A089 In defense of Haribhatta Title page 2007-09-09

WIENER STUDIEN ZUR TIBETOLOGIE UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE

GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON BIRGIT KELLNER, HELMUT KRASSER,

HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.1

WIEN 2007

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ

PAPERS DEDICATED TO ERNST STEINKELLNER ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 70th BIRTHDAY

EDITED BY BIRGIT KELLNER, HELMUT KRASSER, HORST LASIC, MICHAEL TORSTEN MUCH and HELMUT TAUSCHER

PART 1

WIEN 2007


Cover painting "die bunte hoffnung" (detail) by Arik Brauer, © by Arik Brauer

Copyright © 2007 by Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien

ISBN: 978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 1)

IMPRESSUM

Verleger: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitätscampus AAKH, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien Herausgeber und für den Inhalt verantwortlich: Birgit Kellner, Helmut Krasser, Helmut Tauscher alle: Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien

Druck: Ferdinand Berger und Söhne GmbH, Wiener Straße 80, 3580 Horn

Contents

Ernst Steinkellner – Imprints and echoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Publications of Ernst Steinkellner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii

Katia Buffetrille, “Pays caché” ou “Avenir radieux?” Le choix de Shes rab rgya mtsho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Gudrun Bühnemann, śivaliṅgas and caityas in representations of the eight cremation grounds from Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Christoph Cüppers, Die Reise- und Zeltlagerordnung des Fünften Dalai Lama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Elena De Rossi Filibeck, The fragmentary Tholing bKa’ ’gyur in the IsIAO Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Max Deeg, A little-noticed Buddhist travelogue – Senghui’s Xiyu-ji and its relation to the Luoyang-jialan-ji. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Hildegard Diemberger, Padmasambhava’s unfinished job: the subjugation of local deities as described in the dBa’ bzhed in light of contemporary practices of spirit possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Georges Dreyfus, Is perception intentional? A preliminary exploration of intentionality in Dharmakīrti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Franz-Karl Ehrhard, The biography of sMan-bsgom Chos-rje Kun-dga’ dpal-ldan (1735–1804) as a source for the Sino-Nepalese war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Vincent Eltschinger, On 7th and 8th century Buddhist accounts of human action, practical rationality and soteriology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Eli Franco, Prajñākaragupta on pratītyasamutpāda and reverse causation . . . . . . . . 163

Toru Funayama, Kamalaśīla’s distinction between the two sub-schools of Yogācāra. A provisional survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Richard Gombrich, Popperian Vinaya: Conjecture and refutation in practice . . . . . 203

Michael Hahn, In defence of Haribhaṭṭa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Paul Harrison, Notes on some West Tibetan manuscript folios in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Der Sattvārādhanastava und das Kṣāranadīsūtra . . . . . . . . . . 247

Guntram Hazod, The grave on the ‘cool plain’. On the identification of ‘Tibet’s first tomb’ in Nga-ra-thang of ’Phyong-po . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Contents x

Harunaga Isaacson, First Yoga: A commentary on the ādiyoga section of Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara (Studies in Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works IV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Takashi Iwata, An analysis of examples for the interpretation of the word iṣṭaḥ in Dharmakīrti’s definition of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

David Jackson, Rong ston bKa’ bcu pa – Notes on the title and travels of a great Tibetan scholastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Christian Jahoda, Archival exploration of Western Tibet or what has re-mained of Francke’s and Shuttleworth’s Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Vol. IV? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

Muni Śrī Jambūvijayaji, Dignāga’s Nyāyapraveśakaśūtra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Shoryu Katsura, Dharmakīrti’s proof of the existence of other minds . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

Deborah Klimburg-Salter, Tradition and innovation in Indo-Tibetan painting. Four preaching scenes from the life of the Buddha, Tabo mid 11th century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

Taiken Kyuma, Marginalia on the subject of sattvānumāna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469

Horst Lasic, Placing the Tabo tshad ma materials in the general development of tshad ma studies in Tibet. Part one: The study of the Nyāyabindu . . . . . . . 483

Christian Luczanits, Prior to Birth II – The Tuṣita episodes in Early Tibetan Buddhist literature and art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497


GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER


HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.2

WIEN 2007


PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ



PART 2

WIEN 2007




ISBN: 978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 2)

IMPRESSUM



Contents

Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Can sūtra mahāmudrā be justified on the basis of Mai-trīpa’s Apratiṣṭhānavāda? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

Claus Oetke, About the assessment of views on a self in the Indian philo-sophical tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

Patrick Olivelle, The term vikrama in the vocabulary of Aśvaghoṣa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

Parimal G. Patil, Dharmakīrti’s white lie – Philosophy, pedagogy, and truth in late Indian Buddhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597

Ole Holten Pind, Nāgārjunian Divertimento – A close reading of Mūla-madhyamaka-kārikā VII 30cd and VIII 7cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621

Karin Preisendanz, The initiation of the medical student in early classical Āyurveda: Caraka’s treatment in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629

Ernst Prets, Implications, derivations and consequences: prasaṅga in the early Nyāya tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669

Charles Ramble, The Aya: Fragments of an unknown Tibetan priesthood . . . . . . . . 683

Ludo Rocher, Commentators at work: Inheritance by brothers in Hindu law . . . . . . 721

Rosane Rocher, Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the marginalization of Indian pandits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735

Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, Immortality extolled with reason: Philosophy and politics in Nāgārjuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757

Lambert Schmithausen, Problems with the Golden Rule in Buddhist texts . . . . . . . . 795

Walter Slaje, Werke und Wissen: Die Quellensammlung (AD 1680) des Kaschmirers Ānanda zum Beweis der Superiorität der karmajñāna-samuccaya-Doktrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825

Per Sørensen, Restless relic – The Ārya Lokeśvara icon in Tibet: Symbol of power, legitimacy and pawn for patronage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857

Tom J.F. Tillemans, On bdag, gzhan and the supposed active-passive neutra-lity of Tibetan verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887

Toru Tomabechi, The extraction of mantra (mantroddhāra) in the Sarva-buddhasamāyogatantra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903

Raffaele Torella, Studies on Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivti. Part IV: Light of the subject, light of the object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925

Kurt Tropper, The Buddha-vita in the skor lam chen mo at Zha lu monastery . . . . . . 941

Contents vi

Helga Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung, A silver portrait of the 6th Źwa-dmar Karma-pa (1584–1630) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975

Käthe Uray-Kőhalmi, Geser/Kesar und seine Gefährtinnen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, *Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi: Notes on the Guhya-samāja Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001

Roberto Vitali, The White dPyal: Early evidence (from the 7th century to the beginning of bstan pa phyi dar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023

Chizuko Yoshimizu, Causal efficacy and spatiotemporal restriction: An analytical study of the Sautrāntika philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049

Kiyotaka Yoshimizu, Reconsidering the fragment of the Bhaṭṭīkā on inseparable connection (avinābhāva) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079


GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER


HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.1

WIEN 2007


PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ



PART 1

WIEN 2007




ISBN: 978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 1)

IMPRESSUM



Contents



















Contents x












GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER


HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.2

WIEN 2007


PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ



PART 2

WIEN 2007




ISBN: 978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 2)

IMPRESSUM



Contents



















Contents vi







B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much, H. Tauscher (eds.), Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedi-cated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Part 1. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.1) Wien 2007, pp. 203–211.

