buddhist sanskrit and the sānkhyakārikā

11
ALEX WAYMAN BUDDHIST SANSKRIT AND THE SAiqKHYAKARIKA It is rather presumptuous to attempt a coverage of a topic like Buddhist Sanskrit in a brief paper, because it involves texts which, as Franklin Edgerton's researches have shown, are of varied linguistic nature in their approximation to, or departure from, the norm of classical Sanskrit. Besides, there is presently extant in original form only a small portion of the Buddhist Sanskrit works that are preserved in other languages by Chinese and Tibetan translations. Still, an attempt should be made. My approach will be to first consider Franklin Edgerton's theories and certain ones of his critics, and then to treat Buddhist vocabulary by going outside of Buddhist texts to the Sdhkhyakdrikd, which might serve as the external darpa.na (mirror) to reflect the nature of Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary. I. THE NATURE OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT ACCORDING TO FRANKLIN EDGERTON In the years after Franklin Edgerton produced his monumental Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (1953) and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (1953), scholars have adequately assessed that contribution, some- times with serious criticisms. There are considerations by Brough, 1 Raghavan, z Emeneau, 3 and among others a modest piece by myself. 4 For the most part, despite some reservations, there was an evident admiration for Edgerton's accomplishment. First, let me review in summary fashion Edgerton's own position in this matter. He said that leaving out of consideration a small number of Buddhist works written in standard Sanskrit (such as the Buddhacarita of A~vagho.sa), the Prakrit Dhammapada, 5 and the Pali canon of the southern Buddhist countries, most of the North Indian Buddhist texts are composed in a language which Edgerton calls Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (abbreviated BHS). He believed that this kind of Sanskrit is based on a Journal of Indian Philosophy 2 (1974) 344-354. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1974 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

Upload: alex-wayman

Post on 06-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

A L E X W A Y M A N

B U D D H I S T S A N S K R I T A N D T H E S A i q K H Y A K A R I K A

It is rather presumptuous to attempt a coverage of a topic like Buddhist Sanskrit in a brief paper, because it involves texts which, as Franklin Edgerton's researches have shown, are of varied linguistic nature in their approximation to, or departure from, the norm of classical Sanskrit. Besides, there is presently extant in original form only a small portion of the Buddhist Sanskrit works that are preserved in other languages by Chinese and Tibetan translations. Still, an attempt should be made.

My approach will be to first consider Franklin Edgerton's theories and certain ones of his critics, and then to treat Buddhist vocabulary by going outside of Buddhist texts to the Sdhkhyakdrikd, which might serve as the external darpa.na (mirror) to reflect the nature of Buddhist Sanskrit vocabulary.

I. T H E N A T U R E OF B U D D H I S T S A N S K R I T A C C O R D I N G TO

F R A N K L I N E D G E R T O N

In the years after Franklin Edgerton produced his monumental Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (1953) and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (1953), scholars have adequately assessed that contribution, some- times with serious criticisms. There are considerations by Brough, 1 Raghavan, z Emeneau, 3 and among others a modest piece by myself. 4 For the most part, despite some reservations, there was an evident admiration for Edgerton's accomplishment.

First, let me review in summary fashion Edgerton's own position in this matter. He said that leaving out of consideration a small number of Buddhist works written in standard Sanskrit (such as the Buddhacarita of A~vagho.sa), the Prakrit Dhammapada, 5 and the Pali canon of the southern Buddhist countries, most of the North Indian Buddhist texts are composed in a language which Edgerton calls Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (abbreviated BHS). He believed that this kind of Sanskrit is based on a

Journal of Indian Philosophy 2 (1974) 344-354. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1974 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

