PUBLICATIONS DE L'INSTITUT DE CIVILISATION INDIENNE

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

Dipositaire exclusif : ~DITION-DIFFUSION

DE BOCCARD
11, rue de MMicis - 75006 Paris
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.).
A . The Abh~Arindakuntalam of Krilidrisa, edited with English
K ~ L I D ~ S-
translation by M. R. KALE, Delhi, 1980 (reimp.).
- Vikramorvaiivam of Kdidisa, critically edited with translation by
C. R. DEVADHAR, Delhi, 1952 (reimp.). Oskar von HINOBER
- Mrilavikrignimitram of KciIidZsa, critically edited with translation by
C. R. DEVADHAR, Delhi, 1980 (reimp.). ORIGIN AND VARIETIES
HARSA.- Priyadariikci of ~ r Har~adeva,
i edited with commentary and OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT
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.). T h e study of Sanskrit a s used by the Buddhist literary tradition has
- Utrararcimacarita, drame de Bhavabhiiti traduit et annote par been put o n a firm base for the first time, when F. Edgerton published
N. STCHOUPAK, Paris, 1960 (collection E. Senart). his monumental Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit G r a m m a r and Dictionary
B H A ~ A N ~ Y A- NA .
VenBmhrira, drame sanskrit edite et traduit par (BHSG/D), New Haven 1953. Although some o f Edgerton's views o n
F. BOURGEOIS, Paris, 1971 (I.C.I. Fasc. 33). the whole a n d many details have been criticized from the very
beginning', the high merits of this standard work have been
recognized unanimously. And in spite o f considerable progress made
BHARATA. - The Nci~yaicisrraascribed to Bharatamuni (vol. 1 ) edited with during the thirty years that have passed since the publication o f
introduction and various readings by MANOMOHAN GHOSH,Calcutta, 1967. Edgerton's magnum opus, it is going t o remain t h e starting point for
(vol. 2) : English translation, Calcutta 1967. a n y investigation in this field today a n d for many years t o come.
VISVAN~THA. - The Srihityadarpana or Mirror of composition by ViSvanLtha The particular language used by the Buddhists is called Buddhist
Kaviriija, text revised by Dr. E. ROER, translated into English by Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS) by Edgerton, a designation reserved here for
J. R. BALLANTYNE, Calcutta, 1851 (Bibliotheca Indica), reprint Biblio the MahHsHmghika-LokottaravHda t r a d i t ~ o n ,which comprises those
Verlag, Osnabriick 1980). texts belonging t o g r o u p i of Edgerton's classification (BHSG p. xxv).
For Edgerton BHS is " a real language, n o t a modification o r
corruption of any other dialect o n record, a n d a s individual in its
L. - Les grammairiens prakrits, Paris, 1935.
N~IT~-DOLCI lexicon a s it has been shown t o be in its grammar" (BHSG 1.1 11).
Though not related t o any known Middle Indic language ( B H S G
1.79, 1.105), it is based o n a n " underlying Prakrit " (BHSG 1.105,5).
SUMMARY This, somehow, leaves open the ultimate origin o f Buddhist Sanskrit,
This article aims at studying the passages of the Mrcchaka!ikH where although this problem obviously is of a s much consequence for the
Vasantasenl, despite the general conventions concerning the language of
women in the Sanskrit theatre speaks Sanskrit. Before examining the text I . Reviews on EDGERTON'S work as been listed by A. YUVAMA, A Bibliography o f r k
itself, I made a preliminary study. Reading the principal plays of the Sanskrit Texts of the Saddharmapu&arikaElitra, Canberra 1970, p. 80 f., to which may
classical theatre, I give a list of the different categories of characters (those be added the short notice on a lecture given by H. BERGER, ZDMG 106 (1956). '43.-
who speak Sanskrit, those who speak Prakrit) and I pay particular '45'; and further : A. WAYMAN, "Buddhist Sanskrit - An Appraisal", in :
attention to the use of verse and prose. A general survey of Sanskrit drama Proceedings of the Firsr In~er#ationalSanskrit Conference 1972, New Delhi. Vol. 11,
permits us to conclude that a double interdiction is cast upon women : they Part 2, Delhi 1976, 20-30. The main points of criticism are summarized conveniently
are allowed neither to speak Sanskrit nor to speak in verse except in a few in : Th. DAMSTEEGT, Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrir, Leiden 1978 [Reviews :
cases analysed here. Nevertheless VasantasenH's case appears unique in the M. MAYRHOFER, Die Sprache 25 (1979). 291-294; K . R. NORMAN,Lingua 48 (1979),
291-294; 1. W.DEJONG,IIJ 22 (1980), 313-316; G. FUSSMAN, J A (1980), 420-426;
whole range of characters. J. S. KLEIN,JAOS 100 (1980). 150 f.; W. RAU,OLZ (1981). 587-5901, p. 238-242.

evaluation of the varieties of this language as is the history of the
Buddhist text tradition, what has been emphasized first of all by
J. Brough in his fundamental article "The Language of Buddhist
Sanskrit Texts" BSOAS 16. 1954.351-375 2 .
However, before trying to discuss both these problems, origin and
varieties of Buddhist Sanskrit, it may be useful to collect, however
briefly, the material on which the respective observations have been
based. For the number of Buddhist texts edited and available in
facsimile edition today is considerably larger than it was, when
Edgerton announced his plan to write a grammar and a dictionary
exactly fifty years ago [BSOS 8 (1935-1937), p. 5061.
The largest and by far most important increase in material concerns
Edgerton's group 1, which is represented in his grammar by the
MahHvastu (Mv), then by the Bhiksuprakirnaka as quoted in the
SiksHsamuccaya, and finally by the Kacchapa-JHtaka, reedited and
carefully examined in the meantime by A. Yuyama, who added
considerable material to BHSG in his work on the PrajiiHpHramitHrat-
nagunasamcayagathl 3 .
All editions which add new material to group I have been prepared
from photographs taken in Tibet by R. SHnkrtyHyana in 1938 from
originals written probably in the middle of the 12th century in PHla
2. Views on the text tradition similar to those of J. BROUGHhave been expressed
simultaneously and independently by C. REGAMEY : "Randbemerkungen zur Sprache
und Textiiberlieferung des Kirandavyiiha ", in : Asiatica, Festschrift Friedrich Weller,
Leipzig 1954,514-527. Regamey's opinion that the Mahidmghika-Lokottaravida texts
were not Sanskritized, but written in "Northern Buddhist Prakrit n (p. 522). which is
based on the assumption that no Prakrit originals are surviving, from which BHS texts
were recast into their present linguistic shape (p. 521 f.), is no longer tenable.
3. A. YUYAMA,Kacchapa-JZtaka. Eine Erzahlung von der Schildkrote und &m
Kranzwinder. Studia Philologica Buddhica. Occasional Papers Series V. Tokyo 1983,
and : A Grammur of the Prajtic-Pciromitd-Ratna-Gunu-Samcaya-Githd (Sanskrit Recen-
sion A ) . Canberra 1973 [Reviews : T. BURROW,JRAS (1975). 72 f.; J. MAY, 111 18
(1976). 123-133 ; R. N. LETHCOE,JAOS 96 (1976). 353 f.]; Prajtid-Paramird-Ratna-
Guna-Samcuyu-Gdthri. Ed. by A. YUYAMA, Cambridge 1976 [Reviews :
J. C. COPPIETERS, JA (1977), 424 f. ; G. SCHOPEN,IIJ 20 (1978). 110-124; E. CONZE,
JRAS (1978). 89; K. R. NORMAN,Modern Asian Studies I2 (1978). 174-176;
P. HARRISON, South Asia NS I, 1 (1978), 128 f.; A. METTE,OLZ (1981). 751. Further,
the same author has studied this text, which is the only Prijiiipiramiti version that has
survived In a vanety of BHS, in the following articles : "Some glossarial notes on the
Rgs". 111 15 (1973). 319 [reference only]; "Remarks on the metre of the Rgs", in :
Studies in Indu-Asian Art and Culture I I , Delhi 1973, 243-253; "The First Two
Chapters of the Rgs ", in : Prajticipdramird and Related Systems. Studies in Honour of
E.Conze. Berkeley 1977, 203-219; "Rgs Quoted by Candrakirti in his Prasannapadi
(Pras) (11) ". Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies. Indogaku Bukky6gaku Kenkyrj, 17
(1978). 486-483; "A Fragment of a Hitherto Unknown Skt. Version of the Rgs in
Blockpr~ntin the Lafi-tsha Script" (in Japanese), in : Hirakawa Akira Hakushi Koki
Kinm. Bukkpd Shisd-na Shomandai, Tokyo 1985, 443-453.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 343
Benga14 : (Bhiksu)PrHtimoksasiitra (ed. by N. Tatia, 1975), Bhik-
sunivinaya (ed. by G. Roth, 1970), AbhisamHcHrikH (ed. by B. Jina-
nanda, 1969). These texts, belonging to the Vinaya tradition of the
MahHsHmghika-Lokottaravldins,have been listed by G. Roth : " Fea-
tures", p. 81 5 , who further draws the attention to two small frag-
ments 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 vi-
naydtikramam rfscdayati misread by S. Levi. As G. Roth (" Featu-
res", 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 = Bhiksuni-
Vinaya 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. Tra-
duction franpise comment& ... Titre d ' ~ ~ vDiplBm&.
e k o l e des Hautes Eludes
(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
help for the study of this text is provided by A. HIRAKAWA, Monastic Discipline for the
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 Abhisamidri-
kH 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
group, has also been increased considerably. A survey of new
manuscript material available now, and of research done on this text
until1 1966 has been given by A. Yuyama 6. Further, among the four
manuscripts of the Mahivastu microfilmed by the Nepal German
Manuscript Preservation Project, there is the only known palm leaf
manuscript of the MahHvastu, which is, though undated by centuries
older (13/14thcentury?) than the oldest manuscript used by
E. Senart '. Thus the time has come to supersede Senart's edition,
which still stands as an impressive monument of scholarship8.