Popperian Vinaya: Conjecture and refutation in practice

R i c h a r d G o m b r i c h , O x f o r d

I vividly remember my first encounter with Ernst. Though well aware of his scholarly reputation, I had not met him until, at the 7th World Sanskrit Confer-ence, held at Leiden in August 1987, I was introduced to a small group of peo-ple standing chatting in a corridor. Among them there was this stocky, relaxed man in a tweed jacket smoking a pipe and looking benignly amused. One could instantly sense that here was a man who pulled more than his apparent weight. As he shook my hand, his eyes twinkled. (Eyes do twinkle better through pipe smoke.) His gaze became what I can only call quizzical, and yet not unnerving. I sensed that he pretty well saw through me and would cherish no illusions, and yet it was OK, I had passed.

I did not immediately sense that this was to be one of the most fortunate encounters of my life. But it was. Three times in the nineties Ernst invited me to spend periods of several weeks working in his wonderful Institute, where I revelled in the friendly atmosphere created by his extraordinary tolerance, intelligence and diplomacy, and the admirable library, in which I was not only led to many discoveries but also cut the pages of some of the obscurer volumes of the Pali Canon. All, of course, wreathed in a cloud of tobacco smoke; the fragrance welcomed me, a non-smoker, as soon as I entered the premises on the first floor of the cavernous building on Maria-Theresien-Strasse. It had taken not only fine scholarship but exceptional savoir faire to create that Institute. Not only did I do some of my best work there; I feel I would have achieved far more had I found the place, and Ernst, twenty years earlier.

Unlike Ernst, I have had no philosophical training. This is a serious deficiency in someone who wants to study the history of Buddhism. In my publications, I have several times pointed to features of the Buddha’s teaching which strike me as very like ideas propounded by Karl Popper.1 To some this must appear

1 Theravāda Buddhism: a social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo. 1st ed. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1988, 2nd ed. Routledge, Abingdon, 2006, pp.

Richard Gombrich 204

idiosyncratic. I realise that the ideas of the Buddha and his followers can with interest and profit be compared to those of many philosophers both ancient and modern. So why Karl Popper?

Again, I suppose the root of the answer is biographical. For the best part of fifty years Karl Popper was one of my father’s closest friends, perhaps indeed his closest friend in England. They talked at least once a week on the phone, and throughout my teens I spent many Sundays with my parents in the Pop-pers’ house just outside London at Penn, listening to Karl and my father dis-cussing intellectual matters. I probably did not begin to read Karl’s work until my late teens, but when I did so I was excited by it, and convinced. While I was an undergraduate Karl asked me to read through the manuscript of Conjectures and Refutations, a large volume of collected papers, as a copy editor. I think that in the end he quietly rejected many of my suggestions; but reading those papers carefully had an enormous influence on me, which I still regard as en-tirely beneficial. When in 1983 The Times Higher Educational Supplement asked me to write a column in a series called “Milestones”, in which people wrote of a book which had deeply influenced them, I wrote on Conjectures and Refutations.2

In this short article I want to make a point which philosophically is no doubt trivial, but I think is important historically. The very title of Conjectures and Refutations alludes to Popper’s position concerning knowledge: that in empiri-cal matters there is no final and certain knowledge, but that we come ever closer to truth by a process of conjecture and refutation, that is, by forming hypotheses on the basis of the best evidence available, and then putting our hypotheses to the test by any means we can find. Of course the Buddha was not a fully-fledged Popperian in this regard: he was a religious teacher who be-lieved that he had discovered the truth, though its final expression lay beyond words. However, he had a great deal to say about how to improve our experi-ence of life short of attaining nirvana, and in this empirical domain he held some quite Popperian positions.

9, 15–17. How Buddhism began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings, 1st ed. Athlone Press, London, 1996, 2nd ed. Routledge, Abingdon, 2006, pp. 1–5, 7, 30; Reli-gious experience in early Buddhism? Eighth Annual BASR Lecture, 1997. British Asso-ciation for the Study of Religions Occasional Paper 17. Printed by the University of Leeds Printing Service, Leeds [1998], p. 2. 2 “Richard Gombrich chooses Conjectures and refutations by Karl Popper.” The Times Higher Educational Supplement, "Milestones" series, 27 May 1983, p. 13.

Popperian Vinaya: Conjecture and refutation in practice 205

Introductions to Buddhism written for westerners tend to begin with a reference to the Buddha’s advice to a group of people called the Kālāmas.3 They had complained to him that various teachers came and preached different doctrines to them, and they were confused about which to follow. The Buddha replied that everyone has to make up their own mind on such matters. One should not take any teaching on trust or external authority, but test it on the touchstone of one’s own experience. Naturally, the implication is that people would then find out for themselves that it was the Buddha whose teaching their experience showed them to be correct. It is natural and appropriate for modern authors to highlight this teaching: its implications for tolerance and egalitarianism, at least on the intellectual level, resonate with post-Enlightenment thought. The atti-tude was not unique in the ancient world: one can imagine the same advice coming from Socrates – though not from Plato. But it is astonishing to find it in the generally hierarchic society of India.

In every traditional society, including that into which the Buddha was born, education consists largely in parroting what the teacher says. If later some Buddhists parroted, “The teacher says I must think for myself,” we cannot blame the Buddha for that. The Buddha even made a monastic ruling that one of the duties of a pupil towards his teacher is to correct him when he is wrong on doctrine or in danger of saying something unsuitable.4 That, I think, has few parallels in world history.

The Pali Canon is very large and somewhat heterogeneous. The picture it gives us of the Buddha’s thought and personality is not consistent. Neverthe-less, those comparatively few texts in which he is presented as claiming omnis-cience do strike a rather jarring note. In the Tevijja-vacchagotta Sutta the Bud-dha is asked whether at all times, both asleep and awake, he has complete knowledge and vision. The Buddha says no: what he has is the threefold knowledge. This threefold knowledge, as we know from many texts, is the recollection of his former births, the power to see how all beings are reborn according to their karma, and his destruction of the corruptions (āsava), which means that he is liberated.5 I suggest that to us this reads like a denial of omniscience, and that this is what we would perhaps expect of a great rational intellect. Whether or not our interpretation is correct, it is not the one accepted by any Buddhist tradition of which I am aware. “According to the Theravāda exegetical tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable

3 AN I 188–193. 4 Vin I 49 para 20, 46 para 10. 5 MN I 482.


things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know.”6

The idea that the Buddha was omniscient is strikingly at odds with the pic-ture of him presented in every Vinaya tradition. Though this is glaringly obvi-ous once it is pointed out, I am not aware that anyone has pointed it out before.

The Vinaya is a great code of law with a vast array of glosses, elaborations and commentaries. The actual rules are ascribed to the Buddha himself, and no scholar believes that in fact every rule that we now have comes from the Bud-dha’s own lips or even dates from his lifetime. On the other hand, the Vinaya is historically inexplicable unless it started with the Buddha, who had the author-ity and intelligence to lay down the rules which constituted its basic framework – so successfully, indeed, that the Saṅgha, who live by those rules, represent one of the world’s oldest and longest-lasting institutions.