Page 2: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

B U D D H I S T S A N S K R I T AND THE SiklqKHYAK~kRIKA 345

certain unidentified old Middle Indic vernacular, even though it is proba- ble that f rom the beginning of Buddhist scriptures these were rehearsed in a variety of North Indian dialects. Taking for granted this old Middle Indic base, he then set forth a development process called hybridization tending toward standard Sanskrit, a process that allows those Nor th India Buddhist texts to be placed in three classes. The first class consists mainly of the Mahdvastu, with both prose and verse showing Middle- Indicisms. The second class includes the works whose verses are hybrid- ized but whose prose has few signs of Middle Indic phonology or mor- phology; among the large number of works there is, for example, the Saddharmapun..darTka. The third class has the works in which there are scarcely any non-Sanskritic forms in either prose or verse, for example, the Mfda-Sarvdstivdda-Vinaya. Besides, Edgerton insisted that their voca- bulary, exhibiting special Buddhist senses or in terms not found in clas- sical Sanskrit, stamps these works as belonging within his Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit classes. 6

Edgerton's theory has implications for editing of Sanskrit Buddhist texts, because it holds that a number of the forms - which editors, such as Senart, in his edition of the Mahavastu, took as scribal errors and then corrected in favor of more exact Sanskrit forms - are in fact valid forms according to Edgerton's extended description of Buddhist Hybrid Sans- krit in his Grammar. Among these hybrid forms, as Emeneau observes in his Review, 7 are the very common Mahdvastu optatives with endings -etsu.h, -etsu, e.g. bhavetsu.h, akaretsu.h, for which Emeneau notes a parallel in the Prakrit Dhammapada.

It should be noticed that Edgerton's theory has two distinct aspects: (1) a theory of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar, involving phonological and morphological considerations, fully described in his Grammar; and (2) a theory of Buddhist vocabulary - where either meanings or terms differ from those of non-Buddhist Sanskrit works - listed, often with lengthy entries, in his Dictionary. Brough's criticisms are mainly directed to the first aspect of the theory and emphasize that Edgerton goes to an extreme in listing grammatical forms, through an unwarranted faith in scribal infallibility in connection with the archetype or later copies. 8 Also, Brough rejects the theory of a single Prakrit dialect as the basis of the Buddhist Sanskrit texts. Raghavan criticizes both aspects of Edgerton's theory. Thus, he has a specific criticism on the first aspect by rejecting

Page 3: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

346 ALEX WAYMAN

Edgerton's exclusive assignment to Buddhist texts of the expression yena.., tena ( 'where' . . . ' there' - usually: where someone was, there some- one went), pointing out by examples that this kind of construction is com- mon in the Rdmdyan. a. 9 Raghaven considers it rash to collect all the vagaries and make up a grammar for them, as Edgerton did. The most supported of Raghavan's criticisms concerns the second aspect, of Bud- dhist terminology. Here he mentions a number of cases where Edgerton's justification of word inclusion in the Dictionary is contradicted by finding the same in non-Buddhist texts whether Vedic or Epic. For example, Edgerton includes the pose pratydl~.dha, and Raghavan notes that it is described in Nfitya S~stra literature. 10 While these examples prove Rag- havan's extensive control of Sanskrit literature, it does not seem to have been the latter's intention to thereby condemn the Dictionary.

My article observed, "The Buddhist Sanskrit texts have a hybrid linguistic character because they originate in a hieratic Prakrit dialect which resists the prestigious Sanskritizing process." That is, I supported Edgerton's thesis by representing the hybridization to have been con- sciously done by a conservative monkhood which may or may not have known Sanskrit well, but which cannot be said to have been incapable at Sanskrit simply by virtue of the hybridization itself. For example, when N~garjuna wrote in his Madhyamaka-kdrikd (XVIII, 2), gamdd dtmdt- maniyayo.h, where the form dtmanfya is not standard Sanskrit, this does not mean that Nag~rjuna did not know Sanskrit well. 11 This monk order was not as successful in preserving the word of the Buddha, which had originally been expounded in various North Indian dialects, as were the Brahmins with their remarkable preservation of the worct of the Veda. The Buddhist monks tried to preserve the word in the face of the growing use of Sanskrit as a literary language, and grudgingly gave in, step by step, to the Sanskritization.

