 0 6 -9 , 321, 3 3 7 -9 , •yirya (-carya) 8 , 7 7 , §§ 22a,
mahoho (mahaugha) 85, 2 9 4 , yed 149, § 22a , ya ja, ya ji 32
§ 39 y o ja (P yaip ce, yo ca)307, •y»va, see ayiva
n u (P p») 2 4 2 , § 36 ,* « vi 3 0 9 ,3 1 6 -2 0 yu(ea?) 1 2 , £§ 25 , 70
m i (me) 332, see m e ya (ya!)) 3 3 6 , see 70 yu (yah) 194, see yo

y u (P. vo) 1 2 6 ,1 3 1 ; bhadrafiu
12 6, 286.
y u ’ i (P . yu v in -) 184; y o ’i 1 1 3 .
yujatha (P. yufijatha) 12 3 ;
§ 4 8 ; pres. ptc. yiyi 2 6 6 ,
§ 77 »a-yiyad ti 266,
yu h a’i (ca ubhayarp) 32.
ye (yah) 258, § 77 ; see yo.
y e (ye) 1 1 5 , 146, 150; 1 7 1
(— ya t? see commentary, and
§ 22 a); yo 196.
yeija yeneva (of place) 323.
ye d (yad) 14 9, § 22a ; see ya.
yeva (P. heva) 2 94.
yesa (yesarn) 1 0 0 - 5 , 168, 340.
y o (ca) 208, 335 ; see ca.
y o (vah) 1 , 5 , 1 1 , 1 5 , 18 , 62,
1 4 1 , 16 4 , 18 3 , 19 2 -3 ,
19 8 -9 , 2 52 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 5 , 305,
30 7, 3 0 9 - 1 5 ,3 2 4 ; y a 3 3 6 ;
yu 1 9 4 ; y e 258.
y o (yaip) 2 3 1 , 2 4 1 ; see ya.
yo (ye) 1 9 6 ; see ye.
yo'aseva (P. yogasm im ) 2 6 6 ;
§ 38 ; see yoka.
yo’i (P. yuvin-) 113 ; yu’i 184.
yoka-k?ema (yoga-) 158; -u
156, 157, 1 5 9 ; -asa 127,
yokam (yoga) 95; loe. yo’asa
266; § 38 .
yo ja, see ya.
yopiáa (yoniáalj) 244.
yoijeka (P. yontja) 17 ; § 38.
-r-, junction in tavada-r-iva
279.
raka (raga) 76, 171, 298; -u
96,217-20 ;-o 26,27,284.
raka-rata (raga-rakta) 171.
raksa (v^ksa) 148 ; see rakhks.i,
mkha.
raksadi (raksati) 117 , 276;
-¿’a 135, 279.
-raksida (-ta) 219, 220.
rakhk?n (vyksa) 2 17; § 16 ; see
raksa, rukha.
ratha (rfi?tra) 12, 331.
rata (rakfa) 171.
•ratra (-ratrarp) 50, 3 19 ; see
radi.
nitri (rJtryám) 343.
rada(rara) 1 2 6 ,1 2 7 ,13 1 ,13 2 ;
-u 63, 64, 73, 74; -o 53,
1 0 4 ,10 5 ,116 .
rado (hmda) 225.
radi ('r.ìii, S. r3tr050, 100-5,
144, 145, 150.
DH ARM APADA
radi (rati) 3 3 , 5 5 , 5 7 , 15 4 , 1 5 5 .
radi-sabhamu (rati-sambhava)
12 9, 13 0 .
radha (ratha) 1 6 0 ,2 7 5 ; -o 97.
radhe’aro (rathakàra} 1 7 8 ;
§§ z z a , 38.
rama di 224.
ram ahi (P. damayam) 259 ;
§§ 39. 43&-
raya (rajan-) 160, 1 9 6 ; ace.
-ana 13 , 2 7 8 ; gen. -190
2 7 7 ; pi. -aria 12 .
raya-radha (ràja-ratha) 1 6 0 .
rayino (rajnah) 2 7 7 .
rayersayu (rajarsi-) 1 9 6 ; seeifì.
ralisa (ráái) loc. 2 9 3 .
rasa (rasa) 3 7 ; -airi 2 9 2 .
rasa (hrasva) 1 9 .
rasvi-ggaha (raimi-gràha) 2 7 5 ;
§§ 1 1 . 53-
rukha (vrk§a) 38; see rak§a,
rakhk§a.
ruiha-prahanani (B .S . nùksa-
pradhàna, lùha-prahàna)
13 5 .
t ruchu, read tuchu.
ruyjda (P. rucira) 2 9 0 , 2 9 1 ;
§43&.
n iva (rüpa) 3 7 ; - u 1 4 2 , 1 8 6 ,
1 8 7 ; loe. -asa 7 9 , 2 7 4 ; «arii vadhadi (vardhate) 112 , 254,
2 5 3 ; -esu 2 5 1 .
10’a-ncda (roga-nìda) 1 4 2 ; vana (vana) -i 319, 330;
§ 3 8 .'
roka (roga) 163; § 38 .
roye’a (ruc-) 1 2 1 .
royesi (rocayasi) 288 ; § 50.
lake, see loka.
lajadi (lajj-) 2 73.
lajidavi (lajjitavya) 2 73.
-lada, see vjlada.
ladhu (labdha) 255.
labha (iàbha) 16 2 ( § 1 1 ), 2 70 ;
-o 6 2 ; -ena 65 ; -lavhu 61,
62, 1 7 3 ; §44-
lavavadi(P. lapayanti) 226.
-iavhu, sce labha.
lahadi (P. labhati) 56 ; § 44.
1ahu (taphu) 7 6 ; § 4 1.
likhida(-ta) 0 ; § 4 1.
Iipadi (lipyatc) 2 1 , 183.
lev.nn.1 (lepana) 284.
M a 30 1, 3 0 2 ; -u 122, 1 9 9 ; vadami (vadami) 126.
(P. lokc) 68, 8 7 ; -i 19 , 1 1 0 , vadavn (vr.ita-vant-) 6 8 ; c.te.
2 3 7, 3 2 8 ; -c 96, 2 3 2 ;
icTjfífí! lake 32 1 (§ s s ) ;
lokasya 7.
307
121 .
íoka-vadha/jo (P. -vaddhano)
loba (lobha) 188.
loha-guda (P. -gujam) 7 5 ; § 66.
lohida (-ta) 284.
va-, see also uva- (§ 35 ).
va (iva) 1 , 2 1 , 7 4 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 1 1 7 ,
11 8 , 1 1 9 , 12 2 , 13 2 , 137b,
13 9 a, 14 5 , 14 6 , 17 6 , 177,
17 8 , 18 9, 190, 19 7 , 201,
202, 209, 2 10 , 2 18 , 243,
272, 2 7 5 , 2 77, 2 79 , 294,
329 ; see also ba, iva, viva,
va (vi) 4, 65, 99, 16 9, 186,
19 1 , 197, 2 0 1-2 , 2 9 5 ;
(metrically v3) 321 ; adhava
223, 226.
va’i (vfldin) 17; § 33 ; tee vadi,
va’idi, sce vayadi.
vakadhadi (P. upakaddhati)
216; uva* 2 15; § 35 .
vaja (varjya) 272; -i 231 ; «ana
(.ani) 272.
vajida (?) 138e.
vaji-daéana (varjya-dariina^i)
231.
vadhana (vardhana) 254; -o
Ì2l ‘
339; vardhadt 172.
vanasma 9 1 ; §§ 14, 53 .
vana (vanta) 292; see vama.
vanamada (vamavant*) 290,
291 ; § 36 .
vanaru (vanara) 91.
va^iaáe’a (P. vannthaja) 89;
§43-
vapasma 9 1; see vana,
vada (P. vnta) 165-8, 181;
vada’i (ayrnp) 153.
vada (v2ta) -u 217, 218; -cija
239.
vada (vanta) 45, 185, 193.
vada (vrata) 65, 327 ; see
vadava.
vada»l:ajayu (vjnta-kajSya)
193.
vada*do?u (v.mtn-dojn) 185.
vadsmadu, set vncìavn.
V3da»ma!a (vinta-) 45.
vadamada 177; § 36 .
-vadi (vidin) 231, 269; -ino
213; see -vn’i ; § 33 .
308 IN D E X