So far as I know, every other legal code of the ancient world is ascribed to some wise lawgiver who made up a set of rules a priori. The Buddha did not. Every single rule in the Vinaya is presented in an empirical context. It does not matter that the stories cannot possibly all be historically accurate, and indeed are often stereotyped; the point is the pattern that they follow, a pattern which I would argue must have been established at the outset. Thus every single rule is presented to us as the Buddha’s response to an untoward event or set of circum-stances. He expresses disapproval, saying that it is not conducive to increasing the number of believers. He then pronounces a rule, for which he gives a stock list of ten reasons.7 They can be summarized as the protection and convenience of the Saṅgha, the moral purity of its members, increase in the number of believers and the good of non-believers. Nor is this empty rhetoric: the occa-sion for promulgating a rule is frequently lay dissatisfaction.

The scriptures thus represent the process of forming the Vinaya as a continu-ous process of meeting exigencies, of solving problems as they arise, some-times as unintended consequences of previous rulings. This is “conjecture and refutation” demonstrated in practice; it amounts to the same as trial and error. Moreover, because every rule is framed to meet a particular situation that has arisen, the first offender, the person who occasioned the creation of that rule, is not guilty, because the rule did not yet exist to be broken.

6 Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, Pali Text Society, Oxford, rev. ed. 2001, p. 1276, fn. 714. 7 Vin. III 21, etc.


In sum, not only does the entire Vinaya tradition show that the Buddha did not anticipate what rules would be needed, he even occasionally made a false start and found it necessary to reverse a decision. Since omniscience includes knowledge of the future, this is not omniscience. A pious Buddhist who was committed to believing that the Buddha was omniscient would have to say that his ignorance of the future was a charade. This would raise a problem about his truthfulness, but in any case this hypothesis need not bother us, since it is not actually put forward in the Vinaya tradition itself. However, sometimes when the Buddha asks a question about what is going on, the commentaries do say that actually he knew, but asked just for form’s sake. This same observation oc-curs in the Chinese Vinaya text which I cite below, when the Buddha asks about the noise being made by Upāli and the other boys; but I believe it is no-where found in the Pali Vinaya.

To illustrate how the rules were created by a process of trial and error, I shall now summarise the section from the first book of the Khandhaka which de-scribes how the institution of having novices (sāmaṇera) in the Saṅgha became established.

I shall use the Pali version, since that and Sanskrit are the only relevant languages that I know. Of course, there are five versions of the Vinaya extant in Chinese and one of those, the Mūlasarvāstivādin, is also extant in Sanskrit and Tibetan (but is incomplete in Chinese). This is a major reason why there is so little modern scholarship on the Vinaya: to do a thorough job, one needs to be able to use and compare the texts in all three languages. I have however found a practical way forward. My doctoral student Mr Jungnok Park has had the great kindness to check for me the relevant passages in the Chinese text of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya.8 All that matters for my present purposes is the pro-cess of making and changing the rules, and since Mr Park assures me that everything I say about that applies equally to the Dharmaguptaka version, I think we can take my remarks as valid for the whole Vinaya tradition.

There was a boy called Upāli, the leader of a group (a gang?) of seventeen boys.9 His parents were worried what would happen to him after their deaths. They had heard that Buddhist monks lived in comfort: they ate well and slept under cover. Upāli heard his parents discussing this and went and told his friends, whereupon they all decided to go for ordination with the Buddhists.

8 T1428, translated by Buddhayaśas in 410 A.D. 9 Vin. I, 77.


The parents all gave their consent, so the boys went and took ordination. Though the text has them asking only for the lower ordination (pabbajjā), they received both that and the full ordination (upasampadā). But in the night to-wards dawn they got up and cried, demanding food and drink. The monks asked them to be patient until dawn; then they would get whatever there was available, and would get the rest on their alms round. They however then used their cells as toilets.

The Buddha heard the clamour and asked Ānanda what was going on; apparently he did not know that the boys were there. When he had ascertained that monks had knowingly ordained people under the age of twenty, he rebuked them, saying: “A person under the age of twenty cannot put up with heat and cold, hunger and thirst, with insects’ bites and stings, with wind and sun, with contact with creepy-crawlies, with harsh and unwelcoming speech. He cannot bear the whole range of physical discomfort and pain, up to the lethal. But a person aged twenty can. This will not make people who do not trust in us have such trust, nor strengthen the trust of those who do.”10 He then laid down the rule: “One may not knowingly ordain a person aged under twenty. One who does so is to be penalised according to the rule.”

The Dharmaguptaka story is much the same, though it seems to be shorter and a bit more coherent. (a) It does not mention the lower ordination (pab-bajjā), which is logical, since the rule concerns higher ordination (upasam-padā) and is indeed the first step in the process by which a separate pabbajjā came to exist – originally the two terms referred to the same thing. (b) The rule which the Buddha lays down also includes the essential point that the under-age ordination is invalid. It further specifies that a monk who has conducted such an ordination is guilty of a pācittiya offense. In the Pali Vinaya, the Sutta-vibhaṅga,11 in the section on pācittiya offenses, has the same introductory story about Upāli and his friends, word for word, but the concluding rule does in-clude the fact that the ordination is invalid, so the omission of the phrase from the Pali Khandhaka is certainly a textual corruption. (c) The Dharmaguptaka does not say that the boys used their cells as toilets. That too seems to make better sense: the boys’ misbehaviour suggests really small children; but why would any monk have thought that little boys who were not yet toilet trained

10 I.B. Horner translates this stock expression: “This is not for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased, nor for increasing the number of those who are pleased.” But this makes the two results mean the same. I think therefore that bhiyyo here means more in quality rather than in number. 11 Vin. IV 128–130. Likewise, this passage also occurs as pācittiya 65 in the Dharma-guptaka version of the Sutta-vibhaṅga.


could live in the Saṅgha? On the other hand, Jungnok Park informs me that in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, after Rāhula had become a novice (see below), anonymous novices spoilt their beds and seats, which were covered with linen, so the Buddha prohibited the use of linen-covered beds and seats to novices.

The next episode in the Pali (section I.50) is that a whole family were wiped out by a disease, leaving only a father and his small son. The two of them joined the Saṅgha (pabbajitvā). When they went begging and the father was given something the little boy would ask to share it. People grumbled because they suspected that the little boy was the child of a nun. Thereupon the Buddha ruled that no one under fifteen was to be admitted to the Order. Note that the previous rule is about full ordination, this one about admission. Even so, the story and the rule do not seem to me to match very well.

The Dharmaguptaka version again shows that we are dealing with a textual corruption. In that version, this rule follows Pali 1.54. There is no mention of the family’s death by disease or of the suspicion that the boy was the child of a nun, and the age given is 12, not 15.

