Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Grie in-8"
Fascicule 55
DIALECTES
DANS LES
LITTERATURES INDO-ARYENNES
Actes du Colloque International
organid par I'UA 1058
sous les auspices du C.N.R.S.
avec le soutien
du C O L L ~ ~ Gde
E FRANCE
de la Fondation HUGOT du COLLBGE de FRANCE
de I'UNIVERSITB de PARIS I11
du M I N I S T ~ R Edes AFFAIRES ~~TRANGBRES
PARIS (Fondation Hugot), 16-18 septembre 1986
Ouvrage publie avec le concours du CNRS
de la Fondation Hugot et de la Fondation Meillet du College de France
du Conseil Scientifique de I'Universite de Paris 111
~ ~ D I T PAR
I?
COLETTE CAILLAT
PARIS
h i t e u r : College d e France
Institut d e Civilisation lndienne
1989
340
M. C . PORCHER
SUDRAKA.
- The Mlcchakafikri of ~tidraka,
edited with English translation by
M. R. KALE, Delhi, 1982 (reimp.).
VI~~KHADATTA.
- Mudrcirriksasa of Viirikhadatta, edited with English
translation by M. R. KALE, Delhi, 1976 (reimp.).
K ~ L I D ~ SA . The Abh~Arindakuntalam of Krilidrisa, edited with English
translation by M. R. KALE, Delhi, 1980 (reimp.).
- Vikramorvaiivam of Kdidisa, critically edited with translation by
C. R. DEVADHAR,
Delhi, 1952 (reimp.).
- Mrilavikrignimitram of KciIidZsa, critically edited with translation by
C. R. DEVADHAR,
Delhi, 1980 (reimp.).
HARSA.- Priyadariikci of ~ r Har~adeva,
i
edited with commentary and
English translation by M. R. KALE, Delhi, 1977 (reimp.).
BHAVABH~TI.
- Mcilatimcidhava, with the commentary of Jagaddhara, edited
with English translation by M. R. KALE, Delhi, 1983 (reimp.).
- Utrararcimacarita, drame de Bhavabhiiti
traduit et annote par
N. STCHOUPAK,
Paris, 1960 (collection E. Senart).
B H A ~ A N ~ Y ANA
.
VenBmhrira,
drame sanskrit edite et traduit par
F. BOURGEOIS,
Paris, 1971 (I.C.I. Fasc. 33).
BHARATA.
- The Nci~yaicisrraascribed to Bharatamuni (vol. 1 ) edited with
introduction and various readings by MANOMOHAN
GHOSH,Calcutta, 1967.
(vol. 2) : English translation, Calcutta 1967.
VISVAN~THA.
- The Srihityadarpana or Mirror of composition by ViSvanLtha
Kaviriija, text revised by Dr. E. ROER, translated into English by
J. R. BALLANTYNE,
Calcutta, 1851 (Bibliotheca Indica), reprint Biblio
Verlag, Osnabriick 1980).
SUMMARY
This article aims at studying the passages of the Mrcchaka!ikH where
Vasantasenl, despite the general conventions concerning the language of
women in the Sanskrit theatre speaks Sanskrit. Before examining the text
itself, I made a preliminary study. Reading the principal plays of the
classical theatre, I give a list of the different categories of characters (those
who speak Sanskrit, those who speak Prakrit) and I pay particular
attention to the use of verse and prose. A general survey of Sanskrit drama
permits us to conclude that a double interdiction is cast upon women : they
are allowed neither to speak Sanskrit nor to speak in verse except in a few
cases analysed here. Nevertheless VasantasenH's case appears unique in the
whole range of characters.
Oskar von
HINOBER
343
Benga14 : (Bhiksu)PrHtimoksasiitra (ed. by N. Tatia, 1975), Bhiksunivinaya (ed. by G. Roth, 1970), AbhisamHcHrikH (ed. by B. Jinananda, 1969). These texts, belonging to the Vinaya tradition of the
MahHsHmghika-Lokottaravldins,have been listed by G. Roth : " Features", p. 81 5 , who further draws the attention to two small fragments recovered from two incomplete folios found at BLmiyin. They
have been edited by S. Lkvi, Journal Asiatique 220, 1932, p. 7-8
[no. 51 and p. 11-12 [no. 71. Only no. 5 was identified by S. Lkvi as
belonging to the MahHsHmghika-Vinaya, while no. 7 was classified
tentatively as "(Vinaya?)". Now G. Roth has been able to recognize
the MahHsLmghika and MahHsHmghika-LokottaravHda formula vinaydtikramam rfscdayati misread by S. Levi. As G. Roth (" Features", p. 83) states that this phrase "can be restored with confidence",
he may have overlooked the photograph attached to the article, which
confirms his conjecture. In spite of the fact that it shares, unnoticed so
far, a second formula with the Bhiksux&Vinaya: ... lalbhati
paribhogdm(tikam) [vinayjciti kramam dsddayati, no. 7a2 = BhiksuniVinaya 8 186, p. 203, 9, it is highly probable that this fragment
belongs to the MahHsHmghika-LokottaravLda-Vinaya.A new edition
of this fragment, which seems to fit into the 12th nissargika pdcittika,
has appeared in BE1 4 (1986), 295-303.