vadi a (P vadeyya) 338 149, 175, 184, 199, 225, viyava (virya vant-) 3 16 , see
vaditva (P vanditva) 343 237, 242, 247, 25 1, 252, virya-
vadu (vata) 2 17 , 2 18 , -ena 26 1, 269, 2 9 1 -3 , mi 242, viyini (P vicinam) 81, 244,
239 § 3 6 , see also bi §§ 66 , 77
vade a (P vyadhesi, -ti) 335 \ 1 añadí (vijanáti) 233, 234, viyidavmo (P vijitavinam) 41
vadha (vadha) 288, 289 252, 25 3, opt -e’a 3 , pres viyidi see vidi
vadha baña (-bandha) 28 ptc ada 256 , -adu 56 ,2 6 7 [\íyejsidi (P vijessati) 302
vadhi (upadhi) 19 4 , § 35 vi ula, see vivula vira (vira) 39, 42, 49, 173
vaya (vyaya) 56, 181, 3 17 vikada(vigata) 3 5 ,18 4 vira’ida (virajita) 26
vaya (P vaca) 53, 290 291, vikadi(P vítate) 14 9 , § 38 viraku (viraga) 109
306, 307, -a’i 23, 5 1, 52, f \ikaya, read vikaéa viraya (\iraja) 46
232, -ana 306 vikala(P v igayha)8 3,§§5,6 i virudhe$u (viruddha) 29
vajadi (vrajati) 144, 323 viksitani (viksipta) 155 virya (virya) 3 1 6 , viya 260
vayadi, va’idi (vayati) 295 Vicida'i (vicintayet) 3 1 , § 66 -viryava(virya \a n t)217,218 ,
vayarmo (upacann ) 172 vicirya (vi-car-) 196 -viyava 316
•vayansa ( vihann) 0 , §§ 23 , vya (vidya) -ahi 6 , 7 vilada (P vítala) 330
39 vyacarana (vidya-) 6 vilomam (-am) 271
vaya-veka(vajapeya) 19 6 , § 38 vijadi (vidyate) 174 ,2 3 3 238, viva (iva) 8 1-90, 256, 278,
vaya-sañadu (vaca-samyata) 240 301, 302, 320, § 7 1 , see iva
53 ■vijamana (vidyamana) 251 vivaladu (P vipassato) 55, 57
vayi kamu (P vaci kamma) vijinena (vijima) 156-8 vivasadi (vi-vas-) 150
211, 212 vivasma(P vivasane) 145
vayu (vayah) 182. viñana (vijñána) 153 vivita, see vevita
-vayo (P -pako) 94 viñati (vijñapti) 249 vivula, -u (vipula) 164 [read
vara (vara) 341 viñamam (vijñapana-) 2 2 , § 36 perhaps vi’ula]
varada (uparata) 24, 2 5 , § 35 vifiu(vijfia) 189, 234, -ña241 vivedi (vyapenti5) 226
van (upan) 153 -vifhidu (vyutthita) a- 144. vivhuda-nanahi (vibhuti-nan-
van (van) 2 1 vina’i (v inaya) 125 din-) 228, §§ 24 , 44
vari o (vari-ja) 137b vinayadu (vmayatah) 243, vísala (vilalya) 90
vama 186 -nam 154 , see vmi’adu 244, §§ 1 1 , 37 , vi$i$adi (viáisyate, or read avi-,
38 n P ava-) 200, § 59
vardhadi 17 2 , see vadhadi vinavana’u (P vmibandhaya) viáudhu (viéuddha) 204, 206
varsa 1 4 1 , see vasa 89, § 2 4 p. 51 viáesa 129
valatra (varatra) 42 vim adu, see vmayadu viáesadha(P -ato) 1 1 6 , § 43 a
vavajadi (upapadyate) 2 1 1 , vinedt (vinayati) 82 viáodhi’a (viáuddhi) 106-8
2 1 2 see uva- vidadha (vitatha) 87 visodhedi (visodhayati) 254
vavati (upapatti) 44, § 35 vidi (vyite) 277 (perhaps to be t viápa read veáma
f vavi lata read va vilada emended to viyidi § 27 ) viápaáa (viávasa) 66 , 325
vaáa 276 viditva 300 wntten vaápaáa 162, §§ 23 ,
va[áan]u’a(P vasanuga) 174 vidu (viduh) 189 SO, 55
vaíada (upaáanta) 24, 25 , vid\a (vidvan) 325 viápaái (BS viá\aset) 152
uvaSadu ISO, § 35 vidvareni 15 7 vilravadena (vi sravant-) 158
vaéama (upaáama) 247, -vosa* vinadi(vindati) 113 , 297, §46 § 57
m u 70, § 25 + vinamana, read panphana- visamani (visama) 271
vaápaáa, see viápaáa mana visamu (visama) 330
vasa (var?a) 316-20, varsa 141 vipramujadha (P vippamuñ vifa-mulasa ( mülasya) 289
vasa (var?ah) 333 cetha) 298 visañutu (visamyukta) 27, 30,
vasi’a (varsika) 298 vipramutu (-mukta) 30, 45 -o 185 -ñota 35
vasadi 14 4, vasa (vaset) 259 viprayahe’a (P vippajaheyya) visada (P visatam, visatam)
vasita manasa (v>asakta-ma- 274 82, § So
nasam) 294 viprasana (-sanna) 40, -0 225 t visara, read visada
vastra 192 nena 224. vihañadi(vihanyate) 203, 205
\ahane (vahana) 201 viprasidadi (-sldanti) 225 v iharadu (viharantam) 217-18
vahadi 148 vimali 40 viharamu 165—8
Vi (P \e) 99, but probably to nmuta (vimukta) 1 6 1 , -ana vjhan o (vihann-) 128, § 78
be taken ictth the following 297 viharina (vihann-) 297
vi (api) 1 1, 44, 80, 99, 141, viya (virya) 260, see virya vihaftdi (P vibessati) 125