But now I have a somewhat clearer picture of the first aspect, which can account for the fact that such a work as the A.st.asdhasrikd Praj~dpd- ramitd which is included by Edgerton in his third class, in fact is known to be among the earliest, if not the very earliest, of the Mah~yhna scriptures. For this, one should understand the existence of conservative and pro- gressive currents of Buddhism that were partially separated geographi- cally as well as by virtue of sects. These are relative considerations. The first division is India proper as the conservative area in comparison with

Page 4: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

B U D D H I S T S A N S K R I T A N D THE Sf~ lqKHYAK/kRIK/k 347

areas outside ancient India, such as Ceylon and other southern Buddhist regions as well as Central Asia. It was outside of India that the translation of Buddhist texts took place; and outside India that such loosely syncretic works as The Book of Zambasta (non-Sanskrit) was composed in Khotan and the Lahkdvat~ra-sfLtra (Sanskrit) was composed - according to my understanding - in Ceylon (the ancient Laflka). It was outside of India that an Indian scripture, the P~tli canon, was first committed to writing (in Ceylon during the reign of Va.tt.ag~tma.ni, c. 29-17 B.C.). Presumably, to the extent that Buddhist works were composed in Central Asia in the Sanskrit language, these works could exhibit bad Sanskrit in various degrees, because the authors would not be sufficiently educated in Sans- krit. Then, within ancient India, the Gandh~tra region was more progres- sive (both in iconography and in doctrine) than the rest of North India; and South India - where I place the composition of Tathagatagarbha scriptures and the early Buddhist Tantras 12 - was more innovative than North India. Some Buddhist sect or sects gave rise to the Prajfi~p~tramita scriptures composed in Sanskrit, starting with the first century A.D. (perhaps a little earlier), and may have used for a grammar the Kaldpa- satra. 1~ In fact, Buddhist Sanskrit texts which Edgerton included in his third class were undoubtedly being composed throughout the Kus~.na period as well as the Gupta Dynasty. Overlapping this activity of com- position in Sanskrit, a conservative monkhood was responsible for various works which are classified in three groups according to Edgerton. In the light of these considerations, it is reasonable to hold with Brough that the Grammar sometimes exhibits forms that are merely bad Sanskrit, and moreover that Edgerton may have introduced errors by putting all Sans- krit Buddhist works into three classes. He should perhaps have left out certain works that do not properly fall into his system of hybridization stages, but then he would have had the almost insurmountable task of deciding which works fall into the three classes and which do not. After all, it is a matter of convenience of description. Edgerton has the great merit of neatly encompassing a vast set of data in his Grammar, which remains a monument of intelligence and industry, as does his Dictionary. In this light, the fault of the Grammar is not in his producing it in the published form, but rather in his not defining its limitations, which are left to the critics to mention. On the other hand, if any criticism would have us believe that Edgerton should not have written the Grammar at

Page 5: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

348 A L E X W A Y M A N

all, he would not be the first or the last to have a fine scholarly work regarded as no work.

Turning to the other aspect of Edgerton's theory - that of Buddhist vocabulary, it is perhaps ironic that his Dictionary, which has proved considerably more useful than his Grammar, should have a less defensible title. Indeed, even if we accept the suitability of the name 'Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit ' to apply to the material in the Grammar, it is hard to see the applicability of the name to the entries in the Dictionary. But even when we say 'Buddhist Sanskrit ' or 'Buddhist vocabulary ' it is a matter of convenience, just as when someone says, 'Vedantic Sanskrit ' or 'Ved~ntic vocabulary' . In fact, all these words are Indian words. Granted that different Indian schools deliberately used some words in a technical man- ner, which must be learned in order to grasp the specific tenets of the school, and that Buddhism, like some other Indian schools, has a long list of such special t e r m s Y Still it is a fact that many of the most special terms of a system can be shared by other Indian systems, sometimes with the same and sometimes with different meanings for the terms. But the bulk of the entries in the Dictionary is derived f rom the fact that the various indian schools - so also the Buddhist sects - talked about different things and thus necessarily used and preserved different words. Hence, even if the title for the BHS Dictionary is not appropriate, the Dictionary itself, meaning its contents, will be a standard reference work for years to come.