Besides these new texts belonging to group I, the knowledge on
material concerning the MahHvastu, Edgerton's only major text in this
4. One of the manuscripts is dated in AD t 149 : G. ROTH: "Particular Features of
the Language of the Arya-Mahld~ghika-Lokottarav%dinsand Their Importance for
Early Buddhist Tradition". in : Die Sprache, as below note 28, 78-135 (quoted as
Roth : Features" henceforth), p. 82.
5. All these texts appeared in the Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, Patna. -- A short
passage from the Stripolak~anakdrikdvivecana belonging to this group, has been edited
by G. ROTH: "Symbolism of the Buddhist Stipa", in : The Stlipa, ed. by
A. L. Dallapiccola, Wiesbaden 1980, 181-209, p. 193, 8 10. - The edition of the
Bhiksuni-Vinaya has been translated by EDITH N o m , Bhik~uni-Vinaya. Regles de
Discipline des Nonnes Bouddhistes. Recension de Mahisciyghika-Lokottaravcidin. Trae
k o l e des Hautes Eludes
duction franpise comment& ... Titre d ' ~ ~ vDiplBm&.
(4' Sect~on), Paris 1984 (unpublished thesis); the same author has collated the
photograph of this text kept at the K. P. Jayaswal Institute, Patna, today against the
edition prepared by G. Roth, what resulted in numerous corrections : E. NOWT,
Collation du manuscrir du Bhik~wi-Vinaya. Memoire de D.E.A. prepare sous la
direction de C. Caillat et G. Fussman soutenu devant I'Univernte de la Sorbonne
Nouvelle (Paris Ill) (no date). The original manuscript is kept in.Peking today. Further
Monastic Discipline for the
help for the study of this text is provided by A. HIRAKAWA,
Buddhist Nuns. An English Translation of the Chinese Text of the Mahiamghika
Bhik~uni-Vinaya,Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series XXI, Patna 1982. This text, however,
though near to, is not identical with the Lokottaravida version. On the AbhisamidrikH Dharmi : M. PRASAD,A Comparative Study of Abhisamdccirikci. Tibetan Sanskrit
Works Series XXVI, Patna 1984, which is hardly more than a useful guide to the
contents of this text.
"
344
o.
VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
".
"
345
"
346
0. VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
v.
347
348
0. VON HIN~JBER
349
20. JOHNSTON,
as preceding note, p. xvn. - On the relation of the place names
Ayodhyri, Gronigen 1986, p. I I I., and : RHR 203
Siketa and Ayodhyl : H. BAKKER,
(1986). 53-66.
21. H. LUDERS,BruchsriiCke buddhistischer Dramen, Berlin 1911 (Reprint : Wiesbaden 1979), and : "Das .kiriputraprakaraqa. ein Drama des Asvaghop", 1911,
Philologica Indica, Gottingen 1940, 190-213; cf, : K. KRISHNAMOORTY
: " A New Play
by Asvagho$a?", JOlB 11 (1961/62), 428-432 : on the R&rapPlanaraka summing up
earlier discussions of this topic.
Geschichre &r indischen Lirerarur, Leipdg 1923 (Reprint :
22. M. WINTERNI~,
Stuttgart 1968). 111, p. 209.
23. Mrcch Vlll 5 : The meaning of this verse is not entiree clear. It may be pointed
out that
the
monk
the scene with a wet civara in his hand : dtidPkdciodPe aie
..-~
~~- ~
- ~ enters
civale "this robe has taken the reddish-brown colour", cf. rajanmy pajiganheyya, Vin I
16, 4 = AN IV 168, 20 etc. Now he wants to wash it, what is in accordance with the
rule : anujrinirmi bhikkhave udake osrirerwn, Vin 1 286, 35, what is said with reference to
a recently dyed civura.
~
o.
350
VON HINUBER
35 1
353
".
red 38. Thus GBndhHri seems to have been used once by the
SarvlstivBdins as well. Therefore this Middle lndic language can no
longer be considered as used exclusively by the Dharmaguptaka
school, and the gifts presented to the samgha of the SarvHstivldins
inscribed in Kharosthi make a good sense in this respect.