vihnfÌM (P . vili'd tm ) 60.
viicadi («icvntc) 1 6, 6S, 7S , 79 ,
1 8 2 ,1 8 7 .
vu|l)i (vr?ti) 2 1 9 , 220.
vuri (vrttij 2 41.
« v iin i (-h!uiy;i) 7 1 , 72 .
•vim ija (-punida) srr knvunita.
-vekn. si'p.i*, punici-,
vi-nc'ixli (vinayanti) 9 6 .
vedi (upaiti) 3 2 1 ; see uvedt.
v c n (v .iin ) 1 7 9 , ISO, 1<J8 ,
vcranc<u (*vnir»na; ,S. vnirinO
166,
vcvitn (vivilitaì 6 5 .
veim a 6 7 ; 14, 53.
uifaW (v.fpMt-jvi) 1 4 9 ,
t vodavi, tc.hI votavi,
•vofcmni, ite sajjiiarn..
v ofid o (vyavasita) 5 .
t vrancija, see orulir.nenn.
f vridha, read vridha-.
vridliav.iynrino (vjddha-upa-
c.lrin-) 1 7 2 .
vrodlm (\7ddha) 14 6 ,
ia 'ifid i (iayi?y:ttc) 15 3 ; § ¡g .
¿airha-varnani (¿imktia-varna)
154.
(iiijl) 2 .
éadhn (¿a^ha) 2 72 ; -u 186;
§ 40.
iadaiSata) 1 4 1 ,3 0 7,3 09 ,31 6 ,
3 1 8 -2 0 ;- 0 3 1 7 ;.c«a 3 1 0 -
315.
£ada (¿Anta) 55, 7 0 -7 2 ; -u 7,
80.
iadi-im gam (iànti-inàrga)299.
iado (Sata) 317 ; see ¿ada.
iadvari ( t o ! , iàrvari) 2 56;
§ 43^-
¿smatha (see commentary on
31).
iam adharc 189; § 43 a.
iavancna 65.
iayadi (ictc) 18 0 ,2 2 4 ,2 8 8 -9 ;
174 ; ¿c’adi H O ; ledi 328
(perhaps here also to be read
Se’adi,
i f a character is lost or
concealed at the break in the
manuscript)', Sa'i$idi 153.
¿ara 329 ; -u 2 1 5 ,2 1 6 .
iarada (là-) 154.
éaradaka (¿5-) 299.
f ¿ari'a, read ¿adi'a.
éarira (éarlra) 4 4 ,1 6 0 .
DH ARM APADA
-¡ala (¡a lja ) srr vidala.
¿afana (íalváni) 9ún.
irían n (¿.’usina) 2 5 8 ; -c 6 9 , 7 0 ,
1 2 3 ; -i 7 7 ; §§ 0 b, 50,
<Ta¡vaiJa (¿.lávala) 2 3 8 ; § 55 .
íil:;id a (-la) 17 4.
sida-chndc (M a-) 2 77.
íim ad s 248 (reati 6il.ini.icJn),
¿ila (Sila) 65 , 1 7 7 , 18 5, 2 4 1,
2 5 5 , 3 4 4 ; -cija 3 2 3 ; -ana
2 9 7 ; -c 5u 193.
¿¡In-^ano (¿ila-pandha) 296.
lÜlamndu, ste íilnva.
íilava (íllavant-) 3 2 4 ; ace.
-madu 278, 3 2 2 ; -mada
2 4 8 ; ín«. -vnda 2 2 9 ; § 36.
íilisa (*ií1in-) 17 2.
i i it h (fíth ih ) 1 7 0 ; § 43.
¡isani (¡ir?.íni) 154.
H»ia(¡ikhj)33l.
Suiínkarc (íü n yje.íni) 5 5 ; § 77.
áudliavivn (¿uddhfijivn) 60; -u
62;"-eija 2 2 2 .
¿udliU (¿uddha) 40 ; »0 2 54 ;
•asa 327.
§ ;
¿uyi (¿uei) 2 22 , 5 0 sce suyi.
•¿uricia (íiira) 2 2 1 .
íu íu flü iiu ) ifi-J.
¿uhanupaSí (I\ subhünupas-
sirp) 2 I 7 ( § 4 4 ) .
¡u hatolm (su bh ííu bha) 19,
2 41.
¿c’adi (ícte) 1 1 0 ', tee áayadi.
¿cjha (Sre?|ha) 2 0 l , 2 0 2 ; -o
1 0 9 ; § § 56, 60.
ücjhi (írcs(hin-) 1 1 7 .
ie d i, sce éayadi.
¿d a (íaüa) 2 1 8 ,2 7 9 ; - u 239.
áo'a (éoka) 332.
áo’ino (íokin-) 1 1 9 ; § 38.
áotri’a (árotríyn) 4, 1 2 ; § 56.
áodhi (¡u ddhi) 15 6 -9 .
éovadi (¿ocati) 79, 1 3 1 , 203,
2 05, 288, 289.
íoyí?u (éuc-) 17 6 .
¿osa’itha (Sofayitvü) 8 4; §§ 49,
80.
ánamana(áramana) 1 8 9 ; -o 16 ;
§ 5 6 ; see $smano.
áramana (¿ravana) 2 6 3 ; §§ 36,
5 6 ; a-samanadha 2 5 7 , § 430.
ir a va dina (sravantinúrp) 2 7 9 ;
5 57-
ám di (éruti) 2 4 9 ; § 56.
;
sa (P. so) 3 3 6 see so.
;
sa (sma) 16 0 see sa.
309
-$asn, scc sasaga.
sa«a (sanga) 4 6 ; asa£a 46;
§§•}<*» 5 ° , 5 7'
ra^adhi’o (P. sangütigo) 7 8 ;
§ 4317-
sajamana, see n-.
fana (?anda) 1 9 6 ; § 45.
jadlja (íradd lij) 2 6 0 .
fndhu (árüddha) 2 1 8 , 323;
-chi 2 2 9 .
samarla (Srümanya) 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 .
íamnñntliasa (árfimanya-arthn)
1 90, 191.
?amano (áramann) SO, 1 8 8 ;
-asa 0 ; í « í!r-; § 56, p .5 3 .
?ava!;a (írávaka) 10 0 - 5 , 2 4 9 ,
3 0 4 ; § 11.
?afiii (perhaps to be read fo r
§chu, 3 0 7 ) § 23.
fiho, sec ?eho.
-jukcn a (-ánita) sec balio-,
funitvfma (ámu-fi) 2 2 5 .
sutva (émtvd) 2 5 3 , 3 0 6 - 9 ;
-tvana 1 1 4 .
§uda (¿ruta) 2 5 4 , 2 5 5 ; § 56.
sebha, ire ?clio.
?evha, scc scho.
schu, see scho.
scho (¿royas-) 2 3 1 , 3 0 8 , 3 3 7 ;
),
schu 3 0 7 (sahu ? § 23 3 1 8 ,
3 3 7 ; fih o 3 2 1 ; $cvhn 3 0 6 ,
3 1 6 , 3 1 7 , 3 2 0 ; scbha 3 0 9 ;
H 3 9 . 4 4 . SÓ-
sodala 3 1 0 - 1 5 , ( 1 9 7 ).
sa (sah) 9 9 , 1 7 3 ; (sü) 9 7 ; see
so.
sa(sm a) 2 8 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 2 5 ; hi $a
(hi sma) 1 6 0 .
-sa (a s p ) hisa 2 3 3 - 4 ; svadi-sa
9 8 ; 4 « asa.
-sa (syàt, P. assa) 6 0 .
sa'i-gada (svayaip-kfta) 1 7 1 ;
§ 55-
sataro (sSgara) 2 7 9 .
sakijano (sakificana) 1 7 .
sak^aya (sarpksaya) 1 9 4 ; § 35 .