The texts of Edgerton's group 2 show the same linguistic features as
group I only in the verses, while the prose passages are comparatively
free from recognizable Middle lndic influence. One of the major texts
of this group is the Saddharmapundarikasiitra (SP). Again a survey of
6. "A Bibliography of the Mahlvastu-Avadina", IIJ 11 (1968). 11-23, to which a
further fragmentary German translation can be added now : E. LEUMAN - SHOKO
WATANABE : "Mahivastu 11", pp. 83-121, Tokyo 1969. - Further : L. AL~DORF
" Verkannte Mahivastu-Strofen ". WZKSO 12113 (1968169). 13-22; P. HARRISON
"Sanskrit Fragments of a Lokottaravidin Tradition ", in : Indological and Buddhist
Stdies. Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on His Sixtieth Birthday,
Canberra 1982, 211-234; G. ROTH: "The Readings Madhyuddeiika ...". in : Zur
Schulzugehorigkeit von Werken der Hinayha-Literatur I . Abhandlungen der Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. 3. Folge, Nr. 149,
Gottingen 1985, 127-137. and J. W. DE JONG: Madhyadeiika, madhyoddeiika and
"
madhy 'uddeSikaW,ibidem, 138-143, the same article also appeared in : Orientalia losephi
Tucci Memor~aeDicata. Serie Orientale Roma LVI, 2. Rome 1987. 1, 2. 671-676. -
TELWA RAHULA,
~ A Critical Study of the Mahrivastu, Delhi 1978 [Review : ZDMG
130 (1980). 6631, is useful at best as a kind of guide to the contents of the Mahivastu.
7. The date of E. SENART'S manuscript B is not clear : It is given as NS 842 = AD
172112 in the colophon as printed Mv 111 463, 13, but as NS 920 = AD 1799/1800 in
the introduction to volume I, p. VI.The latter date occurs in A. CABATON, Catalogue
sommaire des Manuscrits Sanscrits et Prilis. I" Fascicule : Manuscrits Samcr~ts,Paris
1907, no. 87-89 as well. This inconsistency has been discovered by R. P. MENKENS in his
unpublished MA thesis "Zwei neue Mahavastu-Handschriften aus Nepal", Freiburg
1983. The second manuscript investigated here is a paper manuscript dated NS 81 5 =
AD 169415 by G. ROTH,as above note 6, p. 129. However, this date, too, is not beyond
doubt. For the figures seem to be older than and not corresponding to those used for
the pagination of the manuscript. Consequently they may have been copied from the
original and do not date the copy. The last figure certainly is 5, preceded by 7, not I, as
this shape of 5 goes together with a 7 that resembles I in later sets (cf. S. M. RAJBANSHI,
The Evolution of Devanagari Script, Kailash.2 (1974). 23-120, p. 110, plate 91). The first
figure may be 8, but a slightly miscopied 6 cannot be ruled out altogether. Therefore the
date is either NS 875 = AD 175415 or, slightly less likely NS 675 = AD 155415 for the
original, from which this Devanigari manuscript has been copied. - Three funher
manuscripts of the Mahlvastu are mentioned in H. TAKAOKA, A MicroJilm Catalogue of
the Buddhist Manuscripts in Nepal, Vol. I (all published), Nagoya 1981, as nos. A 63,
CA 47, and CH 51. All these manuscripts are written on paper, and only the last one
mentioned is dated, though the date is not clear.
8. No progress at all is achieved by the prints of Mv published by R. G . BASAK
(1963) and S. BAGCHI(1970).
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 345
research on this text has been given by A. Yuyama, as mentioned
above in note I . Since the appearence of Edgerton's grammar, here,
too, much new material has come to light or became accessible, by
which it is possible now to outline the history of SP much more clearly
than this could be done thirty years ago, when very little and
unreliable information on the Central Asian version was available.
This version has been made accessible now first of all by the efforts of
H. Toda : Saddharmapundarikasiitra. Central Asian Manuscripts.
Romanized Text. Tokushima 1981 [review : 0. v. Hiniiber, IIJ 28
(1985), 137-139]Q.Further new Central Asian fragments of SP from
the Russian collections have been edited recently by G. M. Bongard-
Levin and M. I. Vorob'eva-Desjatovskaya lo.
9. Further : H. BECHERT, Uber die "Marburger Fragmente " des SSoddharmapunfia-
rika. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. I. Philoiogisch-
Historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1972, Nr. I ; Saddharma-Pundarika-Slitra.Kashgar M a -
: nuscript. Ed. by LOKE~H CHANDRA, Tokyo 1977 (facsimile edition); Soddharma-
: Pundarika-Slitra. Sanskrit Manuscript from Tibet. Reproduced by LOKFSHCHANDRA,
Sata-Pigaka Series, Vol. 337, Delhi 1984. It is suspected by the editor that this
manuscript might be a copy of the one preserved in Peking dated AD 1082 (see note I I
below).
10. Pamjatniki Indijskoj Pis'mennosti iz Centralhoj Azii. Vypusk I. lzdanie Tekstov,
lssledovanie i Kommentarij G. M. BONGARD-LEVINA i M. I. VOROB'EVOJ-WATOV-
SKOJ. Pamjatniki Pis'mennosti Vostoka LXXIII, I = Bibliotheca Buddhica XXXIII,
Moscow 1985 [Review : J. W. DE JONG,IIJ 30 (1987). 215-2211 : Mahiyana-Mahlpa-
riniwinasitra. DharmaSarirasitra, Saddhannapundaniasitra : 85 leaves from seven
SP manuscripts. A pan of this book has been reedited in English by G, M. BONGARD-
LEVIN,New Fragments of the Mahiyina Mahriparinirv@asritra (Central Asian Manus-
cript Collect~on at Leningrad). Studia Philologica Buddhica. Occasional Paper
Series V1, Tokyo 1986; cf. also : K. Matsuda : Sanskrit Fragments of the Mahlyrlna
Mahiparinirva~asutra. Studia Tibetica No. 14. Tokyo 1988 and the same : New
Sanskrit Fragments of the Mahiylna Mahiparinirvinasitra in the Stein/Hoernle
Collection. The Eastern Buddhist. NS 20. 1987. 105-114. - A survey of the Russian
collections has been given by the same authors as above : Indian Texts from Central
Asia (Central Asian Collection of the Manuscript Fund of the Institute of Oriental
Studies, Academy of Sciences, USSR), in : Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata.
Serie Orientale Rome LVI, 1. Rome 1985. 1, 159-174, and again by the same authors :
Indian Texts from Central Asia (Leningrad Manuscript Collection). Bibliographia
Philologica, Series Minor V, Tokyo 1986, which also contains a table listing the iexts
published so far with the exception of those found in the " Pamjatniki" quoted at the
beginning of this note. Older Russian editions of some Central Asian fragments have
been reprinted in : I. P. MINAYEFF and S. F. OLDENBURG, Buddhist Texts from Kashgar
and Nepal (Satapilaka Series 322). Delhi 1983. - Further recent publications from
Russia are : M. I. VOROB'EVA-DWATOV~KNA : "Pamjatniki Pis'mom Kcharostchi i
Brachmi iz Sovetskoj Srednej Azii ", in : IstorijP i Kul'tura Central'noj Azii, Moscow
1983, 22-96; G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN : "Novyj Sanskritskij Fragment Machajanskoj
'' Machaparinirvana-Sutry iz Central'noj Azii ", in : Drevnjaja Indija. Jazyk. Kul'tura,
"
Tekst, Moscow 1985, 146-155; G. M. BONGRIN-LEVIN : "Novye Sanskritskie Teksty is
Central'noj Azii", in : Cenrralhaja Azija. Novye Pamjatniki Pis'mennosti i Iskusstva,
Moscow 1987, 6-18 (contains fragments of : Sardilakarna-avadina, Buddhanimasi-
"
 346 0. VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
The Gilgit manuscripts have been edited by Shoko Watanabe :
Saddharmapundarika Manuscripts Found in Gilgit. I : Photographic
Reproduction. Tokyo 1972, 11 : Romanized Text. Tokyo 1975 ;
H. Toda : Saddharmapundarikasiitra Gilgit Manuscripts (Groups B
and C), in : Tokushima KyCivCibu Kiyo (Jinbun-Shakai Kaeakul 14
v.
(1979), 249-304, and 0. ~ i n i i b e rI A' New ~ r a ~ m e n t a &
~&$t
Manuscript of the Saddharmapundarikasiitra, Tokyo 1982 l l . Finally,
an indispensable tool for the study of SP began to appear : Y. Ejima
[Ed.] : Index to the Saddharmapundarikasiitra. Sanskrit, Tibetan,
Chinese, Tokyo : Fasc. 1 (amia - artha), 1985; 2 (artha - upalab-
dha), 1986; 3 (upalabdha - khila), 1987.
A major achievement in editing texts of group 2 is the careful and
comprehensive edition of the Udiinavarga by F. Bernhard 12, and
tra" 'identical with : Unknown Dhlranis ..., in : Amytadhiri, R. N. ~ a n d e k a Felicita-
r
lion Volume, Delhi, 1985>,SaddharmapunQarikasiitra), cf. 0 . v. HINUBER,Dhlranis
aus Zentralasien", In : Indologico Taurinensiu 14 (in print); G. M. BONGARD-LEV~N,
M. I. VOROB'EVA-DWATOVSKAJA, Novyj Tekst Sanskritskoj Sumukha-Dhlrani", in :
"
Peredne-uziotskij Sborn~kI V : Drevnjdja i Srendevekovaja lstorija i Filologija Stran
Prednego i Srednego Vostoka, Moscow 1986, 156-159.