Among the very few texts surviving in an Indian language, which
can be attributed to the Dharmaguptaka school 39, is the GHndhHri
Dharmapada (GDhp). From this canonical text we may deduce the
existence of a lost Dharmaguptaka Prltimoksasiitra in GHndhHri. The
only surviving fragment that can be attributed to the Dharmaguptaka
PrHtimoksasiitra, however, is written in a language near to BHS as far
as the few words extant allow any conclusion. This fragment together
with the more Sanskritized one from the Dharmaguptaka MahHparinirvlnasiitra has been discovered and discussed by E. Waldschmidta.
To sum up, the following Vinaya languages are either extant or can
be inferred as having been in use once :
Theravlda : PHli ;
MahHsHmghika (with Lokottaravlda) : Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit;
MiilasarvHstivHda : Sanskrit ;
SarvHstivBda : (GHndhHri) > Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit > Sanskrit;
5. Dharmaguptaka : (GHndhHri) > Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit >
Sanskrit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Thus both schools rooted in North Western and Central India seem
to have followed the same pattern of development, which may
have reached the final stage that is Sanskrit at about 500 AD
(0.
v. Hiniiber, as above note 38, p. 34).
A sixth Vinaya, the one of the Mahiilsakas, is preserved in Chinese
translation only, and nothing seems to be known about its original
language. However, as it has been brought from Ceylon to China by
Fa-hsien and was translated by Buddhajiva, a native of Kaimir,
Sanskrit may be a not altogether improbable guess4].
38. 0. v. H ~ N ~ ~:B"Sanskrit
ER
und GHndhHri in Zentralasien ", in : Spruchen dcs
Buddhismus in Zenrralasien. Veroffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Allaica 16. Wiesbaden 1983, 27-34, especially p. 33.
ER
as below note 43. p. 74. note 51.
39. 0. v. H ~ N ~ ~:B"Schulzugehorigkeit
40. E. WALDKHMIDT
: "Central Asian SDtra Fragments and Their Relation to the
RUEW.
Chlnese Agamas ", in : Dw Sprache. as above note 28. 136-174, cf. D. SEYFORT
JAOS 103 (1983). p. 656. and E. MAYEDA
: "Japanese Studies on the Schools of the
Chinese Agamas in : Schulzugehorigkeir, as above note 6, 94-103. especially p. 103 on
the articles of F. ENOMOTO.
41. LAMOTTE,
Hisro~rc.p. 187. and Hdbdgirin. Fascicule Annexe : RCpertoire du
Canon Bouddhique Sino-Japonais, Tokyo '1978, s.v. Buuudujli.
".
".
355
356
6.
VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
357
358
0 . VON H ~ N ~ ~ B E R
359
erable influence. Thus the typical Buddhist Sanskrit causative kcfrd(herblick $489) found in manuscript A of the SamghHtasiitra, is nearly consistently replaced by kcrayat;. Further, the scribe
of manuscript F of the SamghHtasiitra replaces quite a few standard
Sanskrit words by different ones, which, though synonymous to those
substituted, change the wording of the text considerably, as can be
seen from the following table :
papti
Manuscripts ABCD
Manuscript F
'apsarukunyd', 5 17
utscihaty, 5 27
tirdhvenu, 5 29
nircilaycim, verse 16d
righati rarhcigure, 8 53
unyarra, 5 70
utp&iayi$yanti, 5 91
y6sycimi, 5 98
bhavisyari, 5 99
eyad avocat, 5 100
nranujyotpcidam, $? 102
vipratisciribhito, 5 105
'gandharvCnyai
urscihuncfm
'ucchrayay
andaydm
sammukhi%hzire tathcigare
unyathci
janayisyunti
gaccheyu
sydt
dmanrrayati
manu~yapratilfibho
prarisciri
nrimogruhapera vy&cIrs&, 5 125,127 :
survusvaparitycfg~$ 127
mohamtidhcis, 5 139
pretayonip, 5 140
sumksubdhuh, 5 161
samyak, $ 166
karmaprakaranenu, $ 168
Sariram, 5 169
vyuvasiravyum, 5 189
prarycijcit$t, 4 223
virumati, 5 237
medikai, 5 239
kcimabhrcfnrenu, verse 85d
sur va:stipariIycfgi
mundnmtidhcih
prelavi$uye
utrhciya
samyakr vcfd
karmuve~~trd
Sariratam I!)
vipiditavyaty
ayanijd ere satvci
vivarjayati
khedikai
karmamatteno.