II . SOME C O N S I D E R A T I O N S OF C E R T A I N W O R D S

OF T H E Sdhkhyakdrikd

The foregoing has clarified that the terminology 'Buddhist meanings' is not strictly correct since all the meanings of a Sanskrit word are the set of meanings of that word in the Indian books and the oral tradition. With this in mind, we consider certain words in the Sd~khyakdrikd - a system rival to Buddhism - and use the terminology 'Buddhist meanings' simply to denote those meanings which I happened to learn through reading Buddhist books and consulting associated reference works such as Edger- ton 's BHS Dictionary, even though these meanings are not necessarily exclusive to such books. For the Sd~khyakdrikd (S.K.) I here use the edi- tion and translation by S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri, 15 which is the main

Page 6: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

B U D D H I S T S A N S K R I T AND THE SAiQKHYAK~_RIKA 349

work employed for this text in Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Source Book in lndian Philosophy. 16

The first case is that of S.K. 11 :

trigun, arn, aviveki vi.saya.h sdmanyam, acetanam, prasavadharmi / vyaktam, tathd pradhanam; tadviparftas tathd ca purnan //

The word aviveki is in point. The Sastri translation 'non-discriminated' is of course based on the Vedanta interpretation of the word viveka; and the translator admits he could not use the rendering 'lacking discrimina- tion' - which would be more grammatically exact - since that would be tantamount to a subsequent term in the kdrikd, acetanam, 'non-intelli- gent'. But the meaning for avivekin 'not separated, not kept asunder', which Monier-Williams ascribes to Appayya Dik.sita's Kuvalaydnanda, is what one would expect from Buddhist texts where the related form vivikta 'separated, solitary' is standard in the description of the Buddhist dhydnas. So in the Buddhist Mahdvyutpatti No. 1478: viviktarn, kdmair viviktam. pdpakair akugala-dharmai.h savitarkam, savicdra.m vivekajam, priti-sukham. prathamam dhydnam upasam, padya viharati /. "H e dwells accomplishing the First Meditation which is isolated from desires, isolated from sinful unvirtuous natures, attended with vitarka and vicdra (discursive thought in its two stages of (a) the rough sketch or adumbration and (b) the detailed idea or thinking with signs) and which has joy and pleasure born of isolation (vivekaja)." Taking the suggestion of this rendition of viveka, S.K. 11 can be translated as follows:

The manifest (vyakta) has three gun.as, is non-solitary (aviveki), objective, general, non-intelligent, and productive; likewise the primeval (pradhdna) ( = the unmanifest). The Person is the reverse of that, though similar (i.e. the reverse of pradhdna in K. 11, but similar to pradhdna in K. 10).

In the sense of reverse or contrast, the Person is therefore vivekin 'solitary'. Along these lines, the subsequent S.K. 19 states:

tasmdc ca viparydsdt siddharn, sak.sitvam asya puru.sasya / kaivalyam, madhyasthyam, dra.st..rtvam, akart.rbhavag ca//

Page 7: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

350 ALEX WAYMAN

The next

And from the contrast, it is proved that the Puru.sa has wit- ness, solitude (kaivalya), neutrality, seership, and the mode of non-agency.

case is that of S.K. 24:

abhirndno "hahkdra.h, tasmdd dvividha.h pravartate sarga.h / ekdda~aka~ ca gan. a.h, tanmdtra.h pagcakag caiva //

In this case the Sastri translation starts: "Individuation is conceit." This translation of abhimdna as 'conceit' follows the later development of the noun and is close to the standard Buddhist meaning of 'pride' for abhi- retina. However, here the Buddhist sense is not proper; rather we should follow the learned treatment of Krishnachandra Bhattacharyya, 17 who explains abhimdna as the egoistic will, or conation, following from the primary significance of the verb abhi-man, ' to think of, long for, desire'. It is this longing which the S~fikhya system assigns to aham. kdra as the function producing the two fold creation. Hence the kdrikd is translated:

Aha .mkara (calling it T ) is conation. From it creation pro- ceeds twofold - the group of eleven, and the five subtle ele- ments.