I I. Further contributions to the study of SP are : H. TODA,Saddhurmup~&rika-
szitra. Nepalese Manuscript (K). I - I V , in : Tokushima Daigaku KyByobu Rinri Gakka
Kiy6 (Proceedings of the Department of Ethics, Faculty of Liberal Arts, University of
Tokushima), VIII, 1980; V-IX : ibidem, IX, 1982; X - X V I I (revised edition) : ibidem,
XI, 1985; X V I I I - X X V I I :ibidem, X , 1982; cf. H. TODAand K. MATSUDA, ibidem, XV,
1988; H. TODA,A Class$carion of the Nepalese Mmuscripts of the Saddharmapw&ri-
kwitru. ibidem, XI1 1986; XI11 1988; XIV 1988, and i n : Tokushima Daigaku
KyByebu Kiy6. Jinbun Shakai Kagaku, 19 (1984), 211-256; 20 (1985), 245-284. 21
(1986), 179-242; 22 (1987). 253-313; 23 (1988), 21 1-269; H. T o m : Romanized ~ e ioft
the Saddharmapundaniasiitra (Piiwayogaparivarta), in : Naritasan BukkyB Kenkyii-
sho KiyB I I. BukkyB Shidshi Ronshii. 1988,247-291, and the same : S u m Aspects of
the Sanskrit Manuscripts of the Saddhnrmapun&rrkara (in Japanese), Hokke Bunka
Kenkyii 11 (1985). 67-90 : On the position of the Peking manuscript NS 202 = A D
108112 within the stemma of SP. A general survey of old manuscripts of SP is given by :
C. VOGEL, Dated Manuscripts of the SuddharmupunpOrikaszitra, Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in GBttingen. I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Jahr-
gang 1977, Nr. 5. - It is unfortunately impossible to benefit from : Z. NAKAMURA : Anuridhupura. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in GBttingen. I.
" Miscellanies about GHthP (sic) of Saddharmapundaniasiitra ", Indian Archives, New
Delhi, 27 (1978), 12-18.
12. Udinuvurgu. HG. vON F. BERNHARD. I. 11. Abhandlungen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Dritte Folge, Nr. 54.
Gottingen 1965, 1968, d a m : L. SCHM~THAUSEN : '.ZU den Rezensionen des UdHnavar-
ga", WZKSO 14 (1970), 47-124; F. BERNHARD : "Zum Titel des sogenannten
Udanavarga"'. in : XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag 1968 in Wiirzburg. ZDMG
Supplement 1 3. Wiesbaden 1969, 872-881 ; M. BALK: "Zur tibetischen tjbersetzung
des Udlnavarga", in : XXII. Deutscher Orientalistentag 1983 in Tubingen. ZDMG
Supplement V1. Stuttgart 1985, 325 f, and the same : Untersuchungen zum Udinavar-
gd. Diss. Bonn 1986. Bonn 1988. On the interrelation of the different Dhammapada
(Dhp) verslons : K&EN MIZUNO: "The chronology of the various Dhammapadas".
Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyi). Hamatasu 12 (1983), 1-30. and by the same
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 347
lastly a translation deserves to be mentioned here : The Siitra of the
Golden Light. Trsl. by R. E. Emmerick. London 1970 [Reviews :
K. R. Norman, JRAS 1971, 197 f.; J. W. de Jong, IIJ 14 (1972), 118-
121 ; F. Weller, OLZ 1974, 387-3931.
Croup 3 in Edgerton's classification is by far the largest, and much
more difficult to define than the preceding ones. For not only the
manuscripts discovered in Chinese Turkestan, the editions of which
have been listed in the SWTF 13, and those found near Gigit l4 belong
to this group, but huge texts such as the Satasihasriki PrajfiHpirami-
tii as well Is. Further, it is by no means clear, how far the works e.g. of
Asvaghosa might be included here, which, though written in standard
Sanskrit, obviously use Buddhist vocabulary, and occasionally Bud-
dhist phrases such as yeniiiramas tena yayau mahiitmi, Bucchac VI
65 16. Thus one might be inclined to include even Buddhist philosophi-
author : .'A Comparative Study of the Dharmapadas ", in : Buddhist Studies in Honour
of Hummaluva Saddhatissa, Nugegoda 1984. 168-175; H. NAKATANI : " Remarques sur
la transmission des Dharmapada", BE1 2 (1984). 135-141 ; Udinuvargo de Subofi. par.
H. NAKATANI. ~ d critique
. du manuscrit sanskrit sur bois provenant de SubaPi, Paris
1987, ICI 53. - C. WILLEMEN, Dharmupada. A Concurdunce to the Udiutovarga.
Dhammapadu, and the Chinese Dharmapadu Literature, Brussels 1974, and : Uaiinavar-
ga. Chinese-Sanskrit Glossary, Tokyo 1975.
13. Sanskrit- Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden. Begonnen
VON E. WALDXHMIDT, hg. von H. BECHERT,Redaktor : G. v. SIMSON.Iff. GGBttingen
1973 ff.
14. 0 . v. HINUBER,Die Erforschung der Gilgit-Handschrijren. Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Jahr-
gang 1979, Nr. 12, supplemented in : ZDMG 130 (1980), *25* f. ; 131 (1981). l I*.
15. The vocabulary of the PrajfiPplrdmiti has been collected provisionally by
E. CONZE,Materialsfor a Dictionary of the Prajiiipirumiti Literature, Tokyo 1%7; a
survey of the relevant texts has been given by the same author : The Prajiiiprirmiti
Literature, Tokyo '1978 [Reviews : D. MAWE, ZDMG 130 (1980). 622 1.:
0 . v. HINVBER, 111 23 (1983). 73 f.) : chapter 13 of the Satmihmriki Prajriipiramiti
appeared as fasc. 11, 2, Calcutca 1914, what should be added a t p. 31; further:
0 . v. HINUBEX,Sieben Goldblatter einer Puricav~ururihcLFriki Prajtiip~irmita aus
Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1983, Nr. 7. Gottingen 1983; cf. also :
T. YAMAGUCHI, "On a PaficavimSati~hdsriklPrajfiaparamitl Found in Sri Lanka ".
Bukky6 Gaku, Tokyo 18 (1984). 1-29 with important additions and corrections.
16. V. RAGHAVAN : "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit", IL 16 (1955. Chatterji Jubilee
Volume), 313-322, draws attention to some very few examples for this construction
from the Rlmlyana (p. 315 f.). However, conlrary to Raghavan's idea, they d o not
correspond exactly to Buddhist syntax, as both sentences contain a verb : yena yeno
gacchati... tetu tena... puiyari. Sentences of this type may have been the starting point of
the "Buddhist" construction : 0. v. HINUBER,Studien zur Kasussyntax Jes Prili.
besonders des Vinaya-Pi~aka.MSS Beihefte N F 2. Miinchen 1968, p. 138, 5 126b; on
Asvaghosa's language : R. SALOMON : "The Buddhist Sanskrit of Asvagho$a's Saunda-
rananda", WZKS 27 (1983), 99-1 12, who lists previous research with the exception of
S. SEN: "The Language of ASvagho$a's Saundarananda", JASB 26 (1930). 181-206. A
348 0. VON HIN~JBER
cal texts such as Vasubandhu's Abhidhannakoia or Asanga's Ma-
hHyinasiitrHlamkHra17.
And it was exactly at this point, where the criticism in Edgerton's
classification started. Though doubtless convenient from the practical
point of view when writing such as voluminous work as the BHSG/D,
it is rather problematic indeed as pointed out first of all by J. Brough.
The problem of classification is closely connected to the question, why
Buddhists started writing Sanskrit at all, and how they developed
their specific language. For they might have followed the same
procedure as the Jainas did, who kept writing Prakrit and added
Sanskrit commentaries to their canonical scriptures at a comparative-
ly late date without ever trying to convert the language of their canon
into Sanskrit. Consequently, the Jainas possess only such texts, which
can be compared linguistically roughly to Edgerton's group 3, that is
texts, the language of which is distinguished from standard Sanskrit
by a specific Jaina vocabulary such as technical terms or vernacular
words only la.
Buddhists, on the other hand, started to recite or even write
standard Sanskrit with a slight Buddhist touch at an early date.
Usually the SarvHstivHdins are quoted here conveniently together with
Aivaghosa, who is said to have followed this school lg. If Asvagho~a
really was a brahmin before his conversion to Buddhism, he should
have received a good training in Sanskrit and in different &tras, and,
if he lived in the east in SHketa/AyodhyH, RHma's city, the supposed
influence of the RHmHyana on his literary activities would make good
glossary of the Tibetan version of the Buddhacarira has been published recently by
W. SIECLINC, Ein Glossar zu ASvaghosa's Buddhacarira. Veroffentlichungen des Semi-
nars fiir lndologie und Buddhismuskunde der Universitat Gottingen, Nr. 3. Gijttingen
1985; see also Addenda.
17. For both indices are available, which are also important for the study of
Buddhist Sanskrit : A. HIRAKAWA, Index to the Abhidharmukohbhri~ya (P. Pradhan
Edition), I : Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese, Tokyo 1973. - G. M. NAGAO.Index to the
Muhiycina-Stirrilatitkcira (Sylvain Levi Edition), I : Sanskrit-Tibetan-Chinese, Tokyo
1958.
18. Cf B. J. SANDHARA and J. P. THAKER,Lexicographical Studies in "Jaina
Sanskrit". The M.S. University Oriental Series, No. 5. Baroda 1962 [Rev. G. ROTH,
OLZ (1970), 584-4871; W. H. MAURWI : Aspects of Jaina Sanskrit. Adyar Library
Bulletin 26 (1962). 131-176 quoting older literature, and L. RENOU,Histoire & la
Langue Sumkrite, Lyon 1956, p. 222 IT.