satha (sákhya) 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 .
sakhaca (sadcrt^-a) 3 ; § 49.
safja (sanghaj 10 2 ; sagi 2 7 8 ,
3 1 2 ; § §8 , 46.
saga-íhana (svarga-sthàna)
2 6 8 ; § 55.
sacada, perhaps to be read fo r
saghada, 1 7 6 .
sagadi (satpgati) 2 2 8 ; sagadi
2 2 9 ; §§ iofl, 11.
3io
sagana’a (sagandhaka) 291.
sagapa (samkalpa) 113 , 124,
214 ,sag g ap a2 13 , §§ 1 1 ,4 6
salami (samgráma) 305, saga*
rrn 329, sagamu 305 ,§ 10a
sagara-’udasa (saipkSra-küta)
loe 303, § 38
sagi, see saga
sagtlifhena (saipkli?ta) 2 2 1 .
saggapa, see sagapa
sagha’i (sarpkhyaya) 68
saghada (sarpghata, or possibly
a miscopying for sagada <
samgata) 176
saghara (sarpskara) 70, 106,
107, 163, 1 8 1 , -ana 10,
§46
sagharavoiamu (sarpskáropaSa-
ma) 70, § 25
saghasa-dhama’u (samkhyata-
dharma P saipkhata-, iihtch
should be read tn Dhp 70 for
the corrupt samkhata-) 304,
-esu 3 13 , § 43 a
saca (satya) 15, 22, 28 1, -ena
280, -ana 109
sacita (sva-eitta) 124 , § 55 .
sacho, read drak?o
sañado (samjata) 52, 5 4, -u
53, 80, 325, -asa 112
sañamu (samyama) 5 2, -ena 8 ,
1 11
sañoka (sarpyoga) 1 4 , § n
safioyana(samyojana) 74, 274
3 2 6 ,- 0 194
sanayara (-anucara) written for
sanu- 1 2 , § 25
sata sana (sapta-sanda) 196
satva (sattva) 273 , ana 44
satsana(samsanna) 1 1 3 , §§ 17 , sabrayano (samprajana) 33,
45
satsara (samsara) 125 (§ 17 )
sada (sada) 120, 127, 175,
224, 327, sado 143, § 2 2
sada (sata) 186, 187
sada (satam) 160, 250, see sama (sama) 269, -u 325, -am
sadu
sadana (‘ santanám, S satam) sama’irya (P sainacariya) 16 ,
295
sadana (smrta) 340
sadana (samdana) 42, sam-
dana 36, §§ 14 a, 48
sadane§u (sadana) 29
sadaáam (sad-daráa-J) 31
sadi (sayam) 1 5 1 , § 33 n
sad! (santi) 88 , 89, 150, 183, samana-savaso (samána sam-
261
IN D E X
sadi’i( P santike) 58, 73 , Í49,
150, 2 8 1 , -a 99
sadu (sant-) 287, 322, -o 160,
-a 160, 250, sadana 295,
sabhi 160, 250
sadufhi (saiptu?ti) 59, 162
sadu$ido (sarptu?ita) 53
sadevaka 301, 302
sado (sada) 14 3, § 2 2 , see sada
sado (santah) 160, see sadu
sadhada (P santhata) 38
sadhama (sad-dharma) 256,
263, -ena 2 6 7, -1 126, 132
t sadhamavinau, read -sma
dhama-vina'i
sadharma (sad-dhanna) 63,
6 4 ,-u 250
sadhava (P santhavarp) 250,
§46
sadhu (sadhu) 52, 264, 283,
-una 280
sadhu-jtvano 322
sana (sanna) 132
sanadhu (sannaddha) 50.
samdana, see sadana
sapi (sarpih) 319
sapurusa (sat-purusa) 177,
226, o 2 9 5 ,-ehi 229
sapraña (saprajña) 24 9, -o
212, -ena 248
saphala 291
sabano (sampanna) 297, 323,
-na 344, sabarno 6 , 7,
§§ 4 5 , 66 a
sabaraka (samparaja ) 135,
§§ 38 . 39
sabamo, see sabano
sabaáu(sampaáyan) 164, § 66 a
sabudha see same
9 6 a, -anana 340
sabhamu (sambhavam) 17,
129, 130, § 3 6
sabhi(r) (sadbhih) 160, 250
sabhijadi (sambhidyate) 239
271
§§ 22a, 32
samakada (samagata) 126,
samokadu 284, § 22
samakamo (samagama) 176
samacaTa (samacara) 344, § 66
samajadi (sampadyate) 178,
3 27, §§ 36 , 66a
vasa) 262
8amani (sama) 271
samada'i (samadaya) 67
samadaña (P sammad-añña)
297
samadana (samidina) 273.
samadikrammi (sam-ati-kram-
ya?) 4 2 , § 14
samadibhinadi (sam-ati-
bhtnd-) 219 , 220
samadha (saippida?) 334,
§43«
samadhi (sanudhi) 61, 65,
I38c, 138d
samapida (samarpita) 131,
323
samayare’a (samacar-) 324,
§ 66
samayu 134
-samaradha (samarabdha) 340.
sama\amo (samápanna) 188,
§45
samase’a (P samasetha) 250
samahida (samahita) 12 4 ,2 4 1,
-u 185, 193, 255, -o 53
samikje’a (samlks-) 271
samimjadi (?) see sammyadi
samidhi (samiti?) 1 2 0 , § 43 a
samidhi (samfddhi) 324
samu (P samam) 325
samudim (samvfti) 15
samuga(saipmuhya) 243, § 61
same (samjak) 55, 57, 214
same dithi (samyag-df?tO 98
same-paáa (BS iamya-prasa)
196
sa-m-eva (P sá yeva) 320
same \im’ada(samjag-vinaya-
tah) 244
same sabudha (samyak-sam-
buddha) 3, 77, 304, §§ 22 a,
48 , 66 a
samokadu (samagata) 284,
§ 2 2 , see sama-
samma?adi (sam-mfá-) 56,
§§i4, 46 . 58
sammijadi (P samiñjanti) 238,
2 3 9 ,§ 14
-saya (-áayya) 259, 270, § 50
sayi(P sace) 17
sara (sára) 81, 213, 2 14 , -1
2 13 , ado 214
sarata(P sáratta) 169
saradi see saradhi
sarado (s5ra tah) 214
saradhi (sarathi) 98, saradi
2 75 , §§ 43 a, 49
sari (-sari) 32.