The translation of the function abhimdna by 'conation' furnishes a signifi- cant lift to the cogency of this kdrikd for the rest of the Saflkhya system. It shows that the longing to expand upon what is 'mine' 18 gives rise to the organs and so on; whereas the usual rendition of abhimdna as 'conceit' or the Buddhist 'pride' constitutes an unintelligible reason for ascribing such evolution.

Then S.K. 42:

puru.sdrtha-hetukam idam nimitta-nairnittika-prasahgena / prak.rter vibhutvayogdn na.tavad vyavati.st.hate lihgarn //

This is the Sastri translation: "The subtle body prompted by the goal of the Spirit performs (its parts) like a player, through (its) connection with means and (their) results, being united to the might of Primal Nature." The translator thinks that the kdrikd implies that the subtle body takes on different parts in the manner of an actor; but in fact, the kdrikd might be

Page 8: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

B U D D H I S T S A N S K R I T AND THE S /k lqKHYAK.~RIKA 351

explicitly stating it, by the following argument. Here he renders the words nimitta-naimittika-prasahga as 'connection with means and their results.' The Buddhist use of the word nimitta (see Edgerton, Dictionary, pp. 197- 8) is the translation intermediary. In these texts, the word nimitta usually means a 'sign' or 'mark', a sense also employed in the Mahdbhdrata. Edgerton points out that it can mean a "personal, physical mark or trait characteristic, esp. of the body, but also of dress or ornament". The word naimittika can mean 'accidental' or 'occasional'. The Monier-Williams Dictionary gives as one sense ofprasahga (ascribed to Wilson), in drama, "a secondary or subsidiary incident or plot". This sense is repeated in Apte's Dictionary. Apte's Dictionary gives inter alia for naimittika "a conditional act - to be performed on the occurrence of a nimitta" (Sdrira- bhd.sya). Taking all these bits of evidence together, it seems feasible to render nimitta-naimittika-prasahga "adoption of a role with a character (nimitta) and consequent features (naimittika)". Then the entire kdrikd might be rendered:

The subtle body, motivated for Puru.sa's goal, behaves like an actor by adoption of a role with a character and conse- quent features, through connection with the potency of Prak.rti.

Passing to S.K. 46: e.sa pratyayasargah., etc. down to tasya ca bhedds tu pa~cdgat, we should acknowledge that the translation of pratyayasarga based on the commentaries, namely, "creation of the intellect" is certainly justified by the context, since it refers to the eight modes of buddhi. On the other hand, the usual Buddhist sense ofpratyaya is 'condition or con- ditional cause' and this sense fits well the remainder of the kdrikd, espe- cially"its variety amounts to fifty," since one can understand the pratyaya- sarga as the basic creation which gives rise to fifty varieties. Therefore, the intention of the wordpratyaya in this kdrikd can be argued both ways.

In S.K. 55, first half: tatra jard-maran, a-krtam du.hkham, prdpnoti cetana.h puru.sa.h, observe that jard-maratta is the last member of the Buddhist twelvefold Dependent Origination (pratftyasamutpdda) and a kind of du.hkha in Buddhism. Also that cetand in Buddhism is the volitional think- ing, otherwise called manas-karma, responsible for destiny. 19 Hence, pos- sibly, the half-kdrikd should be rendered: "There the volitional person attains the suffering consisting in old age and death."