19. In spite of the doubts expressed by E. H. JOHNSTON, ASvagho~a'sBuddhacarira,
Lahore 1936 (Reprinted Delhi 1984 together with JOHNSTON'S translation of books XV-
XXVIll extant in Tibetan only from A 0 15 (1937). 26-62; 85-11!; 231-292),
introduction to the translation, p. xxxv, this tradition may be preferred : E. LAMOTIE,
Hisroire du Bouddhisme Indien, Louvain 1958, p. 577 ff., quoted as LAMOTTE, Histoire
henceforth. Cf. also : WALDXHMIDT, GGA 208 (1954), p. 93. It is impossible to
benefit from S. KHOSLA,"Asvagho~a and his times", Dehli 1986; s. Addenda.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 349
sensez0. For Asvagho~a standard Sanskrit, and not BHS, is the
language of Buddhism, and obviously even of the Buddha himself.
This may be concluded indirectly from the fact that he did not write
his life of the Buddha in Prakrit or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Still
more important, though it seems, never mentioned in this connection,
are Asvaghow's fragments found in Central Asia 21. In his S5riputra-
prakarana, not only $Hriputra and MaudgalyHyana, who, like Asva-
g h o ~ ahimself, are said to have been brahmins before they became
Buddhists, speak Sanskrit, but the Buddha does so himself. Of course
one might argue that these were the conventions of the Indian theatre,
of which we know very little at this early date anyway, but still it is
hard to imagine that ASvaghoga would have opted for Sanskrit as the
language of the Buddha, if that was unacceptable to his audience. At
the same time Aivaghoga uses Old-ArdhamLgadhi for some of his
characters, which could have been an obvious choice for the language
of the Buddha, if the canonical scriptures, Asvaghosa was used to,
were recited in some kind of Buddhist Middle Indic.
For other poets, Middle Indic, even Eastern Middle Indic was the
characteristic language of a Buddhist monk. Thus the masseur turned
monk speaks MHgHdhi in the 8th act of Sfdraka's Mlcchakatika,
what is remarkable, as Siidraka as a Westerner, might have preferred
Sauraseni, the standard Prakrit spoken e.g. by the minister Ruman-
vHn, while disguised as a Sramana, a Buddhist(?) monk, in the
PratijiiHyaugandharHyana. Siidraka seems be well acquainted with
Buddhism * as shown not only in the perhaps slighly comical verses
spoken by this monk, but by the description of the not yet fitting new
robe as wellU. Thus Siidraka has preserved, if not composed himself,
the only Buddhist verses extant in MHgadhi.
20. JOHNSTON, as preceding note, p. xvn. - On the relation of the place names
Siketa and Ayodhyl : H. BAKKER, Ayodhyri, Gronigen 1986, p. I I I., and : RHR 203
(1986). 53-66.
21. H. LUDERS,BruchsriiCke buddhistischer Dramen, Berlin 1911 (Reprint : Wiesba-
den 1979), and : "Das .kiriputraprakaraqa. ein Drama des Asvaghop", 1911, ,
Philologica Indica, Gottingen 1940, 190-213; cf, : K. KRISHNAMOORTY : " A New Play
by Asvagho$a?", JOlB 11 (1961/62), 428-432 : on the R&rapPlanaraka summing up
earlier discussions of this topic.
22. M. WINTERNI~, Geschichre &r indischen Lirerarur, Leipdg 1923 (Reprint :
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
~~- ~ - ~ enters
- the scene with a wet civara in his hand : dtidPkdciodPe aie
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.
 350 o. VON HINUBER
as Msgadhi and Sanskrit in this particular case. There are, however,
some hints found in inscriptions that even within one and the same
monastery Sanskrit and Middle Indic could be used side by side, the
former for wordly, the latter for religious matters, or perhaps even
both at the same time for religious texts as the evidence found at
Devnimori and Ratnagiri in western and eastern India respectively
seems to indicate ".
Corresponding evidence can be found in the literary tradition itself,
when Buddhist texts written in Sanskrit very occasionally quote from
texts in Middle Indic. Up to now, only two such instances have come
to light, though there may have been many more hidden today by the
Tibetan and Chinese translations, which no longer allow to recognize
the relevant passages.
The older of both these quotations, a verse in PHli unknown to the
TheravHda tradition, it seems, can be found in the Ratnagotrottara-
tantrassstra, which may have originated somewhere in Central India
(Frauwallner) during the 3rd or 4th century 2 5 .
Further, two Prakrit verses are quoted by Candrakirti (7th centu-
ry 2 6 ) in his Prasannapads Madhyamakavrtti from " ~ g a m a s C t r e ~ uof
" normative for literary standard Sanskrit, and when Prakrit was not
the Wrvaiaila school, a subschool of the MahHsHmghikas, well
known from epigraphical records found in Andhraprades, and said to
have had a PrajiiHpHramitH written in Prakrit 2 7 .
Thus for a long time Middle Indic texts such as e.g. the Patna-
Dharmapada (PDhp) (see below p. 362) have existed side by slde with
those written in Sanskrit, which was accepted as a Buddhist literary
language at the latest during Ksatrapa or KusHna times. As far as
earlier periods are concerned, it is by no means easy to assess the exact
position of Buddhist Sanskrit in relation to Buddhist Middle Indic, a
literary language used by Buddhists at an early date, from which the
different existing varieties of Bhuddhist languages have been develo-
ped 2 8 .
24. 0 . v. HlNiieER : Eptgraphical Varieties of Continental Pili from Devnimori and
" ~berblick.&~)sreichi,sche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische
Ratnagiri ", in : Buddhism and Its Relation to Other Religions. Essays in Honour of
Shozen Kumoi on Hts Seventieth Birthday, Kyoto 1985, 185-200.
25. D. SEYFORT RUEGG,Lo ThPorie du Tathigatugarbha et rlu Gofra. PEFEO LXX,
Paris 1969, p. 33. - On the& Middle Indic Verses : IF 88 (1983). p. 311.
26. D. S E Y ~ RRUEGG,
T The Literature of the Madhjamaka School of. Philosop1,r in
India. A History of Indian Literature VII, 1. Wiesbaden 1981, p. 71.
27. These verses were detected by P. HARRISON. as above note 6. p. 225 C. cf. IIJ 18
(1985). p. 50. - Cf. Copm, Literature, as above note 15, p. I, and E. L A M O Trltit6
~.
& la Grande Vertu & Sagesse, Louvain 1949, 11. p. 939. note I. - The epigraphical
evidence has been collected by LAMOTTE. Histoire. p. 580. - The only extant
PrajiiipHmariti in BHS is the PrajiiHpiramitiratnagunasamcayagithB,see above
note 3.
28. Cf. Die Sprache I r iiltesten buddhistischen Uberlreftrung. Abhandlungen der
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 35 1
As quite a few of the earliest followers of the Buddha were
brahmins, it is hardly surprising that there was a certain pressure for
using Vedic Sanskrit for the recitation of Buddhist texts from the very
beginning. The Buddha objected to this, and the issue of language was
felt to be important enough to require a rule in the Vinaya explicitly
forbidding the use of this language for Buddhist texts in favour of the
vernaculars 29.
However, as soon as Buddhism began to spread over a larger area,
the development of a language widely understood became imperative.
The linguistic medium answering this demand eventually, was a
literary Middle Indic language adapted, but hardly invented by the
Buddhists themselves. For at this time during the last two centu-
ries BC, Sanskrit had reached a state of " decay " reflected in the epic
language, before it finally disappeared altogether as a lwing language.
It has been observed since a long timeM that early layers in the
MahHbhHrata show traces of a strongly Middle lndic Sanskrit. This
should have been a kind of literary language if sine litteris, a t that
time, when the rules laid down by PPnini were not yet applied as
yet too remote from Epic Sanskrit, which still could be understood
universally. This situation has been compared by L. Renou31 most
aptly with the interrelation between the Allemanic dialects and Swiss
High German (Schwitzer Diitsch) as to be observed in Switzerland.
Once the Buddhists began to adopt the litterary language current at
their times, they started to move away from the spoken language, and
ended up almost automatically in a more or less Sanskritized Buddhist
Middle Indic, which, most probably, was easily acceptable to people
used to mixed languages of this kind during that period. Then both,
the Epic and the Buddhist traditions followed the same developments,
Akadernie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Dritte
Folge Nr. 117, Gottingen 1980, and : 0.v. HINVBER, Dm altere Mittelindisch im
Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 467. Band, Wien 1986, 5 40 ff.. quoted as " Uberblick"
henceforth.
29. J . BROUGH : "Sakiya niruttiyd : a u l d kale hei", in : Die Sprache, as preceding
note, p. 35-42.
30. E. W. HOPKINS, The Greof Epic of India, 1901. Reprint : Delhi 1969, p. 262 ff.;
cf. RENOU,Histoire, as above note 18, p. 103 ff., and V. RAGHAVAN, as above note 16,
p. 314. -On similar developments in the language of the Devi-Purina : R. C. H A ~ : A
Studies in the Upapurinas. Vol. 11. Calcutta Sanrrit College Research Series
No. XXII. Calcutta 1963, 86-188.
31. RENOU, as preceding note, p. 87. - Cf. also : J. MANSION. E S ~ U ~ d'une
~ & Histoire
de la Langue Sanskrite, Paris 1931, p. 108 f. on similar phenomena observed in the
Netherlands, and the interesting remarks on the formation of Hindi prose literature by
A. BARANNIKOV : "Modern Literary Hindi", BSOS 8 (1935-1937), 373-390.

which can also be observed in epigraphical evidence. Here MathurH as
a cultural centre, figures prominently, and it does not seem to be by
mere chance that both, MiilasarvHstivHda and MahBdmghika, the
prominent early schools of Buddhism, show close connections to this
Thus one might expect a rather uniform development of
Buddhist Middle Indic, just as this can be observed in the evolution of
Epic Sanskrit. Obviously this is not so, because the Buddhist
communities made different choices as far as their respective langua-
ges are concerned, at different places and at different times.