Now (section I.51) comes a modification to the previous rule. A family who used to look after Ānanda died of the same kind of epidemic (perhaps the same one?), in this case leaving two boys. These, when they saw monks on their alms rounds, approached them for food, as they had previously been allowed to do; but now the monks rejected them and they cried. They were under fifteen, so Ānanda wondered how to save them, and put the case to the Buddha. The Buddha asked whether they were capable of making crows fly away. On hearing that they were, he decreed that a boy aged under fifteen who could shoo crows away could be admitted to the Order. This is the rule still in use today; in Sri Lanka it is interpreted to mean about seven or eight years old.

This story too comes later in the Dharmaguptaka version. A few inessential details are different, but this case still follows the previous one (Pali I.50) and is a modification of it. (The age modified is 12, not 15.)

The next section (I.52) is very brief. Two named Sakyan boys who were novices under the same monk had sex with each other. (Though Miss Horner calls this “sodomy”, masturbation is surely more likely.) This caused the Bud-dha to forbid a single monk to take on two novices. We must understand that novices were the responsibility of the monk who admitted them to the Order and presumably also lodged with him.12 12 Though the Vinaya is not squeamish about mentioning sexual offences, it is worth noting that no case is mentioned of a monk abusing a novice or being suspected of do-ing so.


In the Dharmaguptaka version, the rule which appears at this point, i.e., after the parallel to I.51, is virtually identical.

There is then a long section in the Pali (I.53) which concerns a different topic. The next section (I.54) tells the famous story of how the Buddha’s son Rāhula entered the Order. The Buddha goes to Kapilavatthu – presumably, though the text does not say so, returning for the first time since his Enlighten-ment. Rāhula’s mother – the text gives her no other name – tells him to go and ask his father for his inheritance. When he does so, the Buddha tells Sāriputta to admit him to the Order.

Sāriputta thereupon asks how he is to do that. The Buddha then explains that novices are to be admitted by giving them the three refuges. They are to be shaved and clothed in yellow robes. Putting his robe over one shoulder, the postulant is to worship the feet of the monks present, squat with his hands to-gether in the gesture of reverence, and be told to say three times, “I go to the Buddha for refuge, I go to the Dhamma for refuge, I go to the Saṅgha for ref-uge.”

What follows is fascinating. The Buddha’s father, Suddhodana, comes to see him and asks him for a favour. He vividly describes the pain he suffered when the Buddha left home as a renunciate, and then when Nanda, the Bud-dha’s cousin, did; now Rāhula’s leaving is the worst of all. He asks that in future no boy be admitted to the Order without the permission of his parents. The Buddha grants his request. In doing so he in fact corrects himself, for he decides that what he did to his own father, and what he has just repeated with his own son, should never again be inflicted on any parent.

This famous story is the same in all essentials in the Dharmaguptaka text.

Sāriputta now has Rāhula as his novice. However, a family who support him ask him to accept one of their boys as a novice (I.55). Aware that this has been forbidden, he asks the Buddha’s advice. The Buddha then in effect rescinds his previous ruling, saying that a competent monk may take as many novices as he is capable of educating.

In the Dharmaguptaka version, the monk who asks to have more than one pupil is not Sāriputta but anonymous. This variation, like others, is probably due to the different sequence of the episodes. In the Pali narrative it is natural that this request should come from Sāriputta. But in the Dharmaguptaka ver-sion, this immediately follows the parallel to Pali I.52, the ruling which it re-scinds. This is not very convincing, since it gives no particular reason for the Buddha to rescind his earlier ruling.


Unless and until we can compare all the extant Vinaya texts, there is little point in trying to establish the core which they have in common and how devia-tions arose. Though it is clear that some variant versions are attempts to patch up incoherences where the rules have been transmitted out of order, it is no less clear that the Buddha on occasion modified rules, even to the extent of rescind-ing them completely. That, at least, is my conjecture, awaiting refutation.


GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER


HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.1

WIEN 2007


PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ



PART 1

WIEN 2007




ISBN: 978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 1)

IMPRESSUM



Contents



















Contents x












GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER


HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.2

WIEN 2007


PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ



PART 2

WIEN 2007




ISBN: 978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 2)

IMPRESSUM



Contents



















Contents vi







B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much, H. Tauscher (eds.), Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedi-cated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Part 1. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.1) Wien 2007, pp. 213–227.

In defence of Haribhaṭṭa1

M i c h a e l H a h n , M a r b u r g

In 2004 the first legend from Haribhaṭṭa’s Jātakamālā became accessible to the English speaking world through the translation by the American scholar Reiko Ohnuma. A wide circulation was guaranteed since it was published in the an-thology Buddhist Scriptures, ed. by Donald S. Lopez, Jr, London 2004, as part of the series Penguin Classics series. The legend translated by Ohnuma is No. 6 of Haribhaṭṭa’s work, the Rūpyāvatījātaka. It forms chapter 19 of the above-mentioned anthology which is entitled “Rūpyāvatī gives away her breasts” and covers pages 159-171. The textual basis is my edition of the Sanskrit text as contained in my booklet Haribhaṭṭa and Gopadatta. Two Authors in the Succession of Āryaśūra. On the Rediscovery of Parts of their Jātakamālās. 2nd edition. Thoroughly revised and enlarged. Tokyo 1992. viii, 76 pp. (Studia Phi-lologica Buddhica. Occasional Paper Series. 1.) (= Hahn 1992)

As the editor of the story I was, of course, pleased to see its English version and my first impression, after having read a few paragraphs, was rather favour-able. The English is very natural and the translator tries successfully to distin-guish between the prose and verse portions. However, when I began to compare in detail the translation with the Sanskrit text, the favourable impression rapidly vanished because I detected several unnecessary, sometimes even embarrassing mistakes. They could have been avoided, had it occurred to the translator or her advisers to contact the editor of the legend and ask him about his understanding of the crucial passages. I would have been more than ready to offer my full assistance.

Instead I am now put in the awkward position of criticizing the work of a beginner, done with the best of intentions, thereby creating the impression of a know-all who will not admit any interpretation other than his own. I do this

1 My thanks are due to my friend Peter Khoroche, Cambridge, for “smoothing out the English.” A revised version was shown to Dr. Justin Meiland who again suggested several improvements of the style.

Michael Hahn 214

only very reluctantly. However, the very fact that this translation will be read world-wide leaves me no other choice, since it creates a distorted notion of the work of a first-class poet. This notion should be corrected as soon as possible, at least among the scholarly community. It is my hope that through the world-wide reputation that the scholar, honoured in this volume, will enjoy this attempt to defend Haribhaṭṭa, his poetic genius and his clear images will be no-ticed. To be fair: several parts of the legend are translated correctly by Ohnuma into a very readable and enjoyable American English. However, the distorted passages simply do not reflect our current knowledge of the Indian kāvya literature and quite often lead the reader astray.

In my opinion the most suitable way to illustrate the deficiencies of the ex-isting translation is to replace it by a new one. In very brief footnotes the errors of the previous translation will be pointed out. I will also discuss some am-biguous cases where different interpretations are possible. It goes without say-ing that the translation of a non-native speaker does not aim at being literary.