sar[ida] (P. saritarp) 84,
sardhavayarisa (sárdharn-vi-
hirín-) 0 .
sarva 7, 33, 50, 85, 8 6 , 178,
295; 5 1, 5 2; -u 8 7 ; -j 14,
10 8 (§ r i) , 19 7; -e 195;«-«
sarvatra 52, 1 6 1 , 2 2 6 ; see sukhu 6 6 , ¿34, 208; see suha*, eeñttka (sairtya) 13.
savatra.
sarva-dukha 250.
sarva-bhuda 1 9 9 ; -csu 198.
sarvaSo l f 44; [19 7]; see sugaliido (sugrhita) 2 1 6 .
saraéu.
sarsava (sarsapa) 2 1 .
salavhu (svatábha) 6 1 , 62.
sava (sarva) 3 2 1, 3 2 6 ; -i 106,
1 0 7, 2 7 4 ; -csu 80; § u ; see sutu (supta) 2 9 4 , 3 3 4 ; -esu
sarva.
savatra (sarvatra) 52, 1 7 3 ; see sudu(
sarvatra.
savatsara (sam-) 3 2 1.
savasu (sarvaáab) 79, 1 5 6 -8 ;
see sarvaso.
savasa, -u , -o(sam rása) 1 7 4 -6 ,
262.
savasi (P . samvase) 1 2 1 ; cj.
savrasi 1 7 6 ?
savu didri’o(samvjt£ndriya) 5 3.
savu du (samvrta) 2 1 7 , 218 ,
259, 3 2 6 ; see savrodu.
savrasí (P. sabbadhi ? sec eom-
meiitary) 1 7 6 ; § 4.3 .
savru du (sarjrvfta) 2 3 ; -o 5 1 ;
see savudu.
saáo’a (saáokatp) 332.
sa?aga (sarpsarga) 179 ; § 57.
sa-señske (-sairya) 13.
sahadi (sahate) 282,
vahado (samhata) 97.
sahasa (sahssra) 305, 306,
308; «aiTi 305; -ina, -ena
3 1 0 -1 5 ; § 57.
sahida (P. sahita) 190, 19 1.
sahida (samhita) 306-9.
si (asmi) 152.
si (asi) Í 0,
si'a (syát) 6 1 , 1 2 1 , 145, 1 7 5 ,
2 6 5 , 324.
sija (siñca) 76.
sigcha (sneha) 299.
sita (sikta) 76,
sísavudu (su-samvrta) 2 18 ;
§2 5 -
síha (sírpha) 133.
su-, see aho sísavudu.
sil (sai,)) 12 2 , (336, commení-
DH ARM APADA 3«
su’aro (siikaia) 28 5; § 38 . suhatha'i (sukhàrtha) 135.
sukadi (sugati) 3 25; -isu 212, suhadu (sukha-tal.i) 336.
2 16 ; §§ i i , 6 6 ; sugadi (-gt;-) suhavn'u (sukhàvaha) 254;
204. § 3 1)*
sukadena (sugata) 299. suhi (sukhin-) 1 7 5 ; «ino 128.
sufcarani (sukara) 264. suhidasa (sukhita) 247.
sukida (sukrta) 337. swhcsiao (lukhaisin-) 95.
§ 41. sena (sena) 123.
sugadi (P. suggatìm) 204; see seva’a (P. seveyya; read
sukadi. seve’a?) 1 2 1 .
sevamana (-mfina) 244.
sucarida (-ta) 1 10 , 328 ; § 66 . sevida (-ta) 6 6 , 7 1 .
sucitra 160. sevidavi (-tavya) 245.
suchana (-channa) 220, 2 5 1. so (sah) 58, 6 8 , 17 3 , 179,
sujìvu (sujlva) 2 2 1 . 185, 1 9 1 - 3 , 2 0 3-6, 255,
260, 276 , 3 05, 3 24 , 330 ;
118 .
] (P . sududdasam) sodu (srotah) 9 , 1 0 ,1 7 1 ;§ 5 7 .
138 a. soraca (sauratya) ¿roí. 19 2,
sudesida (-ta) 3 0 1, 302. 19 3 ; -asa 287.
suparamutho (suparamrsta) sohu (sukha) 180 ; see suha.
216 . stuka-fitoka 209.
sudasi (P. sudassam) 2 72 . stoka-stuka 2 1 0 .
supra’udlru (auprabuddha) sparga-gamiyu (svarga-gamin-)
1 0 0 -5 ; § 34 . 344; § § 3 1, 55, 78 .
supravedidi 1 2 6 , 132 . svakatha (svaka-artha) 2 6 5 .
subhavìda (subhàvita) 2 0 0 ; svaga(svarga)5; jeesaga*;§ 5 5 .
-a w 19 7. sva ghari (P. sarnghare) 277 .
subha?ida (subhàsita) 2 3 6 , svadi (smrti) 98, 1 0 0 -3 , 340.
290, 2 9 1 . -5vadim a(ftsm5timant-, sandizi-
sum edha 1 7 7 ; -asu 1 1 8 . ja m «) 1 1 3 .
su yi (suci) 2 5 5 , 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 ; svadim ada (smrtim ant-) 1 2 4 ;
s u yi 2 2 2 ; § 50. -o H 2 .
suyi-kam psa (suci-kannan-) sviha’o (sp ih aka ; F . pihayam)
112. 6 1 ;§ S 4 ~
suyi-gana (Sucì-gandha) 303» svihadi (sp jh -) 2 6 6 , § 5 4 {read
f suyisacho, read -<lralcso. perhaps svihedt?).
suraksìda (-ta) 220.
suradu (surata) 2 8 6 ; -o 286, ha (P. hi) 236.
2 8 7 ; -asa 286. hanadi (hanyate) 287.
suri’u (sùrya) 122. t^adaka (possibly to be read fo r
susìla {-slla) 124. nadaka, q.v.)
susuda (su^ruta) 254. hadara (hantàram) 1 1 .
susamaradha (-5ra.bdha) 340. hadi (hanti) 18 ,1 9 8 .
susamahida (susaijiàhita) 12 4 ; harso (P. háso) 143.
-u 193. hava’i (P. hapaye) 265.
[susavudu] w ritten sisavudu hasta 5 3 , 2 15 , 2 1 6 ; § 186.
2 18 . hasti (hasrin-) 279.
suha (sukha) 7 0 ,1 6 2 - 4 ,1 7 0 — h i (hi) 12 9, 130 , 1 3 1 , 134,
1 7 2 ,1 7 4 - 6 ,1 7 8 , 2 8 9 ,3 2 8 ; 16 0 , 2 33, 234, 236, 256,
-u 60, 1 1 0 , 1 7 3 ,1 7 8 , 202, 2 67, 32 7, 3 2 9 ; ha 2 3 6 ; hi
2 2 4 ,2 5 5 ,2 7 7 ; *0 1 7 5 ,1 8 1 , sa (hi sma) 160.
286, 2 8 8 ; -ena 223, 2 2 6 ; hi (ca) 11 2 , 1 7 7 , 2 30 ; §§ 39,
-ina 2 4 5 ; -e 2 3 2 ; -a’ i 16 5 — 7 0 ; see ca.
16 8 ; sohu 18 0 ; see sukhu h i (P . ce) 2 0 1 ,2 0 2 ; § § 39, 70 ;
( § 4 1 )- see ca.
3» IN D E X