The centre piece of a Buddhist samgha and of Buddhist literature is
the Vinaya-Pitaka, and within this text the PrHtimoksasiitra, as it is
well known. Closely connected to this cornerstone of each Buddhist
community are the formulas to be spoken on the occasion of the legal
proceedings to be performed regularly by the samghu that is the
karmavdcand. As we learn from later legal literature of the Buddhists
such as the SamantapHsHdikH, it is essential that at least the
upasampadd kammavdcd is recited with utmost linguistic precision in
wording as well as in phonetics33. If this is not achieved, the
ordination of a monk cannot be considered as valid. Therefore, the
acceptance of one linguistic form or other of a karmav6cun8 almost
necessarily leads to a split in the tradition of the ordination, or to the
formation of a new Vinaya school in the extreme.
If the legal consequences that might arise from the choice of a
certain linguistic form used in the legal proceedings is taken into
account, the PrHtimoksasiitra may be considered as fundamental in
determining the language of a Vinaya school. From these considera-
tions it may be deduced at once that at a certain date and at a certain
place the members of a samgha must have made up their minds, which
language to adopt for their PrHtimok~asiitraand for their karmavdcu-
nri. This language then became the standard for the Vinaya and for
the canonical texts as a whole.
As far as we can see to-day, a fairly old Western Central Middle
32. E. FRAUWAI.LNER, The Earlrest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhis~Literature,
Serie Orientale Roma VIII, Rome 1956, p. 27 f.; cf. also : G. FUSSMAN, JA 1980,
p. 425, and : I. E. V A N LOHUIZEN-DE LEEUW : "GandhHra and MathurH : Their
Cultural Relationship", in : Aspccts of Indian Art. Ed. by P. PAL,Leiden 1972, 26-43,
on Mathuri as a centre of Hindu culture : p. 42; on the epigraphical evidence :
DAMSTEEGT, as above note 1, p. 208 and nole 24 (p. 322). cf. G. v. MITTERWALLNER,
Munrrn der spaten Kusinus, des Hunnen KiradulKidura und der fruhen Cuptas. Teil I,
Miinchen 1983, p. 30 ff. on the debated date of the Amohini inscription, and p. 46-50
(cf. the criticism of this book in G. FUSSMAN, Revue Nwnismalique, S~xiemeSrie,
XXVlIl (1986), 150 IT.).
33. 0. v. HINVBER : "Das buddhistische Recht und die Phonetik des Pili", St11
13/14 (IY87), 101-127.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 353
Indic variety of Buddhist Middle lndic has been chosen by the
TheravHda school, namely the language we call PIli nowY. The
MahHsHmghika-Lokottaravldin opted for what may be called BHS
proper at MathurP, if we accept the observations by G. Roth
("Features", p. 85). The small evidence of the fragment mentioned
above does not allow to see clearly, whether this language has been
used by the MahHsHmghikas as a whole. On the other hand, the
MfilasarvHstivHdins picked up a slightly Middle Indic Sanskrit at
Mathurii as well. Of course we are unable to find out the reason.
However, it may be a difference in time, and thus texts of the
MiilasarvLstivHdins would simply reflect a later, more modern deve-
lopment of Buddhist literature, while the rather conservative Mahi-
sHmghikas stuck to their BHS representing a stage of a linguistic
evolution still near to a fairly early Epic Sanskrit as long as we can
follow their history 3 5 .
This conservatism was by no means universal. Other Vinaya
schools updated their language from time to time thus moving nearer
to Sanskrit step by step. While the TheravHdins in Ceylon, out of
contact with the development on the main land at an early date, did
not change the language of their canonical scriptures, but translated
the commentaries from Old Sinhalese into PHliM, there is evidence
that those schools connected to north western India did in fact modify
or even change the language of their texts, in some cases even more
than once. As G. v. Simson has discovered, a fragment of the
PrHtimoksasiitra, which might be classified as SarvHstivHda, and found
at Qizil, is written apparently in a variety of Buddhist Sanskrit of its
own as far as this can be seen before the entire text surviving has been
edited 37. Consequently the language of this school has evolved from
Buddhist towards standard Sanskrit, a process, which has been
observed also in the development of the UdHnavarga by
L. Schmithausen (as above note 12), and for the MadhyamHgama,
which is ascribed to the .SarvHstivHdins traditionally, a stage of
development, during which GHndhHri has been used, may be infer-
34. The corresponding eastern variety, most probably. would have been Paikici :
0. v. HINVBER : "Paisici and Pili as Varieties of Buddhist Middle Indic". BE1 3
(1985). 61-77.
35. 11 is worth while remembering that the Piirvahilas, being a subdivision of the
Mahasimghikas, are quoted in Prakrit by Candrakirti in the 7th century (see above
note 27). However, we are unable to say which Vinaya has been used by this school.
36. K. R. NORMAN, Pi11 Literature. A Histon. of. Indian L~terutrrrrVII. 2. Wlesbaden
1983, p. 119.
37. G . v. SIMSON : "Stil und Schulzugehor~gke~t ".
buddh~stischerSanskrlttexte in :
Schulzugeh&igkeit, as above nole 6, p. 76-93,.especially p. 82 together wlth fragment
no. 9, p. 88.

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 MahHpari-
nirvlnasiitra 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 :
1. Theravlda : PHli ;
2. MahHsHmghika (with Lokottaravlda) : Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit;
3. MiilasarvHstivHda : Sanskrit ;
4. SarvHstivBda : (GHndhHri) > Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit > Sans-
krit;
5. Dharmaguptaka : (GHndhHri) > Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit >
Sanskrit.
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. Wiesba-
den 1983, 27-34, especially p. 33.
39. 0. v. H ~ N ~ ~:B"Schulzugehorigkeit
ER ". as below note 43. p. 74. note 51.
40. E. WALDKHMIDT : "Central Asian SDtra Fragments and Their Relation to the
Chlnese Agamas ", in : Dw Sprache. as above note 28. 136-174, cf. D. SEYFORT RUEW.
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.
ORIGIN A N D VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 355
As far as those Vinayas preserved in Sanskrit are concerned, it is
not difficult to separate the MahLsLmghika version42 linguistically
from the one of the (Miila-)SanHstivLda. However, a distinction
between latter two is often difficult or even impossible at times, if no
help can be received from the specific terminology or from the
predilection of certain words or stylistic patternsa. Therefore the
language of the Vinaya may be considered as one starting point for
the formation of a new variety within Buddhist Sanskrit. Because of
the fact that every monk had to learn the PrHtimoksasiitra by heart*.
tt is not surprizing at all that specific words used in the Vinaya could
creep into the Slitra tradition easily. This again broadens the basis of
a school language spreading from the Vinaya texts and giving almost
any Siitra text a special linguistic colour. The opposite, too, could
happen, when we find in one inscription wordings from texts ascribed
to different schools, because the respective author just wrote down
what he had known by heart (G. Fussman, BEFEO 71 (1982). p. 37).
All this can be observed only in texts surviving in their original
language, and ascribed to a certain school, that is primarily in those of
the (Miila-)SarvLstrvLda traditions, and, to a very limited extent only
due to the lack of material, in Dharmaguptaka texts as well. A list of
words and expressions characteristic for these schools has been drawn
up by G. v. Simson (as above note 37).
Some features such as the word parqd : parisad occur in (Mda-)
SarvHstivHda texts respectively too regularly to have slipped in by
mere chance. On the contrary, such forms used consistantly by a
certain school should be attributed to a careful redaction of the texts
as pointed out by L. Sander45.The choice of a language made for the
PrLtimok$asiitra, hence for the Vinaya as a whok and eventually
covering all canonical texts, must be sanctioned by a meeting of the
42. The language of this school has been discussed in BHSG/D as "group I " and
further in a series of articles by G. R o w : '' Bhikqunivinaya and Bhik~uprakimakaand
Notes on the Language", JBRS 52 (1966), 29-51 ; "Terminologisches aus dem Vinaya
der MahBdmghika-Lokottaravidin". ZDMG 118 (1%8), 334-348, cf. for bibliogra-
phy : G. ROTH, Indim Studies (Selected Papers), Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica No. 32,
Delhi 1986, p. xxvs-xxxis.
43. 0. v. HtNijs~a: "Die Bestimmung der Schulzugehiirigkeit nach sprachlichen
Krilerien", in : Schulzugehorigkeit, as above note 6. 57-75. - On stylistic features
typical to Buddhist schools : G. v. SIMON,,as above note 37.
44. Samantaplisridikri 788-790 on bahohusuta; on Buddhist instruction in general :
P. Mus, La Lwnikre sur les Six Voies, Paris 1939, p. 189-191.
45. " Pari,sad und par& in Vinaya- und Hinayina-Slitra-Texten aus den Turfanfun-
den und aus Gilgit", in : Schulzugehorigkeit, as above note 6, 144-160; the variant
parsad is attested in Vedic texts already : F. EffiEarnN : Dialectic Phonetics in the
Veda, in : Studies in Honour of Hermann Collitz. Baltimore 1930, 25-36, esp. p. 35
6 23.
 356 6. VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
monks of a samgha of a limited area formally adopting the new
linguistic shape of the canonM. This process has been repeated more
than once resulting in a gradual change in the linguistic pattern of the
texts.
Even texts other than those considered as canonical and
consequently exempt from careful linguistic revision, may show signs
of being handed down by a tradition under the influence of a certain
school. Here, the SamghHfasiitra (Sgh) found at Gilgit in eight
complete or fragmentary manuscripts belonging to different recen-
sions of this text, furnishes an excellent example of rare clearness as
far as revisions resulting in linguistic and stylistic changes at a
comparatively early stage of the manuscript tradition are concerned.
The oldest manuscript A, and F, which is closely related to A, have :
yena sa rijd ... renopasamkrdntd upsamkramya... dhuh, Sgh 9 104*',
what is changed into : ... upasamkrdnti upetya in the manuscripts
BCD, as the SarvHstivHdins would have it (G. v. Simson, as above
note 37, p. 93). R~ght at the end of the text, where only two
manuscripts are available, B has pari~at(SawiistivHda) against parFt
(MiilasarvHstivLda) in D*. Now certainly the MahHyHnistic Sam-
ghatasiitra cannot be regarded as belonging to the canon of either
school. Therefore these and similar instances may be considered as
influence exercised in varying degrees by a school language on this
Siitra. Thus we find in the SamghHtasiitra : yena rijagyham... yena ca
bhagavcim ... tenopsamkrimad upsamkramya, Sgh 8 7 in CDE against
upasamkrdntd in ABF. This may serve as an example how different
phrases and words could creep into a text because the scribes were
familiar with them, and this would happen irrespective of any
recension. Thus no clear distribution as in the case of parijad and
parwd can be expected outside a canonical text.