Meanwhile a revised Sanskrit text of the Rūpyāvatījātaka has appeared in the book Haribhaṭṭa in Nepal: Ten Legends from his Jātakamālā and the Anonymous Śākyasiṃhajātaka, Tokyo 2007. The text published in 1992 contains four typos, none which should confuse the expert: ūḍhaḥsu for ūdhaḥsu (8d), kṣīnnānna- for kṣīṇānna- (10a), -keṣakam for keśakam (12b) and māṃ pratiyācitā for māṃ prati yācitā (47d). In one case I misread usrāḥ “cows” as uṣṭrāḥ “(male) camels,” misled by the Tibetan translation, and in another case I wrongly emended the so far unattested word ābhigāmika to *ābhikāmika. In a few other cases my Nepalese manuscript (A) contains some more serious mistakes that I had not been able to correct: pariśuṣyatsalilam for pariśuṣyatsaritsalilam (2+), parimlānakamalakedāraṃ for parimlānakedāraṃ (2+), -dūṣaṇāni for -dhūsarāṇi (5b), kavalavyāhti- for kavalāvyāhti- (7b), nivāsāya gataḥ for nivāsopahataḥ (10d), and valan for calan (19c). The correct readings can be found in the newly discovered Ms B which I have described in my paper “Haribhaṭṭa and the Mahābhārata.”2 All these cases are discussed in the footnotes to the translation.

As for the legend itself, suffice it here to refer to the paper “Two female bo-dhisattvas in flesh and blood” by Dragomir Dimitrov,3 in which he analyses and compares the two thematically related legends of Rūpyāvatī and Jñānavatī

2 In: Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka, vol. 3 (2005), pp. 1–41. 3 In: Aspects of the Female in Indian Culture. Proceedings of the Symposium in Mar-burg, Germany, July 7–8, 2000. Ed. by Ulrike Roesler and Jayandra Soni, Marburg 2004 (Indica et Tibetica. 44), pp. 3–30.

In defence of Haribhaṭṭa 215

in all their known versions. Here the reader is informed of the wider context in which the two stories are to be placed.

The legend of Rūpyāvatī

1. Even when reborn as a woman the bodhisattva cut off flesh from her own body and gave it away. How much more (should he act in such a manner)4 when reborn as man with greater strength of heart5 and skill to help others!

Once there was a royal capital called Utpalāvatī which is nowadays known as Puṣkalāvatī.6 Its outskirts were dark with various groves and its market-streets were overcrowded with merchants who seemed to rival Kubera, the Lord of Wealth.7 As if adorning the entire earth, it was a head ornament for the region of Gāndhāra. There the bodhisattva was born as a woman by the name of Rūpyāvatī. Splendour, charm, and beauty had accumulated in her because she was in the prime of her youth, and she was like the goddess of her own house8.

2. By her tranquillity, her determination to help others, and the sharpness of her mind she caused the greatest astonishment among the people and shone like the embodiment of compassion.

4 “Did he so” is certainly not incorrect, however I prefer “should he act in such a man-ner” as complement since otherwise this statement would belittle, to a certain extent, Rūpyāvatī’s sacrifice. Cf. also the concluding sentence of the legend. 5 sattvabala- is ambiguous. It can be both a dvandva and tatpuruṣa, “goodness and strength” (Ohnuma) or “strength of the heart.” However, speaking of a man, I prefer to interpret sattva as “energy, vigour,” i.e. inner strength, in opposition to bala “physical strength.” HJMtib has lhag pa'i bsam pa stobs ldan which can be interpreted as metri-cal shortening of lhag pa'i bsam pa [daṅ] stobs ldan (dvandva) or of lhag pa'i bsam pa[’i] stobs ldan (tatpuruṣa). 6 Puṣkalāvatī is situated north of Puruṣapura (Peshawar), on the northern bank of the river Kubhā, at the present border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Cf. A Historical Atlas of South Asia, ed. by Joseph. E. Schwartzberg, Chicago, London 1978, pp. 15 and foll. 7 Ohnuma has “displaying their wares” for dhanadāyamāna. Obviously she did not recognize the verb dhanadāyate “behaves like Dhanada, i.e., Kubera” but analysed the form as dhana-dāyamāna-. 8 Ohnuma “like a goddess dwelling in her own house.”

Michael Hahn 216

At a certain time a terrible drought occurred in that region because the karmic roots of prosperity had disappeared. The people were utterly dejected by the sight of the completely empty barns and storehouses, and the scorching heat of the sun’s rays had melted the remaining snow on the glaciers away.9 Because of the lack of snow the water in the rivers had dried up,10 and because of the lack of water the rice-fields had withered away. Seeing that, the farmers became depressed,11 and the needs of guests could no longer be fulfilled completely.12 Extremely weak cowherds followed the scanty herd of cows that had not yet died; the poor could not think of anything else than food. The whole situation was as painful as being in contact with wicked people.13

3. The heavy breasts of the starving women, whose once captivating nipples had sunk inwards and which resembled cups made of pure gold,14 lost their hardness.

4. When their creeper-like arms had lost their lustre and become extremely thin, the bracelets of the women whose eyes were dejected, became loose.15

5. The faces of the women were covered with bristly hair,

9 Ohnuma: “The burning heat of the sun failed to melt the Himalayan snow sufficient-ly.” This would be a rare natural phenomenon! 10 Ohnuma: “and because of this the rain [salila-! MH] dried up” (for atuhinatayā pari-śuṣyatsalilam). The reading pariśuṣyatsalilam is to be corrected as pariśuṣyatsarit-salilam according to the newly found Ms. B. This is confirmed by HJMtib which has chu bo kun gyi chu kun nas bskams pa daṅ or *pariśusyatsarvasaritsalilam. 11 Ohnuma: “(the fields withered away,) as the farmers looked on dejectedly.” 12 Ohnuma: “their desires for guests went unfulfilled.” 13 Ohnuma separated the expression asajjanasaṃgatam iva pīḍākaram into two sepa-rate attributes of durbhikṣam: “terrible” and “like a meeting hall [!] for wicked men.” 14 Ohnuma translated śucicāmīkara as “shiny.” 15 Ohnuma is too free, especially the second half: “Most of the women had become ex-tremely thin / And lost their clear complexions. / Their eyes were hollow / And their jewellery neglected.”


grey like the moon at the end of the night,16 and the coquettish play of their eyebrows and their smile had disappeared.

6. When the housewife smeared the interior of the house with mud and gave stale food to her child this did not hurt her as much17 as to see her husband stricken with hunger.