huía (hiña) 1 2 1
hina viyava (hina virya \ant )
3 16 viryava 2 1 7
hitva ( a) 33 118 180 266
hida(hita)264 id ftil3 5 §39
hin (hn) 98 260
hinmada (hnmant ) 2 2 2
hi sa (hi sma P ha ve) 160
hisa (hi asya) 233 234
hu (khalu) 58 79 276
§§ 140 68 See ho gu
hedu (hetu) 324
hedu kapa (hetu kalpa) 89
hem ada (hemanta) 333
hemavan iva 2 79 (see com
mentary)
ho (khalu) 1 1 4 241 260 305
§§ 14 a 68 see hu gu
hoda(huta) 321 u 3 2 0 § 2 1
hodt ( bha\att) in prahodi
246
hodi( bhute)<nana hodi304
[ h]oru(P hurahuram) 91
hoto (P huram) 191

II IN D E X O F W O R D S C IT E D 1

g An d h Ar i guduvhara § 12 budha2 ava § 6 a

(except Dharmapada) cathana § 18 a budhorumasa 0
capariáa § 63 bosavarumasa 0
[acuda] p 53 cunara § 36 bhaéavada§ 31
ajisana § 66 cu § 2 5 bhagava§J § 43 «
ajh m atni ( azi ) §§ 6b 43 cukhsa § 16 bhagavha § 12
atha § 180 chin da chimnida § 47 [bhadrand] p 53
ajhovaga 234 [jida] p 53 bh ghu § 52
[adha] p 53 jetha § 18 & bhul susamgasya § 25
adhimatra §§ 66 43 jh to be read z §§ 6-66 bhenghose § 76
anuiiyapeti § 6 taha § 40 madya $ 6b
aprameka ¿0 § 38 tita(’ ) § 19 masu §§ 13 43 43<»
aph nanu tee avhi tivya (5) § 19 mahazana §§ 6 b 43
[abrami] p 52 tumbhiksa (?) § 11 munjukntasa § 26
ayt 1 2 2 a [tusida] p 53 [misa] p 54
[ayuda] p 51 tnksa §§ 9 19 mumjnkntasya §§ 13 26
(avaiu] p 47 danamokho § 21 menati § S 2a
avhm anu § 44 danamokhe § 2 T mrugo § 15
a$ti § i 8<2 dita §§ 19 45 yaj taga 156
asunatra §§ 66 43 drubh k$a 1 11 rartuka § t&z
am ekjita (?) § 36 dhama ute[ana] p 44 Iahuka § 40
[dana] p 53 dharmapn 343 varavo 160
i$tnjak;a § 6 dhyaroro § 15 [vtya] p 52
utvjravarsi 35 § 25 nakarakasa § 31 vasa § 23
uthida § 65 naga § 10 viga § 10
uthi& § 49 mjati § 6 v jayamitra § 38
udaga p 46 pajeti (read paredtJ) 292 vìi das mhasya § 38
upajaya § 6a panbujiáatu § 6 b vithana 144
ubhe>a $ 44 ( tf § 220) ptasaga § 23 Mthida 144
uvaja e § 6a pracaga § 38 viyakamitra § 38
kantfhaga § i 8fr prstithaviSa $ 43 a \ 1haramm1 § 14
kaipdha $ 18 prat thavita § 18 viharasvamasa § 13
L a m h a e n a § 12 pratistapita § 18 [vemae tru] p 52
kanta § 430 praSeíe § 43 c [\eroyana] p 52
Vratnma § 14 [pnhivilp 54 vyaéa p 46 § 38
kn?a § 9 ph see vh vyanvala 0
k?unam i§ 16 phalophala § 22 vhurmaseva zeva | 12
gaipdavo § 47 badaáa § 63 vhuvasena § 12
pune?ati § 36 budhavarumasa 0 lilaprava § 44
* Verse number« (in bold type) refer to the Commentary on the verses in question References
to sections (§§) are to Part II of the Introduction
 IN D E X O F W O R D S C IT E D 313
livaroksiSasa § 43a. P R A K R IT atthadassa 3 1.
[Sethi] p. 54 - {except Gândkârî) anutthunam 139b.
Soga § 3 1 . anuddhata 237.
[çaba] p. 54 . affali § 47 . anuvicca 241.
sotharpga § 1 S0 . a$at,adagga 259. abbhutthfta 144.
samkara § 18 . adiijpa § 45. abhijappati 31.
satcra § 13 . awfibàha 232. abhijjhä, -älu 31.
sadayarisa 0 . aitila 173, § 2247. aîâpüneva 154.
sadaviynrisa 0 . fifl&mi § 72 . avyäpajjha 232.
sa m m a § 14 - adSpìya 173. asatä 79.
sarvasthivadinain § 18 . àseaiyaya 72. asecanaka 72.
t gavra, read sarva 176. ug^aya 339. abefhayaip § 49 .
sahasra § 57 . eSrisa 160. äjafifia 173.
sihabala 0 . ekkàrasa 160. äpajji 325.
suguta § zo. kamandha § 36. ämisa-patisanthära 6 0 .
[sucitri] p. 52 . -khutto § 49. ärammaria § 47 .
sy ab ala 0 . guatarne § 22 . unnata 339.
8j-a(= satcra) § 13 . gajrteiai § 36 . udabbadhl 83.
sv eya § 22«. goyama p. 51 * uddhacca 339.
zanapriyas3 § 6b. ctmitfha § 36. uddhata 339.
•zava § 60. chàva § 50. unnala 339.
hetha § 1 Si*. chutta, -ttha, -ddha 153. •f upaviyati 149.
chùsiha 153. upeta § 20.
KH O TA N ESE cheppì § 50. uyyäna §§ 65, 66 .
jam pai § ir. ussuba § 65.
aqigäSälu § IO. jàma § 36. ojaraoto 72.
atärana § 43Ô. i^ara 35. ojä 72.
aiÆvatattü p. so. r.a fir.Smi § 72» dpuniti 272.
evidliarma § 44- ¡jurnajjai § 24. orapärarp 8 6 .
avislya § 44 . diaria § 45 . kaçthaka (?) 258.
ätäSa, âgàéa § 33- dhojja 177. kathamJcathü 47.
utvada § 25 . dhoriya, -eya 177. kammlrâma 63.
uryâna § 43 b. p a^ ia§ 45. kämaguna 75.
gatsa- § 17 . pisàjv 156. käfakesa 164.
jambuna p. 5°> § 48* purisàdiiiiya 173. kutti 60.
jàna § 6 . pureka^a, -kkhada § 49. kurutc vasarji 276.
jàbüvana p. 5°> f e ­ [bhorpsati (?)] § 63. khaçe-khape § 73 .
diva I H . bhayante 286. -khatturçi § 49 .
daudübe’svara § 48 . madama § 36. gajuttama § 22 .
nàta § 33 . mahanda § 47 . gavaja 17.
paramandole § 24. vidima § 36. gfidhati 107.
punaunda § 4-7• visa^a. -<Jhs 82. cSpäto 329.
prafia § 47 . éraddhacaro 0 . Charma § 47 .
bhâgirasau § 43- sadevibàrisa 0 . ch&pa § 50 .
maSuérî §§ 26, 47 . saddhyevihariiya 0. chuddha 153.
mâysila § 43- sumùia § 36 . chetvä (error in Satri. I for
mijâiüri § 26. SejjS § 22 (3. .
jhatvä) 2 88
lovadâva § Co. jappi 31.
vaysambata § 47- jambonada p. 50.
PALI
visinyau § 43- jhatvä 288.
vîjatta, vïjîtta § 38 . | akifici 15. jhitvä 288.
éSSéana § 50- akQjana 97. tadüp&S 234.
§|amana p. 53* accasàri 86 . daddallati 35.
sarpduçtf § 47- aAfiam anusSsati 227. dara, daratha 3E, § 6z.
samye-sabaudiya §§ 32«, 48 . atisarsdifthi 86 . dänija 169.
saryathîva §43^. af\sarapdi^hi 6 6 , dlpa 1 1 1 .
sîysâ § 43 a- attadipa 1 1 1 . dhaipsin- 2 2 1 .
3X4 IN D E X
dhamma-patisanthara 60.
dhorayha 177.
v!ta-ddara 35, $ 6 z.
vedi § 35
k£m&sra%a 20 .
kfSnti-vrata 28 . ’
nandhi 42. vyadhesi 335. gidha 107.
niddara 35. samkhata-dhamina (corrup­ g'Sdhà-107.
t nekattam 9. tion, fo r aamkhàta- « Dhp. g3dhate 107.
paccasan 8 6 « 70 = 313). g2h-, gSdha 107.
patiiacca 335. samihSta-dhamma 304. gupti 60.
pafigacca 335. sangStigo § 43 a. calure 109.
patisanthara 60, samghare 277, candnmS 197.
pandara 245. aanda 196 ctuv&vàs! 3 19.
pada 70. safta-saniia 196 jalpi 31 >
padhana 135. saddhim-vih&rl 0 jàjvalyate 35.
pana§ 69 saddhzmcara 0 jlmbùnada p 50
panta-senasana 65. samatha-vipasjana 14, 31 jvara 35.
pamado 75 . sampaySta 1 1 1 . tirthomkara 1 1 1 .
palikha 42. sanunati 15 daksa 255.
pallala 139a. aammatta 334. dipamkara 1 1 1 .
pavSyati 295. 8ammutì 15. dundubhi 235.
plceti 148. s&ratta 169. durahnah § 66 .
pihayam 61. sithila 170, d\arà- 35.
pihcti § 54. susu 184. dvipa 1 1 1 .
puna § 69 seyyil § 22 a dhaureya 177,
punsajafifla 173. aotam chid* 1 7 1 . dhurya 177.
posa 240, § 5 1 . soracca 192. dhvànicsa, -in 2 2 1 ,
phusati § 54 h3sa 143 naddhi, naddhrì 42,
bahusaccj 65. f himsamano 15 nirjvara 35.
bihet\i 1 . niskathamkatha 4 7.
brahmafinata 8 . iùta.rtha 245.
brahmunl § 2 1 . S A N S K R IT
njtu 339.
brlhmanam (S -njam) 8 . ansatati 86 ncyirtha 245.
bhaddam vo 286. t adhyàyarato 53 pankha, -gha 42.
bhamassu 75 . ana^ztapta p 50 . pah ara, -la 139a.
bhavasxu 7 5 . abhijalpa 3 1. pùta-daksa 255.
bhikkhave, -vo § 77 avadhya 232 t pùmabhara § 4 5 .
macch«ra 285. avadhjàyin 31 pQrvàhnah§ 66
matii*sarribhavarji 17. avasanga § 50 t prajnakira § 45
madhuvS (?) 2S3. avisjhita 144 prattkrtya 335.
tnanomaya 2 0 1 , p 36 avy2badh>a 232 pratiyatya 335.
manta-bham 237. avyutthiu 144.
mapadi 6 6 ,3 2 5 .
mase-mase § 73
ajanya 173.
Sjati 1 7 3 , § 72 .
.
pratisamstara 60.
pnmsarati 86
pradhSna 135.
mettarpso 198. àjàneya 17 3 . prahàna 135.
yamataggi 237. àjàpayati § 72 . bakuta 298.
yuvm- 113 . atmad\ipa 1 1 1 . barh-, brah* 1 .
jonijaro 17. àsic- 72. makht § 41
rathakSra (cobbler) 178. ucitàrtha 245. mafijukirti § ; 6
lokavaddhaita 1 2 1 . utapta § 6 5 . tnatsann 285.
vasarp kunite 276. utiftha § 65 . manojava 201.
vigajha 83. unnada 3 39. -mant/-vant § 36
vianarp, -ne § 7 7 ,2 4 4 . upaka 234. mandabhisya 237.
virtittftlnif}) 2 2 . t upasthinàm 154. m itri 164.
n^aU 330. upyate 149. t mocanam 72.
' • 1* 5 7 1 . otu 149. majtrisatJ 198.
vnicca 65. auddhatya 237, 339. yavammi- § 36 .
visatarp 82. kantaka 258. rathaklra (cobbkr, corrupt tn
n n u j i n i 84. kanvamant- § 36 . Dtvy 165) 178.
vusai)\6 ?> kadarya 228, 285. rùkja-pradhlna 135.
 IN D E X O F W O R D S C IT E D 315
lüha-prahâna_ 135. vyutthäna 144. sâtya (?) 2 2 .
vagura 298. Sat- 82, § 50 . sârdham-vihârin 0 .
-vant/-mant § 36 . éatvarj256. sârdharncara 0 .
vap-(weave) 149. éamatha-vipasyanâ 31. surâpânam, -pânam § 66.
■varsakï 298. samyâpràsa 196. susthira 170.
vahatu- 2 0 1 . sarvarî256; § 436 . sthaira, §§ 18 , 18 t.
vigata-jvara 35. gâta 186. spréeya 6 6 .
vigrhya 83. saipvrti-satya 15. sprhaka 61.
vijlrna 156. samatüiramam 42. sraj- § 50.
vjfata 82. sam-inj-, sain-minj- 238. svâkhyâta-dharma 304.
vrka-dvaras- 35. samitha 1 2 0 . hi sma 160.
vesmadharma 67. sâta 186. hid- § 49-
 IN D E X O F P A R A L L E L G Ä T H Ä S ’