Here pur~adshows that hyper-Sanskrit words were accepted In
Buddhist literary Sanskrit. Indeed, quite astonishing Sanskritizations
can be found. Thus there is e.g. tyguptam, Sgh 9 62 in BCD against
rpkrtvd in A, where there is a gap in F, and Sgh 4 220 in ABCF
against tyj in Dm). This particular Sanskritization is not found
elsewhere so far, and it is far off any linguistic reality (Sprachwirklich-
keit) of Sanskrit. Evidently the monks were unable to find the correct
46. The description of the SawSstivZda revision of their canon under Kaniska may
reflect the adoption of Sanskrit. cf. : LAMOTTE. Hisroire, p. 648.
47. This refers to my forthcoming edition.
. 48. Once par~ad,Sgh fj 50 occurs in manuscript F In an enlargement not shared by
ABCD
49. Cf. BHSV s.v. I . -kyrxi : Only the MahHvastu shows a large variety of forms: on
~riksurto: BROUGH, BSOAS 16 (1954). p. 356 f.: the Bl~rkpr!~i-Vinu~.u has : t&r~-li.
rrikkharro. and rrikkhurro.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 357
correspondence in Sanskrit and consequently created tyguptay in the
same way as they failed to find *svarak!pti corresponding to PHli
sarakurti : the Mv has svaragupti instead (BHSD S.V. guprq. In some
instances different Sanskritizations of the same word are used side by
side in slightly different meanings. Thus PHli pannadhaja develops into
pcirira(mZna)dhvaja and (ucchrita)prajficidhvaja, Lalitavistara 428,
19 f. (0. v. Hiniiber, as above note 38, p. 31), cf. 'po~a-puru~a-
pudgala", Suvikr3ntavikrHmiparip~cchHPrajiiPpHramitHsiitra (ed. by
R. Hikata, Fukuoka 1958, p. 47, 9). That the Buddhists themselves
were very much aware of such instances is shown by the amusing
story found in the MiilasarvHstivHda tradition and referred to by
J. Brough (GHndhHd Dharmapada, London 1962, p. 45). Here,
Ananda criticizes in vain the meaningless expression udakabaka, a
mistake committed by a monk wrongly Sanskritizing udayavaya in a
Dhp verse. Sometimes new words originated by blending two-Sanskrit
words of similar meaning such as upapeta (BHSD s.v.), which was
created out of upera and upapanna.
Even words resulting from a simple confusion of similar ak,saras
could find wide acception such as anvati, which is based on a misread
an!hatiS0.This word is not specific to any school, as the references S.V.
anvari (BHSD) prove, but common to Buddhist Sanskrit in North
India and in Central Asia. Thus Buddhist monks created a language
of their own on purpose or out of ignorance, moving away from
standard Sanskrit in many respects sl.
Besides these somewhat bizarre artificial formations, specific either
to a certain school or to Buddhist Sanskrit as a whole, the language
was influenced by the one spoken in the area, where a text was handed
down.
As far as phonetics are concerned, the influence exercised by a
living language can be observed only in Central Asia and in North
West Indias2, because elsewhere it would be hard to find necessary
phonetic characteristics.
M. 0.v. HINOBER: Fragmentary Gilgit Manuscript as above note 1I, p. u v
note 13. The correct form paryaf/pclryryrfh survives as well : BHSD S.V.paryryrfhate,
which however, should not be changed to paryryrvate, and paryafan. paryafomcinah.
Mahikarmavibhcuiga, ed. par S. Ltvi, Paris 1932, p. 52, 25. 32. - On the other hand,
bhi8a~kaoccurring thrice in SP is confirmed now beyond any doubt as the wrrect
reading by the Gilgit manuscripts (Watanabe, as above p. 346, 11 76, 29) and by the
Kashgar manuscript, in spite of the previous doubts expressed by J. BROUGH, BSOAS
16 (1954), p. 361 and by C. REGAMEY, as above note 2, p. 517, note 4. The derivation of
b h i g k a is discussed by N. SIMONSSON, In&-Tibetan-Studies I, Uppsala 1957, p. 80 f.
5 1. Similarly, Buddhist monks in Burma "invented " words such as wtdriyati, KZ 94
(1980). p. 26.
52. The influences exercised by Nmari scribes on Buddhist texts have been discussed
by J. BROUGH, BSOAS 16 (1954). p. 353 f.; examples from Central Asia arc w l l s t c d
358 0 . VON H ~ N ~ ~ B E R ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 359

As far as the north west is concerned, there are some instructive erable influence. Thus the typical Buddhist Sanskrit causative kcfrd-
examples found in the Gilgit manuscripts : nirvvrf!asrStau, Sgh papti (herblick $489) found in manuscript A of the SamghHta-
verse 67c in manuscript D for 'dhcitau presupposes a GHndhHri siitra, is nearly consistently replaced by kcrayat;. Further, the scribe
pronounciation 4-, and, correspondingly, bhayam, Sgh $ 57 in of manuscript F of the SamghHtasiitra replaces quite a few standard
manuscript B for vayapi or abhavcisena, abhavcisitcini, Sgh $ 254 again Sanskrit words by different ones, which, though synonymous to those
in manuscript B for avabhcisena, avabhcisitcini, etc., point to a substituted, change the wording of the text considerably, as can be
pronounciation -8-. Thus orthographic precautions were taken to seen from the following table :
ensure the correct pronounciation -bh- by writing dharmabbh@aka,
Sgh $ 4 5 (twice) in manuscript B, which is necessary in the light of Manuscripts ABCD Manuscript F
epigraphical dharmav5naka found in an inscription at Oshibat near 'apsarukunyd', 5 17 'gandharvCnyai
ChilHs (North Pakistan). Further, namatime " 90th" for navatime in utscihaty, 5 27 urscihuncfm
the TathHgatabimbakHr5panasiitra found at Gilgit points to a North- tirdhvenu, 5 29 'ucchrayay
western word : KHSmiri namath " 90", as does avatarya, Sgh •˜ 237 in nircilaycim, verse 16d andaydm
manuscript D for avatirya (Oberblick $ 173, 191, 208, 10). righati rarhcigure, 8 53 sammukhi%hzire tathcigare
In the vocabulary there are north western traces as well. Frequently unyarra, 5 70 unyathci
nu cimakarena kytam ,Sgh •˜ 227 in all manuscripts (BCDE) except A, utp&iayi$yanti, 5 91 janayisyunti
which has ayask&ena, and bhurpjanre cimaram taptam, Sgh y6sycimi, 5 98 gaccheyu
bhavisyari, 5 99 sydt
verse 132c, where only manuscripts BD are extant, have been quo- eyad avocat, 5 100 dmanrrayati
tedS3. A rather enigmatic north western(?) word occurs in manus- nranujyotpcidam, $? 102 manu~yapratilfibho
cript D : trevayamti, trevayitvci, Sgh 185 for vardhayanti, vardhayitva vipratisciribhito, 5 105 prarisciri
found in the other manuscripts. This is perhaps to be derived from - nrimogruhapera vy&cIrs&, 5 125,127 :
*typatati followtng a suggestion by G. Buddruss, cf. p. 363 below on This formula is alien to ABCD.
trerti, PDhp 145. survusvaparitycfg~$ 127 sur va:stipariIycfgi
These dialect words are of course by no means typical for Buddhist mohamtidhcis, 5 139 mundnmtidhcih
Sanskrit only. Thus the change between utpatya and utplutya in pretayonip, 5 140 prelavi$uye
different texts has a close parallel outside Buddhist literature, and sumksubdhuh, 5 161 utrhciya
samyak, $ 166 samyakr vcfd
consequently has to be treated in connection with Sanskrit dialectsH. karmuve~~trd
karmaprakaranenu, $ 168
However, the linguistic shape of a Buddhist text, or a certain Sariram, 5 169 Sariratam I!)
variety of Buddhist Sanskrit is not only determined by the language vyuvasiravyum, 5 189 vipiditavyaty
of the respective school and by the living language or languages prarycijcit$t, 4 223 ayanijd ere satvci
of the area, in which a text has been copied. For dialect preferences virumati, 5 237 vivarjayati
even within standard, non-Buddhist Sanskrit may exercise a consi- medikai, 5 239 khedikai
kcimabhrcfnrenu, verse 85d karmamatteno.
by H. TODA,SuaUharnop~ikasti~ra, 1981, as above p. 345, 1 3; in 8 2~ulIuinstead
of jhalla, what can be found in the Giglgit mamwripts, may be due to Gindhlri From the preceding table it may be concluded that the scribe of
influence(?). A systematic collection o f the Central Asian peculiarities of Buddhist manuscript F, who revised the text of the SamghHtasiitra, was very
Sanskrit are as much a desideratum as a corresponding collection from the Gilgit
manuscripts. conscious in chosing his vocabulary. Some of his variants may be
53. R. L. TURNER, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. Addenda purely stylistic, while others may reflect a slightly different Sanskrit
and Corrigenda ed. by I. C. WRIGHT,London 1985. No. 4842% dialect, learnt at school by this monk. This is confirmed, when he
54. OLZ 79 (1984). p. 585. - On Sanskrit dialects : TH. ZACHARIAE ; "Die replaces anyatra by anyathci, what-might recall canonical PHli aRZatra
Bedeutung von Sanskrit nivi", WZKM 27 (1913). 398-414, and : "Ein Sanskritwort der
Kaschmirischen Dichter", WZKM 29 (1915), 256-258 = Opera Minora. Wiesbaden
against postcanonical a i i a t t h a (Uberblick 8 258). Further, as far as
1977, 640-659, cf. also : J. HERTEL : "On the Literature of the Shvetambaras of grammar is concerned, the scribe of F prefers pllrvciyrim (Sgh 8 66) to
Gujarat", Sachsische Forschungsinstitute in Leipzig. Forschungsinstitut fiir Indoger- pllrvasydm, and n@iditup (Sgh 8 70) to n@idafum). The rather daring
manistik, Indische Abteilung. Nr. I . Leipzig 1922, p. 24. grammatical forms such as prdduScakdr@ (Sgh $ 71), a blend of

prriduicakrira (Sgh 8 22) found in all manuscripts including F and
prridwkrirsit (Sgh 8 71, manuscripts ACD; B : "kirir), or the substitu-
te vadeyutrim for tau... vadeyuh (Sgh 8 201) create even new grammati-
cal forms for Buddhist Sanskrit.