7. When the cow came from the forest, having given up grazing because her calf had died, her dewlap swaying while she was crying out for morsels (of grass) (?), she made the housewife’s eyes overflow with tears.18

8. Due to the lack of food the cows had gradually become weak and were walking slowly; their udders had become lax and the milk in them had dried up.19

9. The very weak and perturbed cowherd, clinging to the base of the tail and biting his lower lip,20

16 Ohnuma: “[Their faces,] which had formerly put to shame the night-destroying moon.” This is based on the wrong reading -dūṣaṇāni (Ms A). Ms B has the correct reading -dhūsarāṇi which is supported by HJMtib 'od med. In any case, the image of the “night-destroying moon” is somewhat strange, to put it mildly. One has only to think of the standard attribute niśākara “night-maker” of the moon. 17 Strangely enough Ohnuma translates this line by “But she herself no longer even cared” while the rest of the stanza is rendered correctly. 18 Ohnuma: “A cow came to the housewife’s house / Acting as though she had been banished from the forest, for her calf had died. / The folds at her throat trembled with pitiful cries, / And her eyes overflowed with tears.” I think, weeping cows are a compa-ratively rare image in Indian poetry. Ohnuma seems to have emended karuṇaṃ for kavala-. Here Ms B. reads kavalā- which makes at least some sense. kavalāvyāhti could mean a) “without the sound of (chewing) morsels (of grass),” or b) “without eat-ing morsels (of grass).” The second interpretation is possible because of ĀJM 29.44d śvavāyasair vyāhtamāṃsaśoṇitaṃ. The word vyāhti- occurs at three more places in HJM: taduttaravyāhticañcalauṣṭhād 30.19c virasataravyāhtī 32.27+, virasavyāhti-lakṣyatālurandhram 32.28b. In all these places it means “utterance, sound.” 19 Ohnuma has unnecessarily turned this into a general statement: “When cows have no grass to eat, / They gradually become weak, / And their gait becomes sluggish. / Their udders become lax, / And their milk disappears.” 20 Ohnuma: “He bit into her hindquarters” (for ādaśya kiṃ cid avaraṃ). This would be a rather unusual image! Rather “chewing some despicable (food).” Ms B, however,

Michael Hahn 218

somehow lifted21 the old and emaciated cow whose rib cage was clearly visible.

10. The people in that region had nothing to eat and drink, the cows – their wealth – had died, their pale bodies were covered with ragged clothes; they were impaired by remaining there,22 and yet they were unable to leave their houses.

At that time Rūpyāvatī saw a female servant in a house. Her body was tor-mented by the fire of hunger that was burning beyond measure since she had given birth to a child. The cavities of her cheeks, eyes and belly were com-pletely sunken in.23 Her rib cage was clearly visible, and her body was covered by very dirty rags; because of the dominance of her self-love the love for her offspring had disappeared, and she was on the verge of devouring that very child. Having seen her, (Rūpyāvatī) spoke to her: “Sister, why do you intend to do such a cruel deed?” The woman thought to herself: “This is indeed Rūpyāvatī who is in the habit of giving and who is compassionate. Therefore, if I tell her what has happened, she will certainly find something to still my hunger.” Thinking this, she spoke: “Sister, my body is terribly penetrated by the fire of hunger that has swelled from my recent delivery. This is why I intend to eat my little child.”

11. For the self-love of beings who regard even their own child an enemy does not see right and wrong.24

Then Rūpyāvatī, her lotus-like eyes obscured by tears that had been prompted by her compassion, spoke to that woman:

reads adharaṃ which I prefer although it is not confirmed by HJMtib dman pa (= ava-raṃ). 21 Ohnuma: “threw her down” (for uccikṣipe!) HJMtib has *bslaṅ bar* gyur “raised (her).” The block prints wrongly read bslad par. uccikṣipe occurs a second time in 37d where it is translated correctly by Ohnuma! 22 Ohnuma: “who had gone to live in that country” is based on the wrong text nivāsāya gataḥ of my Ms A. Ms B reads nivāsopahataḥ and this is confirmed by the HJMtib gnas pas ñe bar ñams pa'i. “impaired by staying (there).” 23 Ohnuma: “Her cheeks, eyes, belly and other bodily cavities were sunken and de-pressed.” I think, randhra- qualifies either kukṣi- or even all three preceding words. 24 Ohnuma: “Look, indeed, how she shows hatred even for her own child!” The active present participle paśyatām (gen. pl.) was wrongly taken as an imperative!


12. “O you cruel woman, how can you eat25 this little child whose pain can be inferred only26 from its pitiful crying, whose curly hair is tangled and whose tiny eyes are as charming as a young gazelle’s?

13. Aren’t women with their soft hearts full of tenderness towards a child, even when born from another woman, its shock of hair upright and moving in the wind, its eyelashes rough with dust from the earth?27

14. Why don’t you wish to behold the face of your son with his forehead-mark and long eyes, its bud-like lips quivering with laughter, his speech still confused and stumbling?

15. What woman would not like to behold her son childishly mimicking a horse-ride, his side-locks dirty28 and tangled while he rides on his wooden horse, the beautiful row of his bud-like teeth quivering with laughter?

16. A crow, even when she is troubled by hunger, feeds her chick, that follows her devoutly, its tiny beak wide open, its head raised and looking upwards, desirous of food, and emitting harsh squawks – how much more a female human?29

25 Ohnuma translates atsyasi as “How can you ignore!” 26 Ohnuma: “Your baby’s great anguish is obvious / From the extent of its pitiful wails / And his tangled, knotted hair.” mātra- is not “extent,” but “only” and the second attribute kuṭilākulakeśakam is wrongly subordinated to vibhāvita in the first attribute. 27 Ohnuma: “And his eyelashes full of soil and dust.” kṣitirajaḥ is certainly a tatpuruṣa, not a dvandva compound. 28 Ohnuma: “black,” but malina- is rather “dirty” in this context. I don’t understand why Ohnuma add “holding a whip” which cannot be found in the Sanskrit text. 29 Ohnuma: “How much more should a virtuous woman do so!” The Sanskrit text of line d runs: kākī kṣudhā parigatāpi satī kim u strī Although the Tibetan breaks the sen-tence in the same manner as Ohnuma does (bud med dam pas smos ci dgos) I prefer to take satī not as adjective but as active present participle, referring to parigatāpi and in-dicating the durative aspect: “even when being afflicted with hunger.” This is a very common usage. strī is only “a female human being,” in contrast with the crow, an ani-mal.

Michael Hahn 220

And further: at some point the people will learn that you are the murderer of your child and full of anger they will then expel you like a demoness from this country. Therefore abstain from such a reckless act!”

17. “Having eaten this little child as a tigress devours the cub of a deer, do you perhaps wish to eat red-hot iron balls, you wicked woman?”30

She spoke: “What shall I do, sister, since I cannot stand this fire of hunger that penetrates all my limbs?” Rūpyāvatī then thought: “If I go, taking this child with me, she will certainly die. But if I go and fetch some food to ease her hun-ger and return too late,31 then she will kill this little child.

18. He who out of ignorance acts too late and therefore to no avail will feel only sorrow. A parasol should be carried only as long as the sun still shines in the sky.

Therefore it is now appropriate that I remove her pain32 with my own flesh.”

19. One should take the essence from this worthless, fragile body as one should take the fruit from the tree at the shore whose roots are destroyed by the current and therefore yielding.33

Then the woman again spoke: “Sister, please go. I am not able to butcher34 this little child in front of you.” Rūpyāvatī then spoke to her: “Please get me some sharp cutting instrument if you have one.” She gave Rūpyavatī a knife.