Page 9: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

352 ALEX WAYMAN

Finally, there are the kdrikds 67-68:

samyagjgdnddhigamdd dharmddindm akdran, aprdptau / ti.s.thati sam. skdra-vaddt cakrabhramivad dh.rta-darrra.h //

prdpte garira-bhede caritdrthatvdt pradhdna-viniv.rttau / aikdntikam dtyantikam ubhayam kaivalyam dpnoti //

We notice that the two kdrikds are equivalent to the two traditional kinds of Buddhist nir~dn.a: a. nirvdn, a with remainder (sopadhide.sa-nirvd.na) as in kdrikd 67: a puru.sa remains possessed of body (ti.sthati... dh.rtadarira.h) by force of sam. skdra (sam. skdra-vaddt), b. nirvdn, a without remainder (nirupadhide.sa-nirvdn. a) as in kdrikd 68: when a puru.sa reaches break-up of body (prdpte darFrabhede) he attains kaivalya (kaivalyam dpnoti). This suggestion of a Buddhist parallel encourages me to consider in particular the word sam. skdra of kdrikd 67. As is well known, this term is the second member of the Buddhist pratftyasamutpdda formula; and is frequently translated as ' impressions' just as translators have rendered the sa.mskdra of this kdrikd 67. However, my long-time researches in the Buddhist formula (with two published articles so far on the subject 2°) have con- vinced me that the word sam. skdra in this context should not be translated 'impressions'. Long ago i noticed the importance of the brief Buddhist scripture called the Arthavinidcaya, zl which expounds the second member as follows: sam. skdrd.h katame / traya.h sam. skdrd.h / kdyasam, skdra.h / vdksam, skdra.h / mana.hsa.mskdrad ca / I t goes on to explain kdyasam, skdra as ddvdsa.h/pradvdsa.h/"inhalation and exhalation"; vdksam, skdra as: vitarkya vicdrya vdca.m bhd.sate / adumbrating and thinking with signs, one speaks a word" ; and mana.hsa .mskdra as: raktasya yd cetand / dvi.s.tasya yd cetand / m~.dhasya yd cetand / "the volition of the impassioned thought, the volition of the hating thought, the volition of the deluded thought". For this reason, it is not proper to translate sam. skdra in the Buddhist context as ' impressions', z2 and I have used the rendition 'motivations ' to cover generally such categories as kdyasamskdra (motivation of body), namely, inhalation and exhalation. I t turns out that this rendition 'moti- vation' is immediately applicable to the Sdhkhyakdrikd 67: sam. sk~ra- vaddt cakrabhramivad, "by the force of motivations, like the whirl of the potter 's wheel", because the wheel can reasonably be considered to go on whirling by virtue of motivations (just as the body keeps on going by

Page 10: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

BUDDHIST SANSKRIT AND THE SAlqKHYAK.~RIKA 353

vir tue o f i nha la t ion a n d exhala t ion) bu t no t by vi r tue o f impressions.

So kdr ikd 67 is t r ans l a t ed :

D h a r m a , etc. having ceased to be causes because o f his at-

ta in ing r ight knowledge, (a puru.sa) remains possessed o f b o d y

by force o f mot iva t ions , l ike the whir l o f the po t t e r ' s wheel.

Those examples , a l though few in number , will i l lustrate m y pos i t i on tha t

Buddh i s t meanings are ju s t I nd i an meanings , because if i t is p r o p e r to

conc lude tha t sam. skdra in Sdhkhyakdr ikd 67 means 'mo t iva t ions ' this

mean ing is a Sal~khya meaning as well as a Buddh i s t meaning . A t the same

t ime it is as p r o p e r to m a k e a Buddh i s t D ic t iona ry as i t is to m a k e a

Vaid ika-ko~a, a Ny~tya-ko~a, etc., because these are all convenien t repo-

si tories o f words , smal l col lect ions f rom the inexhaust ib le t reasury o f

I n d i a n words .