As the text tradition of the Sanskrit manuscripts 55 of the Sam-
ghHtasiitra breaks off here, it is impossible to estimate how far, and if
at all, these grammatical innovations have survived their creator.
Anyway it is possible only under particular lucky circumstances that is
a broad manuscript tradition within a limited time and within a
limited area at such an early date, the 6th and 7th centuries most
probably in this particular case, that we can see how easily the
wording of a non-canonical text, which was not protected by the
existence of an "official" version, could be changed, what might lead
to innovations even within the grammar of Buddhist Sanskrit.
Even features generally assumed to be due to Nepalese scribes
(Brough, BSOAS 16 (1954), p. 354) are anticipated such as the erratic
use of -r- occurring in all manuscripts of the SamghHtasiitra : A :
yadopaparrsyati, Sgh verse 164d ; 'labdhar bhavisyari, Sgh 5 237 ;
BCD : naivar vyridhir, Sgh verse 54ab; B : jarrir nu, Sgh 226; D :
raur dvau purusau, Sgh 5 207; D i paticar mrittrrini, Sgh •˜ 252. Only
rarely the origin of such an -r- can be traced : A : caturdvipesu >
BCD : caturjur dvipesu, F : carursu dvipe~u,Sgh 8 72, where after
decomposition the ligature rdvi was retained so that -r- survived
graphically.
Generally, however, the manuscript tradition during the first
millenium AD is too limited to allow the detection of corresponding
developments in such a detail as the SamghHtasiitra does, where some
important general conclusions on the development of Buddhist
Sanskrit may be reached at.
The formation of Buddhist Sanskrit or BHS is first of all
conditioned by the language chosen for the canonical scriptures. This
choice could be stuck to once for all, what the MahHsHmghika-
LokottaravHda seems to have done resulting in a true BHS with
strong Middle lndic affiliations. Alternatively the language could be
updated from time to time as in the (Miila-)SarvHstivHda and
Dharmaguptaka traditions thus paving the way for slowly removing
the Middle lndic features and moving steadly towards standard
Sanskrit. These conscious changes, into which stylistic preferences
55. On the Tibetan and Chinese translations : R. A G ~ A T I I . A An
K AEdrtrorr
, und
Trunslufion o/ the Buddhist Sanskrit Text "Suyghi!u-Wtru ", 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.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 361
should be included, stand side by side with more or less unconscious
influences exercised from the regional languages as spoken by the
monks who copied the manuscripts, and affecting all manuscripts
written at a specific area such as Gilgit or Nepal irrespective of their
school. And finally, as the evidence of the SamghHtasiitra shows, even
an individuals6 could exercise a considerable influence on the
linguistic shape of a text.
All these cross currents, which can be separated only rarely and
under exceptional circumstances of the text tradition, created a very
complex history of Buddhist Sanskrit, where school specific and text
specific languages could mix easily. This results in great difficulties in
any attempt to attribute a certain text to a certain school by linguistic
means only, especially a non-canonical text, for these could be used by
many schools, and consequently were influenced by the language of
more than one school.
The Buddhists themselves knew very well that the language as used
in their canonical Sanskrit scriptures does not always meet the high
standards laid down in PHnini's grammar, and these divergences were
described as &a, as pointed out recently by D. Sevfort Ruegg (JAOS
106 (1986). 596 f.).At the same time the Buddhists were well aware of
the linguistic diversity of their religious literature. This is reflected in
the well known Tibetan tradition about the interrelation between
certain languages and certain schools, such as :
1. MiilasawHstivHda : Sanskrit;
2. MahHsSmghika : Prakrit;
3. Sammatiya : ApabhramSa;
4. Sthavira : PaiSHci.
The attribution of these languages to particular schools varies in
different sources 5 7 . In the VimalaprabhH, a LaghukilacakratantrarH-
jH-tikP, even 96 languages are said to be found in Buddhist texts".
The surviving languages prove that these opinions offered by the
Buddhist tradition at the end of the first millenium AD are not so
remote from reality, as they are sometimes supposed to be. The school
56. Of course it cannot be ruled out that a group of monks was responsible for the
text as found in manuscript F, which. however hardly represents any "official" verston
of a samgha for it has been discovered together with the other manuscripts of the same
text.
57. For details see : D. SEYFORT RUEC& : " h xdie Nikiyas der Srivakas und den
Ursprung der philosophischen Sfhuten des Buddhisinus nach den tibetischen Quellen ".
in : Schulzugehorigkeit. as above note 6, 1 1 1-126, especially p. 116 1.
58. LAMOITE, Histoire, p. 614. The relevant passages from this text are quoted in :
HARAPRASADSH~STRI, A Descriptive Cata1ogue of Sunskrir Morrus~riprs in the
Government Collecrian undcr the Care of the Asiatic Society I JBen#u/.
~ Vol. I : Buddhist
Manuscripts, Calcutta 1917, p. 77.
362 0 . VON H I N ~ ~ B E R
of the (MulH)SarvHstivHdins indeed uses Sanskrit. This of course was
well known in Tibet, where a Sanskrit and Tibetan glossary such as
the MahHvyutpatti was in use as a guide to translate MiilasarvPsti-
vHda texts. For the language of the MahHsHmghika(-LokottaravHda)
Prakrit is not an altogether unsuitable name, as a specific term for the
true BHS has never been coined by the indigenous tradition. And even
PaSBci for the Sthaviras is not so far off the mark as this might seem
(see above note 34). Although the Sammatiya school seems to have
been the strongest school in India during Hsiian-tsang's times
(Lamotte, Histoire, p. 600 f.), no information about the language
used by them seems to be available. As an example of Buddhist texts
in Apabhramsa the CaryHgiti may be quoted (P. Kvaerne, An
Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs. A Study in the CaryHgiti. Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. 11. Hist.-Filos. Klasse. Skrifter. Ny
Serie No. 14, Oslo 1977, reprinted Bangkok 1986).
Thus on the whole the facts are to a certain degree reconcilable with
the tradition. There is, however, at least one text, which does not fit
into this picture at all, namely the fairly recently edited Patna
Dharmapada (PDhp). In spite of the fact that the PDhp has been
attributed to the MahHsHmghika-LokottaravHda school by G. Roth
(" Features ". p. 82), hesitatingly though and certainly prematurely,
because it was found together with some Vinaya texts of this school,
and because it is written in the same script (!?), even a very superficial
glance at the language of the PDhp reveals features alien to the known
MahHsHmghika tradition. Although a detailed grammatical descrip-
tion of the PDhp would be highly desirable, this cannot be achieved
without a constant control of the readings by the help of a better
photograph than the one at the disposal of G. Roth and M. Cone
C a m b r i k whn orepared a not vet oublished t h e s i s p ~this &&
Therefore the following remarks, which are based on the readings by
G. Roth including the "Addenda and Corrigenda" published in his
" Indian Studies " (as above note 42), and by M. Cone, Cambridge,
should be considered as preliminary only.
Some very few basic grammatical features, which, however, are not
sufficient to determine the position of the language of the PDhp, have
been collected by G. Roth himself (" Features ", p. 93-96). These are
not repeated here.
At first the PDhp seems to be more Sanskritized than Pili, but at
the same time more Middle lndic than BHS. Some consonant clusters
containing an -r- have been reintroduced : pramdde, PDhp 23 :
pamrfde, Dhp 31, but, as the index 59 shows, in contrast to the preverb
59. "Index" refers to : TETSUYA
TABATA.
hder lo tlie Putnu D l ~ u r n ~ u p i ~GUSTAV
du~
ROTHEdition, Kyoto 1982.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 363
pra- there is only one isolated prariflhitii, PDhp 67 : patif!hitii,
Dhp 333, while pari- remains untouched 23 times in the PDhp. This
evidence corresponds exactly to the Devpimori inscription :papiccasa-
miipddo : avijjdpraccayii, in contrast to pa& and 'paccayii at Ratnagi-
ri. In BHS there are some rare and doubtful occurences of pa!r" in the
MahHvastu (BHSD s.v.). Further, the cluster -tr- has been reintrodu-
ced : put(r)ra, riitri, riittro, etc., see index. The last two examples
show that the law of two morae is not operating in the PDhp. As Piili,
the PDhp might have -bb- instead of -vv-, but the characters b and v
cannot be distinguished in this script, as M. Cone informs me.
The syllabic -r- has been reitroduced as well, but it was pronounced
as -ri- or -ra- : dyjrrf, PDhp 3 : disvd, Dhp 15; dudr&im, PDhp 237 :
duddi~!him, Dhp 339; ggredo', PDhp 237 : riiga', Dhp 339 : gredha",
Uv 31, 29. The word gredha is quoted in BHSD from Miilasarviisti-
vHda texts only. The same equivalent to -y- is found in trerti, PDhp
145 : rirri, Dhp 186, cf. above, p. 358 on trevayati, Sgh 5 105
(manuscript D) and prihayanti, PDhp 89, 244 : pihayanti, Dhp 94,
181, a partial Sanskritisation for spyhayanti. Further : ggrahapatayo,
PDhp 119 without parallel, gyhelhehi, PDhp 44 : gaha!.thehi, Dhp
404, and gyhi, PDhp 179 : gihi, Dhp 74.