30 Ohnuma: “How will you eat flaming iron balls [in hell], O wicked woman?” This does not sound too meaningful. The construction with katham can also mean (besides “how can, will you possibly …) “do you perhaps wish to …” Cf. praveṣṭukāmo viṣayā-rigocaraṃ kathaṃ pramādyann iva nāma lakṣyase (HJM 4.14) “Do you perhaps wish to be seen as someone desiring to enter the realm of the enemy ‘object of the senses,’ like a drunkard?” 31 Ohnuma: aticirād “too late” is omitted in her translation. 32 Literally: “gladden, delight her.” 33 Ohnuma: “Its roots flying to and fro / And being lashed by the current” (for srotobhi-nnavalanmūlāt) is a somewhat strange image. B reads calan “moving, i.e., yielding” instead of valan, which is confirmed by the Tibetan (’gul ba’i); this is definitely better. 34 Ohnuma: “I cannot get this child ready [to eat] in front of you!” It seems as if the meaning of pramāpayati “to slaughter, butcher” was not recognized.


20. Rūpyāvatī then cut off with that sharp knife both her breasts which had the shape of golden vessels, blood gushing forth from them. Disregarding the pain of her own body she gave them to that young woman who was tormented by hunger.

21. Those who disregard their own sorrow remove the sorrow of others, because they are tormented by the sorrow of others, not by their own sorrow.

After she had given her two breasts to that woman, Rūpyāvatī entered her own house.

22. The blood that poured forth from cutting her two breasts smeared her pearl necklace,35 her garment and the strings of her girdle; the beautiful woman now resembled a golden statue adorned with red sandal.

Then Rūpyāvatī’s husband, full of bewilderment, rose from his seat and asked:

23. “What demon-like, ugly and evil being,36 beautiful lady, has disfirgured your handsome body by cutting off your breasts?”

She told her husband the whole story and then said to him: “Hurry, my noble husband, we have to give something to eat and drink to that woman because she suffers from the fire of hunger that has swelled from her delivery.“ His heart filled with astonishment, Rūpyāvatī’s husband agreed

24. and sent to that poor woman a full bowl of sweet rice as instructed by (his wife) who had become a worthy receptacle of compassion.

25. When people observed Rūpyāvatī’s astonishing deed they repeatedly set their twig-like fingers in motion.37

35 Ohnuma: “pearl necklace” (hāra) is omitted in the translation. 36 Akalyāṇena is deliberately translated twice. 37 Ohnuma: “They suddenly shook their hands [in the air] / Like twigs [shaking on a tree].”

Michael Hahn 222

26. And people said to her: “This deed of yours has certainly inspired the hearts of even selfish38 people to perform

charity.”

27. The quality known as the ‘virtue of charity’ among those who strive for awakening has oviously been embodied in you for the welfare of the world.

28. “What a contrast between her womanhood and her sharp mind, between her fragility and her generosity! The generosity of this good woman that surpasses all other acts of charity has put to shame all other donors!”

Rūpyāvatī’s husband then made the following vow of truth:

29. “If it is true that such an act of charity is unheard of in any other being, even a man, then, by the truthfulness of this statement, may my wife immediately get back her breasts!”

30. After the husband had spoken this vow of truth her chest became heavy again with the weight of her breasts.

31. Once again the lotus-pond that was Rūpyāvatī in shone that city. Quenching the thirst of the people by the water of donations, decorated with the lotus of her lovely face its filaments were the rays of her teeth and on it swam a pair of cakravākas that were her breasts.

Then Indra, Lord of the Gods, thought: “Does Rūpyāvatī perhaps wish to expel me from the city of the gods by such an act of generosity that surpasses the generosity of all other people and become the Lord of the Gods herself?” With this concern in mind, he wished to find out her intentions. He dived down through the sky, as blue as an expanded mass of rain clouds, and descended to the royal residence Utpalāvatī. He magically transformed himself into a Brah-min whose chest was adorned with a sacrificial thread as white as lotus fibres;39 a rosary was fixed on a string around his neck; part of his shoulder was covered

38 Ohnuma: “wicked.” 39 Ohnuma: “a white sacred thread woven from lotus-fibres.”


with the hide of a black antelope that was as spotted as a woman’s eye;40 and he held a vessel made of leaves in his right hand. Pretending to beg for alms he came to Rūpyāvatī’s house. Rūpyāvatī then came with various edible foods and gave it to Śakra who was disguised as a Brahmin. Looking for a suitable begin-ning, the Lord of the Gods said to her:

32. “The world is adorned by your fame, that comes from the sacrifice of your breasts; it is as white as broken conch shells and penetrates (everything).

33. Do you wish to usurp Indra’s station by this austerity? It is only out of curiosity that I ask you, good woman.”

34. She then spoke truthfully41 to the Lord of the Gods: “I desire Buddhahood in order to pacify the three worlds. If this is true, o Brahmin, then may I immediately attain manhood, the receptacle of virtues in the world!”

35. After these words she became a man, and Śakra, satisfied in his heart, returned to his city. When the people had learned what a miraculous deed had happened in the world, their resolve became even stronger.

36. When her two breasts, prominent like the temples of an elephant, beheld the appearance of a moustache on her moon-like face, dark like a few patches of collyrium, they immediately disappeared from her broad chest, as if out of shame.

Then the bodhisattva became known as Rūpyāvata. One day the king died in the royal residence Utpalāvatī without an heir. After his death the city was no longer bright, like a night in which the moon has been devoured by Rāhu. After some days had passed, the ministers, full of grief because of the king’s death, consoled the inhabitants of the female quarters and spoke thus to the citizens: “Because it is without a leader, some day this country will be attacked by ene-mies and lose its wealth. Our endeavours will then be too late, as if one were to dig a well in order to extinguish the fire of a burning house, and they would only be a cause for distress. Therefore this is now the right time: This young

40 Ohnuma: “one shoulder was hidden from the eyes of women by a spotted black ante-lope skin.” 41 Yathāvad “truly, truthfully” is not translated by Ohnuma. She obviously correlated it with tathā in line d (“As I wish …”) which is, of course, not possible.

Michael Hahn 224

man Rūpyāvata has all the characteristics of a king and is endowed with at-tracting42 (?) virtues. Therefore let us consecrate him as sovereign.”

37. Then the citizens, full of joy, consecrated him whose heart was devoted only to the service of others. And the attendants raised over him a lovely white parasol together with a pair of chowrie-fans.43

38. The citizens made the city similar to the palace of Kubera, adorning it with garlands on the gates and market-stalls, making it attractive by the performances of actors, and besprinkling its streets and highways with scented water.

39. At the right time the clouds rained water in great quantities, the people were no longer tormented by illness; they never heard even the word sorrow while Rūpyavata ruled his realm there with justice.