Cambridge I967
(unpubhched PhD thesis). Except for the first Chinese translation by Upasiinya (? or
Ordhvasiinya?) in A D 538, which may be contemporary to the manuscripts ABCF. all
other translations are younger than the Gilgit manuscripts.
Trunslufion o/
",
361
".
0 . VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
362
363
60. The word bhc occurs twice in vencs of the Bhikguniv~nayaas above note 5, index
S.V.
364
o.
VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
365
The pronoun tubbhehi, PDhp 360 : turnhehi, Dhp 276 does not
occur in PHli.
The verb form pa.ripniahvo, PDhp 361 : pa!ipajjalha, Dhp 274
corresponds to PHli (Uberblick # 434). - Futures in -ihi(m)ti such as
abhiiehiti, PDhp 350 : adhisessati, Dhp 41 occur besides prdcchunti,
PDhp 25 : Dhp -, daccham, PDhp 295 : Dhp - and karijyarhu,
PDhp 361 : karissatha, Dhp 275.
To sum up : this language is certainly neither PHli, to which it is
near, nor any Buddhist Sanskrit known so far, but a new variety
derived independently from Buddhist Middle Indic. On the whole i t
may be a western variety, as the ending -ah is changed with some
exceptions noted by G. Roth ("Features", p. 95, Q: 15) into -0, and
there is no change -r- > -I-. Sometimes there seems to be north
western influence, while some other features rather point to the east
such as -<ti, -nn- >. -nn- ** or tubbhehi, cf. ArdhamLgadhT tubbhehip~.
This rather indicates a long and varying history of this text of the
PDhp before it was copied, during the middle of the 12th century
most probably 62. The scribe was familiar with Sanskrit, which he uses
for the title and for the colophon, and he may have introduced those
partly Sanskritized varga-titles. Thus here again Sanskrit and Middle
lndic have been used together.
As the Dhp i s a canonical text, the PDhp should belong to a school
in possession of a Middle Indic canon. Linguistically the (Miila-)
SarvHstivHda version known from the UdHnavarga, which, anyway is
an UdHna rather, as F. Bernhard has shown (above note 13), and the
Dharmaguptaka version that is the GDhp, are ruled out as are the
PHli Dhp or a MahHsHmghika-LokottaravHda version. Therefore the
language confirms what can be deduced from the structure of the text,
which is different from all Dhp versions 63 including the MahHsHmghika-LokottaravHda, if the Sahasravarga in the MahHvastu is compared
to the PDhp. Although it is easy to find-a negative answer, it cannot
be determined in any positive way, to which school the PDhp may
belong, as no information seems to survive even on the schools
flouristing during the very last phase of Buddhism in Eastern India.
The language of the PDhp, however, provides us with an example
of a canon of unknown affiliation and with a new variety of Buddhist
62. On epigraphical evidence of a language perhaps not to remote from that of the
: F Z U ~Bhai~shukiLnsrriptions. EI 28 (1949/50!, 320-226 and .!I=
PDhp : D. C. SIRCAR
same : Bhaikshuki Insclipcions in Indian Museum El 35 (196314). 79-84,
63. These have been discussed by K . MIZUNO
and H. NAKATANI,
as above note 12.
** [With the hybnd ctiaracter noted in the PDhp compare some of the remarks
concerning the language of Minsehri. where the opposition /-M-/,1-np//-nn-1 appears
to be neutralised). ED].
ADDENDA
Note I t : A. Yuyama : Miscellaneous Remarks on the Lotus Sutra, in : Collected
Papers on Indian and Buddhist Studies : A Volume Dedicated to Dr. Jikid6
Takasaki on the Occasion of his M)th Birthday. Tokyo 1987, 720 119)-712 (127).
Page 347 : R. Tschuchida : Textkritische Noten zum Sanskrit-Text des GoldglanzSltra. Central Asiatic Journal 29 (1985). 11 1-152.
Note 16 : I.-U. Hartmann : Neue Aavagho$a- und Mitpxla-Fragmente aus Ostturkestan. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. I. PhilologirhHistorische Klasse, Jahrgang 1988, Nr. 2.
Note 19 : Recent research on the intricate problem of the possible affiliation of
ASvaghop to a specific Buddhist school has been summed up conveniently by
J. W. de Jong, IIJ 20 (1978), p. 125f.
Page 362 : Further Buddhist texts in ApabhragSa have been published recently in :
ApabhramS Vacan Saggrah, in : Dhih. A Review of Rare Buddhist Texts. 5. Sarnath
1988, p. 29-36, 177f.