ak a k ia s a m v in n a p a m m 22 idam kftam m e kartavyun 332

a k atam d u k k a ta m seyyo 337 fidaip ca m e kiccanfl 332
ak k o d h an a ssa v ijite 277 idha tappati pecca tappati 203
[aU k o d h u p anupaj JsamJ 40 45 idha ron d ati pecca riandati 204
206
ak k o d h en a im e k o d h a m 2So idha modati pecca modati
ak k o sa m v a d h a b a n d h a ip ca 28 ìdVia vasstep ■vwisiarru 333
a c a n tv a b ra h m a cariy aip 139 a b ìdha socati pecca ■socati 205
ac ira r^ v a t ay o m kSyo *53 smina p u tì kayena 156 8
ajararfi jíra m a n e n a 159
a f th n a m n a g a ra m k a ta q i 28 + ucchinda smeham. attano 299
[atik k a n tay a rtttiy a ] 343 muko noma so maggo 97
a tu d a tth a rp p a ra tth e n a 265 utthana kalamhi anu?thahano i*3
a ttln a m ev a p a th a m a m 227 ufthanavato satimato 112
a tth i sa d d h a u t o v ir ija ip 260 ufthanenappamadena ut
athav e ssa a g àram 211 uttifthe na ppamajjeyya 110
an a v a fth ita cittassa 137« [udagga citto yo bhikkhu] 7*
a n a \a s s u ta cittassa ! 37¿ udagra citto sumana 71
a n ag ata m p a ;ik a y ir¿ th a kjc caip 335 upasanto uparato 24 25
am kkasa% o k a sa \a iri 192 [ubhayena ca atthena] 245
an icca vo ta saip k h ara 181 usabharp pavaratfi virarci, 4*
[anuyogi t u jjrvati] »44 [usabharp \iyti ga ganghe] 278
an y a tra áravanad asya 857
appamatta satimanto 124 ekam ca bhavitattuiam 320
appamatto pamattesu 118 elarp pi ce panam jdutthacitto m
apparrunarp hitaip cittaip 200 ekasanam eka seyyam 259
appamada rata hotha 13 1 132 eni janghaip kisam dhiram 39
appamada rato bhikkhu 73 74 etarp dalham bandhanam «ihu d h io 170
appamadens maghavj 120 etam visesato natva 116
[appamade pamodeyya] 139 130 etahi u h i vijjahi 6
appamado amata padaip “ S (e%am era idh ekacco] 252
apparti pi cc «ihitarp bhasarttano *9» t w p punye ca pape ca 183
appa Ixbho p i ce bhikkhu ¿2 evam samkara bhutesu 304
abha>e bhaya dassino 273
abhivadana silissa 17* cuadeyyjnusjseyya 130
abhuta \adi mrayarp upeti 269
•wrt QkUTOTI»ÌSTA»torotossAK^
ayoge yunjarji attanatp 266 kamesu brahm acanjava 183
alañkato ce pi samaiTt carey} a So kayena kusalaip katvJ . 232
ahyita^ebjjanlt 273kaj’e n i Sarpvaro sadhu 52
alikatp bhasamanassJ 63 kayena saipvuta d h ra S*
a\i(uddhlrn \ituddbw\i *9 kiccho TTìùnus&a pa^labho 163
asarnsatthaqt gahaithehj 3* kim anena ianiena 15 S
•sire san malino 213 kirp te ja^ahi dununédha 2
asubhSnopassim vihamntaip 218 kim silo knp samacaro 344
ahaip n3go « sarpgame 329 kirp su jhatva sokhaip seti 288
kvddho atthaip n a jaoati : 8z
Srabhatha rukkhamatha «3 kunibbOpamarp kayam imarn \ id it\a 13»
4n.gy^pararril Yibhl 163 Vuso yatha duggahito 215

1 \Vhercp»r»l!el»h9\« not br*n traced 1ter*I render ng* into Psl of the Frmktit vene begmnngshne
been include«) in th s index m the hope that th * m ght subsequently m si m the tdent fieat on of the
*em * in quest on Such reconstruct on* hne been ptsced M square bracket*
 IN D E X O F P A R A L L E L G Ä T H A S
k o im a m p n (h a v iip %'ijessati . 30 t na tcna thero hoti . . , • 1 S2
k o d h an fi a k a ta ñ ñ u ca . . • 77 na tcna bhikkhu hoti . • 67
k o d h a rp jíih e v ip p a ja h e j’yn m S n am • 274 natthi jhànam apanfiassa • 58
k o d h n m jlw tv a su kliarri se ti . 289 na paresani vilomàni . . 271
k o n u hiiso k im fin an d o • 143 na puppha-gandho pativàtam eti . • 295
na brahmanassa pahareyya , il
g a m b h ira .p n ñ fia rp m c d h a v irp . 49 na bràlimanass’ etad akinci . !5
na mundakena samano . 188
c a ttü ri th ü n S n i n a ro p n m n tto . 270 nayanti ve mahàvirà . • 267
c a n d a n a rp ta g a r n o v 3 p i . 296 na vàk-karana-mattena . 186
c u tirp y o v e d i sattiin a tp • 44 na santi putta tànaya , . 261
na sìla-bbata-mattena 6j
c h in d a so ta n í p a rn k k am m a 9 , 10 na hi etehi ySnehi • 342
ch e tv ii m tn d h irp v a ra tta rp ca • 42 nàbhàsamànarp jànanti • 235
[c h e tv á n a p a fica san d ü n arn ] • 36 [nayam pamàda-samayo] • 134
nfiyam pramàdn-kàlah syàd . ■ 133
ja y a rp v e ra m p a sav a ti . 180 [nàvajjhàyi] . . . . • 31
jig acch S p a ra m ñ ro g ñ . . 163 [niccam hi avijànanto) ■ 256
jlr a n ti v e n ija -ra th ü su cittü . : 6o nitthangato asantàsi . . 96 a
nidhàya dandarn bhutesu , 18
jh u y a b h ik lch u m u ca p a m á d o , • 75 nidhinam va pavattàrani . 231
[jh á y im p á ra g a ta m b u d d h a m ] 47, 48 rekkharti jambonadasseva . 242
jb S y im v ira ja m á sín am . 48
pnrpsukùia-dharam jantum . • 38
ta trá y a m ü d i b h a v a ti . • 59 paficangikena turiyena • 57
ta p e n a b ra h m a c a riy e n a 8 pafica chinde panca jahe • 78
ta m p u tta -p a s u -s a m m a tta ip . . • 334 patisantliàra-vutty=assa 60
ta tn v o vadfim í b h a d d a m v o . 126 [padlpena tu rùpàni] . • 253
tasiijáy a p u ra k h b a ta p a ja • 95 pamadam anuyunjanti • 117
tiijn o p a ra -g a to jh á y l . 47 pamadam appamSdena . 119
tlh i v ijjá h i sa rp p a n n o . 7 [pamàdam parivajjetvàj • 1^7
t e k b c m a -p p a ttá su k h in o . 128 para-dujdthùpadhinena • 179
te s a m sam p an n a-sü lü n am • 297 parijinnam idarn rùparp . 14z
[pasamsà sassata riattili] . 238
d a h a rá p i h ¡ m ly a n ti . • 152 [pahoti dukkhìno dukkham] . 246
[d ijth a -d h a m m a -su k h a tth á y a ] • 135 pàpan ce puriso kayirS . 207
d iv a ta p a d ád icco • 5° pàmojja-bahulo bhikkhu • 72
d u p p a b b a jja in d u ra b h ira m a m . 262 pisunena ca Icodhanena ca . . 228
[d u b h a y e n a c a atth c n a ] - 245 punnan ce puriso kayirà . 208
d u lla b h o p u risá ja ñ ñ o . ■ 173 pupphini heva pacinantam . • 294
dü ra n g a m a rp ek a -c a n n p • 137« pubbe-nivasam yo vedi 5
d rs ta -d h a n n e h itá rth a m v a . • 135 porànara etam atu la • 237