40. Without field-work the rice grew in rich quantities, the trees always bore many fruits and flowers, and the cows44 produced large streams of milk of their own accord, while that good king ruled as if he were Pthu, the first ruler.45

42 Ohnuma: “desirable.” This goes back to ābhikāmikaguṇasampanna( as printed in Hahn 1992. Unfortunately *ābhikāmika- is a ghost word. It is my emendation for the likewise unattested ābhigāmika- of Ms A (and Ms B). HJMtib has mṅon par 'byuṅ ba'i yon tan rnams kyis phun tshogs pa daṅ ldan pa ste which does not support my emenda-tion. We find ābhigāmika a second time in HJM 25.10+ in an almost identical expres-sion: ābhigāmikaguṇopetam, referring to Sudhana. Here the Tibetan has mṅon par 'gro bar byed pa'i yon tan rnams daṅ ldan pa which clearly goes back to -gāmika-. Hence my emendation has to be ignored and the meaning of ābhigāmika- has to be defined anew by deriving it from abhigama- 1) approching, arrival; 2) sexual intercourse. I think because of the context the second meaning can safely be excluded. So it has to mean something like “inviting, perhaps in the sense of enticing, attracting.” 43 Ohnuma: “Together with his entourage, / They raised over him a beautiful white parasol / With a pair of chowrie-fans.” sārdhaṃ ca cāmarayugena manobhirāmam uccikṣipe parijanena sitātapatram ||. Ohnuma wrongly connects sārdhaṃ with parija-nena and makes paurāḥ in line b the subject of uccikṣipe! 44 Ohnuma: “The water-buffalo.” This goes back to my wrong reading uṣṭrāḥ “camels” (thus also HJMtib: rṅa mo rnams kyaṅ) for usrāḥ. In any case, the correct equivalent of rṅa mo rnams should have been uṣṭryaḥ since the feminine of uṣṭra- is uṣṭrī! Hari-bhaṭṭa’s wording seems to be influenced by Mbh (critical edition) 12.255.30: svayaṃ caiṣām anaḍuho yujyanti ca vahanti ca | svayaṃ usrāś ca duhyante manaḥsaṃkalpa-siddhibhiḥ ||.


41. The earth found a good king in this ruler who fulfilled the wishes (of the people) by uncurtailed donations,46 under whom the three constituents of regal power flourished,47 who controlled his senses, and whose body was adorned with the ornaments of various virtues.

42. That lion among the kings ascended his lion throne, studded with many beautiful jewels,48 his lotus-like feet honoured by the other monarchs; his face resembled a lotus, he was characterized by his insight,49 and he taught the dharma to the people whose fruit is the ultimate truth.50

43. “Look how great are the fruits of my acts of charity by which already in this life my female nature has been removed and this male nature has been brought about, the most renowned fruit of birth, following the three pursuits of life, and lovely by the rulership over the people.51

45 Ohnuma: “As if kingship itself were ruling over the well-ruled earth” (tasmin surāja-ni pthāv iva pāti rājyam). Ohnuma did not recognize the absolute locative tasmin surā-jani (rājyam, object of) pāti and the proper name Pthu, the first monarch (cf. Apte, s.v. pthuḥ 4). 46 Ohnuma: “He had fulfilled his desire for uncurtailed giving.” 47 Ohnuma: “he possessed good fortune / And the three constituents of regal power.” śaktitrayodayavatā is rather tatpuruṣa than dvandva. 48 prauḍhamaṇicāru, literally “beautiful by its copious jewels” (attribute of siṃhāsa-naṃ), is omitted in Ohnuma’s translation. 49 Or: “insight/discrimination was his law.” Ohnuma: “Though solitary by nature” is certainly not correct. 50 Ohnuma: “leading to the ultimate fruit” for paramārthaphalaṃ is not quite correct. Rather “leading (-phalaṃ) to the ultimate truth.” 51 Ohnuma: “And as the fruit of a celebrated birth, / I have produced that state of a man – / Made delightful by its sovereignty over the world / And its three regal constitu-ents.” The second half of the stanza is admittedly somewhat ambiguous and difficult: (yena) udbhāvitaṃ prathitajanmaphalaṃ trivargaṃ lokādhipatyaramaṇīyam idaṃ na-ratvam. Literally this should be translated as “And which (yena, i.e., dānasya vipāka-mahattvam) has produced [the fulfilment of] the three goals of life, whereby the fruit of [birth] has become visible, namely this state of a man, delightful by its sovereignty over the world.” trivarga (i.e., artha, kāma, dharma) is different from śaktitraya mentioned in 41c!

Michael Hahn 226

44. This single flower that has blossomed from the tree of giving will elsewhere become another great fruit. Considering this one should frequently deposit in the soil of the needy52 numerous treasures in the form of gifts which are purified by morality.

45. If the fields ‘supplicants’ were not irrigated with the water ‘virtues,’ how could the donor who is eager for the fruit ‘donation,’ grow the seed ‘donation?’

46. What man, if he has any wisdom, would wish to scare away with a snake-like frown those supplicants who surpass (even one’s) relatives since they provide fame and merit?53

47. One repeatedly speaks words of praise, the other speaks harshly; one looks full of devotion, the other full of contempt in the arrogance of his wealth; one – the supplicant – gives properly merit and fame, while the other – the giver – gives only material objects. In my opinion the supplicant surpasses by far the giver by these very virtues.54

48. If the directions should be made fragrant from the wreaths of virtues, or if one wishes to enjoy the tasty great fruit (of giving) one has to plant daily into the ground ‘supplicants’ the trees ‘wealth’ that give the shade ‘fame’ when fully grown.”55

52 Ohnuma: “among the world of supplicants.” Ohnuma has missed the image. 53 Ohnuma: “Those who exceed their fellow man / In giving away their famous merit – / What man, if he has any wisdom, / Would wish to scare such people away from their supplicants, / Contracting his brows like a snake?” 54 The second half of the stanza is translated by Ohnuma as follows: “One person gives away many things, / While another gives only one thing. / I am a giver, / And the girl rich in virtue whom I ask to marry / Will conquer me / By her former qualities.” The Sanskrit text runs as follows: ekaḥ sādhu dadāti puṇyayaśasī vastv ekam evāparo / dūraṃ māṃ prati yācitā vijayate dātāram ebhir guṇaiḥ ||. Hahn 1992 contains a typo: dūraṃ māṃ pratiyācitā instead of dūraṃ māṃ prati yācitā. Obviously this was the ori-gin of Ohnuma’s very fanciful interpretation. 55 udayino literally “when rising, growing” is rendered as “flourishing” by Ohnuma. Haribhaṭṭa’s intention in the second half of the stanza is not fully grasped or expressed by Ohnuma: “Then flourishing trees of wealth / With shades of great fame / must be planted in the ground of supplicants / Every single day.”


49. Then, having spent sixty years in the world, having made happy both supplicants and virtuous people,56 and having illuminated the world with his fame as white as water-lilies, the king, (still) endowed with great strength,57 changed into another form of existence.

“Therefore, if the Blessed One thus gave away his own flesh even when reborn as a woman, who, when reborn as a man, could pay too much attention to external objects?” With these words one should encourage people who are willing to give.

The story of Rūpyāvatī, the sixth legend (of the first decade)

56 Ohnuma: “Having constantly gratified virtuous supplicants.” Ohnuma ignores the ca. 57 Ohnuma: “rich in virtue” It seems that Ohnuma has emended gurubalaḥ (Mss AB) as *guṇabalaḥ. This is not a bad idea, however, gurubalaḥ is also confirmed by HJMtib (stobs chen).

A089 In defense of Haribhatta Title page 2007-09-09

Documents

Transcript of A089 In defense of Haribhatta Title page 2007-09-09