Difficult to explain is drigha aad dravvi, which occur regularly for
dirgha and darvi, unless a north western connection is postulated for
some phase of the text tradition of the PDhp, which would account
for the strange, but isolated developments such as bhe, PDhp 320 60 :
ve, Dhp 104, cf. also tretti, while lokagu&, PDhp 33 is a misprint for
ioha' according to the "Corrigenda ".
In contrast to PHli the consonant cluster rva has not been
reintroduced, and consequently there are no absolutives in -rvii : hettii,
PDhp 18 : hirvi, Dhp 29; and correspondingly : anneti, PDhp 1 :
anveri Dhp 1 (Uberblick 5 254), but there is an isolated ananviihata',
PDhp 348 : ananviihata', Dhp 39, and mannentu, PDhp 179 : maiidan-
tu, Dhp 74, but manyeyd, PDhp 194: maiiiietha, Dhp 122 and
mamiiyd, PDhp 193 : maiiiietha, Dhp 121, cf. nyriyyd, PDhp 338 :
Dhp - against ikiyyii, PDhp 312 : jarird, Dhp 157, with a different
word formation. Parallels such as arannam, PDhp 155 : araiiiiiini,
Dhp 99 and Shaririassa, PDhp 291 against Siimannassa, PDhp 292 :
siimaririassa, Dhp 19, 20 show together with parijinnam, PDhp 260 :
purijinnam, Dhp 148 that this recension of the Dhammapada has been
influenced by a language, in which -6% and -nn- developped into -nn-,
which is an eastern feature alien to PHli (Uberblick 5 72), from which
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
the PDhp is at variance by in using all three sibilants S, j, s and in
having ddha for dajha.
Single words are different as well : yogacchemam, PDhp 16:
yogakkhemam, Dhp 23, cf. chetta', PDhp 4lOb ("Corrigenda");
bitQatd, PDhp 11 : sahdyatri, Dhp 300, where in PHli the correspon-
ding duttiyyatd might have been used. A true hybrid form is prdpyato,
PDhp 398 : palyato, Uv 24, 8, which originated from a mechanical
analogy : aprripya : prripyato, PDhp 38 as apaiiam : apaSSafo in the
preceding verses. The existence of such apaiabdas has been mentioned
in the VimalaprabhH, see note 58 above.
Though separated by these features from PHli, there are some
strong ties, which unite both, Dhp and PDhp : payiruprisati,
PDhp 192 = Dhp 65; kayircitha, PDhp 29 = Dhp 25, etc.61, and
anubrtimhaye, PDhp 181 : anubrtihaye, Dhp 75. The strange bytihaya,
PDhp 364 is a writing mistake by the copyist for brzi' : brtihaya,
Dhp 285.
As -rm- always develops into -mm- as in PHIi, the text should be
called Patna Dhammapada rather in spite of the Sanskrit colophon.
Throughout tahndf?!) is used, even in tahnciya, PDhp 149 : tarinliya,
Dhp 342.
As far as the declension is concerned, the ending of the genitive of
the a-stems always ends in -assa, and those instances, where rasma
occurs, are to be changed into tassd (see "Addenda et Corrigenda ").
On the other hand, a strong link between both versions of the Dhp
would be the doubtful asmim loke, PDhp 158 = Dhp 242 (four
times), if not to be read assim.rather following M. Cone, against uSiim
loke, PDhp 27 (once), which again may be eastern influence (but :
uberblick Q: 309) : MHgadhi edaSiim (Pischel Q: 426). Once the abl.
lokamhri, Dhp 175 is transformed into lokamhi, PDhp 232 in spite of
the fact the syntax demands an ablative. Again once there is a locative
yamhim, PDhp 155 : yattha, Dhp 99. Both, -asmci and -asmim are
common in PHli, and -asma occurs otherwise only in PHIi (berblick
Q: 301). Both texts share brahmund, PDhp 288, 321 = Dhp 230, 105
(uberblick Q: 350 f.), but once the ending -and or even -und seems to
have been attached to an s-stem : rejunri (or : tejanci, Cone),
PDhp 434 : rejanam, Dhp 33 : rejasd, Uv 31.8. This, however, may be
due to a misunderstood rejana "arrow" as tejuncil-and "by heat ",
which was "corrected" later in the UdHnavarga into tejasri. Thus
:?@nri!-and may be judged 3s an artificial forma:ion such as prcipj'uto
or irgupram quoted earlier.
61. On ayiru. etc. : 0. v. HINUBER,
Notes on the Pi/; Trudirion in Burntrt. Nachrichten
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. 1. Philologisch-Histotische Klasse.
Jahrgang 1983, Nr. 3, p. 77 (151 and note 36.
ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT 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 MahHsHmghi-
ka-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
PDhp : D. C. SIRCAR : F Z U ~Bhai~shukiLnsrriptions. EI 28 (1949/50!, 320-226 and .!I=
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].
 ORIGIN AND VARIETIES OF BUDDHIST SANSKRIT

Sanskrit. It shows a t the same time that BHS a n d Piili belong together
much closer than this is supposed normally. F o r the P D h p stands in
the middle between the t w o a n d thus provides new insights into the Index of words discussed.
linguistic history o f Buddhism, from which the better part is lost (Unless indicated otherwise, words have been quoted in their BHS form).
together with the original version o f the relevant texts. Therefore, new
discoveries such a s the PDhp, rare a s they are, though further texts anvati, 357. -tvi (Plli), 363.
m a y be expected t o surface i n China in future, could a d d further anyatra : anyathi, 359. dravvi, 363.
abhavisa : avabhlsa, 358. drigha, 363.
surprising details t o the study of Buddhist languages. avaturya, 358. namatima, 358.
utpatya : utplutya, 358. nirvlnasittau : -dhltau, 358
udakabaka, 357. pannadhaja (Pili), 357.
undnyati (Pili), 357, note 51. pariyd : paqad, 356.
upapela, 357. paryat, 357, note 50.
Depuis la publication des Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and -1- : -ri-, -ra-, 363. pHtita(mina)dhvaja, 357.
Dictionary de F. Edgerton, les discussions sur les origines et I'histoire de cette kiripayati, 359. pr-, 362 f.
langue se trouvent fondees sur des bases plus solides. D'autre pari. divers cimara, 358. prajtiidhvaja. 357.
jatla, jhalla, 358, note 52. . pridukakiqit, 359.
textes en sanskrit bouddhique ont ete publies ces dernieres annies, principale- -fie-, 363. bhayam : vayam, 358.
ment ceux que R. Sankrtyiyana avait pu photographier au Tibet. -nn-, 363. -r-* (intrusive), 360.
C'est ainsi qu'il est aujourd'hui possible de voir plus clairement que le seul a tyguptam, 356. vadeyutim, 360.
Etre vraiment a bouddhique >) est le sanskrit de I'kole Mahisimghika- tr-, 363. sarakutti (Pili), 357.
Lokottaravida. Cette variete de sanskrit, semblable a celui de I'epopke. trevayati, 358. svaragupti, 357.
pourrait avoir pour origine un sanskrit cc: corrompu n (c.-a-d. tres proche du
moyen indien), datant d'une epoque ou les regles de la grammaire de Pinini
n'ttaient pas encore tenues pour contraignantes. Dans la mesure ou il y eut
ulterieurement, dans certaines koles bouddhiques, une reaction en direction
du satskrit normatif, les karmavacand er prritimoksaslitra jouerent probable- ADDENDA
ment un rBle considerable dans un tel processus. Car la validid des Note I t : A. Yuyama : Miscellaneous Remarks on the Lotus Sutra, in : Collected
samgh&iormu (celle de I'upasampod~ , par exemple) depend strictement de Papers on Indian and Buddhist Studies : A Volume Dedicated to Dr. Jikid6
I'exactitude et de la prkision de la langue et de la prononciation. Takasaki on the Occasion of his M)th Birthday. Tokyo 1987, 720 119)-712 (127).
Au cours des sibcles, les diffkrentes ecoles choisirent des langues differentes. Page 347 : R. Tschuchida : Textkritische Noten zum Sanskrit-Text des Goldglanz-
On voit les Mahisimghika-Lokottaravidin retenir un sanskrit tr6s proche du Sltra. Central Asiatic Journal 29 (1985). 11 1-152.
moyen-indien (c'est le skr. bouddhique proprement dit); les (Miila-) Sarvisti- Note 16 : I.-U. Hartmann : Neue Aavagho$a- und Mitpxla-Fragmente aus Osttur-
vidin se rapprocher graduellement d'un sanskrit presque normalise (evolution kestan. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen. I. Philologirh-
observable dans les recensions de I'udinavarga). Historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1988, Nr. 2.
De surcroit, la langue des textes canoniques fut influencie par celle des 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
copistes (celle des regions ou s'est opkrke la transmission) tandis que J. W. de Jong, IIJ 20 (1978), p. 125f.
s'introduisaient, dans les textes non canoniques, des mots et des phrases Page 362 : Further Buddhist texts in ApabhragSa have been published recently in :
typiques de I'ecole qui utilisait ces traites. II en est resulte la distribution des ApabhramS Vacan Saggrah, in : Dhih. A Review of Rare Buddhist Texts. 5. Sarnath
langues du bouddhisme que nous connaissons, laquelle est tres proche de la 1988, p. 29-36, 177f.
description fournie par les sources tiktaines. Seule la place du Dharmapada
de Patna (publie r k m m e n t ) reste difficile a determiner. A I'evidence, ce texte
ne releve ni des Theravidin, ni des Mahisimghika-LokottaravHdin.ni des
(Miila-)Sarvistividin, ni des Dharmaguptaka, mais d'une &ole dont nous
ignorons la langue.