d h a m m a -p fti su k h aiji se ti . . 224 phandanam capalam cittarri . 136

d h o m m u n c a te su c a ríta ip . . Z2& phalanam iva pabkànam • 147
dh am m S rñ m o d h a m m a -ra to ■ 64 phusàmi nekkhamma-sukhaip . 66
d h í ta q i ja m m í ja r e a tth u phenQpamarp kàyarn imam . . 300
d h lra m ca p a ñflfu p c a b a h u ss u ta ip ca • 177
bahum pi ce sahitani bhàsamano . . 190
n a a tta -h e tu n a p a rassa h e tu . ■ 324 bahussutam dhamma-dhararp • 249
n a cah an ) b rih m a n a ip b rtim i 17 bahussnto p annataro . . 212
n a c á h u n a ca b h av íssatí . 240 bàla-sangata-càrl hi . I 76
n a ja c c á b rá h m a tjo h o li 4 bàhita-pàpo ti brahmano l6
n a ja tá h i n a g o tte n a
n a ta m d a lh a in b a n d h a n a m 2 h u d h ira bhàsaye jotaye dhammaqi 236
n a ta v a tá dh atn z n a-d h aro . 11 4
n a t e k á m i y a n i c itrá n i lokc . 96 [makkhikà macchari hoti] . 28s
 IN D E X OF P A R A L L E L G Ä T H Ä S

maggan atthangiko seftho 109 yo uppatitam vineti kodharp 82

matti sukha panccaga 164 yo ca gatha sataip bhase 309
man.ujassa pamatta carino qt yo ca pubbe pamajjitva 122
mano pubbangama dhamma 201 202 yo ca mettaci bhavayati I 94
matatam pitarasri hantva 12 yo ca vanta, kasav assa 193
ma pamadàm anuyunjetha 129 yo ca vassa satam jantu 319-20
mzppam&nnetha papassa 299 yo ca vassa satim jive 316-18
mappamaSnetha pufinassa 210 [yo cd vac5 satarp bhase] 307
maae mas® sahassena 3*0-*S yo ca sameti papani 1 189
[ma tsu kodharp pamuncetha] 283 yo tanham udacchida asesam 84
mute bhajasau kalyar.e 60 yo dukkhassa pajanatt 30
munca pure munca pacchato 16 : yo dha kame pahatvana 20
mulwittam api ce vifirru *34 yo dha d gham va rassam va
mettsssa cittassa subhavitassa 19 7 yo dha punnarp ca paparp ca i, 46 68 183
metta v itati yo bhikkhu 69 70 yo na tanti na ghateti i «8
yo naccasari na paccasan 86 87
yato yato sammasati 56 yo najjhagama bhavesu s5ram 81
yatha agaram ducchannarp 2 19 yo mbbanatho vanadhimutto 92
yatha agararp succhannam 220 251 yo nivarane pahaya pafica 90
yatha pi tante vitate 149 yo pi vassa satam jive 14*
yatha pi puppha rasimha 293 yo pubbe karaniyani 33*
yatha pi bhamaro puppham 292 yo mànam udabbadhi asesarji 83
yatha pi rahado gambhiro 225 j o mukha sannato bhikkhu 24 54
)atha pi ruciram puppham 290 2 9 t >0 ve uppatitam kodhaqi 27S
yatha vanvaho puro I 48 >0 ve mettena cittena 199
yatha sarpkara dhanssmirp 303 yo sahassarn sahassena 305
yada dvayesu dhammcsu 14 yo sasanaip arahataip 258
yaip kirpci yiftham va hutatp va 3*t
yam ce vinnu pasamsanti 241 rathakaro va cammassa 178
yam ekarattup pathamam 144 [cajanaip pathamam hantva] 13
[yarfi v e na pasahati kodho] 276 ropa sadda rasa gandha 37
yamha dhammaqi v janeyya 3
yam hi kaj ira tara hi vade 338 vanam chindatha ma rukkham
yaip hi kiccaip tam apaviddhaip 93
339
yamhi saccam ca dhammo ca vatam assatara danta 34t
185 vassika v iy j pupphani 298
yassa accanta duss lyam 330
yassa etadisam vanaip vanjo va tbale khitto »37*
99 vàri pokkhara patte va
yassa kayena vacaya 21
23
yassa gatirp t a jananti 43
yassa c etaip samucchinnaip 187
laro yatha «ugrhito 216
yassa paraip spirar^ va 35
yassa pure ca paccha ca 34
yassa. ratya vivasane *45 siccajji bhane na kuyheyy* 281
yassa rago ca doso ca 27 [sannato sugatim yatil 325
yassa vanathaja na santi keci 89 saddhcna c& pesatena ca *29
[yassa saddha ca panni ca] 260 saddho s Iena sampanno 323
yassanusaya na santi keci 88 «¿bbattha v e sappuiisa vsjinu 226
ySn tmini apatthìm 154 sabbaso narna rupasmuji 79
y3vaji\am pi ce baia *35 sabbe dhamma erutta ti to 8
yJvarp hi \anatho na chijjati 94 gabbe saipkhara antccS ti 106
yuvl ca daharo cSsi 184 sabbe saipkhara dukkhi ti 107
>e ca vu d d ha y e ca daharS 146 sabbhir e va samSsetha 250
>e r ig a rattànupatanti s o u q i 17 1 santini sinehitani ca 95
>e «atta san^aip pathavup 196 salSbhaip nStimanneyya 61
jw a rp ca *usam3raddhl 340 sa vanta doso mcdhìvi t8s
yesarp r3go ca dose ca 26 sahassarn api ce ¿athl 308
y o tmasmirp dhamm a v u ia je 125 sahassarn api ce vlca 603
 ■I N D E X O F P A R A L L E L G A T H À S
sidhu dassaoarp ariyànani . • 175 susitkham vata jlvàm a . 165-8
sayam eke na dissanti - »Si sussùsà suta-vaddbani . 254
siraifi ca sirato Satva . 2 14 [surato hoti] 286
sifica bhibkhu im aia nàvam . . 76 sekho pathavim vijessati . 302
slla-dassana-sampannam - 32 a seyyo ayo-gulo bhutto . 331
[sHavantam mahàpannam] . . 248 selo yathà eka-ghano . 239
sukarini asadhuni 264 so atthavà so dhammaftho . . 255
sukhara sayanti munayo - 174 so ubhantam abhiiinSya - &3
(sukhi tassa p i pamojjarp] - 247 [soraccassa phaiajn passa] . 287
Stijivani ahirikena . 221
sufifiSgSrara pavitthassa 55 h a ttba-sa rinato pada-safinaro . S3
sudassain vajjam annesam . . 272 [hatthl va miga-jStànarp] ■ 279
sududdasam sunipunam . 138a hitra Tarim ca aiatiip ca . 33
su d rih a ssa v e sa d à p h a g g u . • 327 hiri tassa apàlanibo • 98
s u p p a b u d d h a m p a b u jj h a u ti . 100-5 hirimata ca dujjlvajp . . 222
s u b h à n u p a ssim v ih a ra n ta rp . . 2 x7 hlnam dhammam na seveyya . 321

London Oriental Series

1. w . s. a l l e n : Phonetics in Ancient India
2. j. B. s e g a l : T h e Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac
3. m a r y b o y c e : T h e Manichaean Hymn Cycles in Parthian
4 . e . g . p u l l e y b l a i s S : T h e Background o f the Rebellion o f A n Lu-Shan
5 . k e n n e t h b a l l h a t c h e t : Social Policy a n d Social Change in Western
India, 1817-1830
6. d. l . SNELLGROVE: T h e Hevajra T antra, z vols.
7. j o h n b r o u g h : T h e G a n dh lri Dharmapada
8. c . j. f . d o w s e t t : T h e History o f d ie Caucasian Albanians b y Movses
Dasxuran?i
9 . d . n . M a c k e n z i e : K urdish D ialcct Studies I
10. d . N . M a c k e n z i e : K urdish Dialect Studies II
1 1 . c . D . c o w a n : Nineteenth Century Malaya
12. j . b . s e g a l : T h e Hebrew Passover from d ie Earliest Tim es to a .d . 70
13. p. r . p a l m e r : T h e M orphology o f the T ig re Noun