Columbia University,

New York NOTES

1 John Brough, 'The Language of the Buddhist Sanskrit Texts', Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1954, xvi/2, 351-75. 2 V. Raghavan, 'Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit', Suniti Kumar Chatterji Jubilee Volume, 1955, 313-22; also, V. Raghavan, 'Buddhological Texts and the Epics', reprint from the Adyar Library Bulletin, Vol. XX, parts 34 , 349-59. a M. B. Emeneau, Review in Language, Vol. 30, No. 4, October-December, 1955, 474-85, of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary, by Franklin Edgerton; (William Dwight Whitney linguistic series) Vol. 1" Grammar, pp. xxx, 239; Vol. 2: Dictionary, pp. ix, 627; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. And of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit reader, edited with notes by Franklin Edgerton; (William Dwight Whitney linguistic series), pp. ix, 76; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. 4 Alex Wayman, 'The Buddhism and the Sanskrit of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit', Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 85, No. 1, January-March, 1965, 111-15. 5 Now the work by John Brough, The Gandhari Dharmapada, London, 1962. 6 Cf. Edgerton, Grammar, xxv and 1-14. 7 Emeneau, p. 477. s Brough, the BSOAS article, pp. 353f. 9 Raghavan, 'Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit', pp. 315-17. lo Ibid., p. 321. 11 Wayman, the JAOS article, p. 115; and Edgerton, Dictionary, p. 92, entry 'atmaniya'. 12 My attempt to prove this contention is especially in The Lion's Roar of Queen ~rfmal~ (in collaboration with Hideko Wayman), Columbia University Press, New York, 1974. 13 Kal~pasfttra is the title preserved in the Tibetan account; cf. Mkhas-grub-rje'a Fundamentals o f the Buddhist Tantras, by F. D. Leasing and Alex Wayman (1958),

Page 11: Buddhist Sanskrit and the Sānkhyakārikā

354 ALEX WAYMAN

76-7. This earliest known treatise of non-Phoinean grammar is also called the Katantra and is placed by B. Liebich in the first century A.D. ; cf. L. Renou and J. Filliozat, L 'lnde classique, II. 93. 14 Perhaps the oldest list of Buddhist terms is that of the Sangiti Suttanta, No. 33 in the Digha Nikaya of the Phli canon. In this case, the terms are in their Pfili form. In the Sanskrit language, such lists of terms, usually in association with varieties, are called a Dharmasa.mgraha. Such a work is reprinted in Mah~y~na-S~tra-Sathgraha, edited by Dr P. L. Vaidya (Darbhanga, 1961), No. 20. There is Der Chinesisehe Dharmasa.mgraha by Friedrich Weller (Leipzig, 1923). In the early ninth century A.D., the celebrated Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary called the Mah6vyutpatti was compiled in Tibet; here the terms are comprised under subject headings, starting with the epithets of the Buddha. 15 The Sa~khyakarika of Igvara K.r.s.na, edited and translated by S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri (University of Madras, 1948). is A Source Book in Indian Philosophy, edited by S. Radhakrishnan and C. A. Moore (Princeton, 1957). 17 Krishnachandra Bhattacharyya, Studies in Philosophy, Vol. I (Calcutta, 1956), especially pp. 182-83. 18 Cf. Surendranath Dasgupta, ,4 History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I (Cambridge, 1932), p. 250. 19 So Asafiga's Abhidharma-Samuccaya, edited by Pralhad Pradhan (Santiniketan, 1950), text, pp. 5-6: cetanh katama/citfftbhisa.mskhro manaskarma ]ku~al~ku§a- lavyak.rte.su cittapreraoakarmik~ ]/What is cetana? The mental karma which instigates thought. The agency urging thought toward the virtuous, the unvirtuous, and the indeterminate. 20 Alex Wayman, 'Buddhist Dependent Origination and the S~m. khya gu~as', Ethnos (1962), pp. 14-22; 'Buddhist Dependent Origination', History of Religions, Vol. 10, No. 3 (February 1971), pp. 185-203. 21 Arthavini~eaya, edited by Alfonsa Ferrari, Acead. dei Lincei, Scienze Morafi, Atti- Memorie, Ser. 7, Vol. 4 (Rome, 1944), especially pp. 556-57. 2z Edgerton's rendition (Dictionary, p. 542) 'predisposition(s)' is also satisfactory and is an excellent equivalent in the case of the third samskara, the mana.hsa.mskara; but I believe the greater generality of the word 'motivations' serves better to represent sa.mskara as the second member of Dependent Origination in the light of the three varieties of the Arthavinigcaya.