Anda di halaman 1dari 2

g q`V9P^07@ 0\ O Q 1B\OV\)_ : V!

\\> +~=
~\x\o).,' <\o~o\<)o\f1^jOrQ
5:;44 k\$9 :4j"
."1 ..:-:."1"'-
OosrQ e1 U9O0 4B@$ 1O@S0 I69 BIUB@
.. .. ._ .. 1"
: NDO - R-N\ f t
'OuRL
VCLUM
H\- No, 2 09;
tC\'ON -c H A GI. G
Ratna Handurukande, Mlicutivadi na being a Translation and Eition
a Lokanand, a Transliteration and Synopsi ( = Sacred Books of the
Budists, vol. XXIV). London, Luzc & Company Ltd. 1967. IV, 30pp.
4.15 s.
Volume 24 of the Sacred Books of the Budists contins an edition and translation of
a prose text of the Mar;icU vadina, an edition of a metricl version of the same text,
and a trasliteration and synopsis of the drama Lokinand which has ben prerved
in a Tibetan translation. We must be gateful to the Pali Text Society for including in
this serie, in which translations of the Jitaamala and the Mahivastu had already
appared, Sanskrit and even Tibtan texts. Let us hope that by puruing this cour
the Pali Text Soiety will incresingly beome a Buddhist Text Society!
I colletions of Buddhist Sanskrit manusripts thr is geat numbr of mic
and pros avadanas of which, to date, only very few have ben publishe. Te pros
text of the Maricutivai is to b found both a a separate text and a a chapter of
the DivyavadinmiLa. Dr. Handude has usd five manusripts of the MaJ cUi
vaiand two manuscripts of the Divyivadi namali. In his reent book on the avadana
literature Iwamoto enumerate twelve manusripts of the Maicutivai (Bukky6
setsuwa kenkyu josetsu, Kyoto, 1967, pp. 142 and 162). Aong thee twelve manu
sripts are thre blonging to the Tokyo Univerity Library: Nos. 277, 278 and 279
(seSeiren Matsunami, Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tokyo Unhersity
Library, Tokyo, 1965, pp. 103 and 235). Matsunami note that in the colophons of
No. 277 and No. 278 it is stated that this avadina is the 31st chapter and that con
quently this avadana may b part of some avadana colletion. I a manusript of the
Divyavaimali, blonging to the Kyoto Univerity, the Mar;icutivadi na is a the
31st chapter (s Iwamoto, op.cit., pp. 141 and 147). However, in two other manu
sripts of the Divyavadi namila (in Paris and Calcutta) it is reptively the 7th and
16th chapter (Iwamoto, op.cit., p. 147).
The intoduction dels in detail with the manuripts, their mutual relation, and the
linguistic characteristic of the text (p. ix-xxvi). HaIldude shows clerly that all
manusripts go back to a common archetyp which is not fre from errors. According
to the introduction, the MaricUivadi na falls into the third goup in Edgerton's classi
fction of Buddhist Sanskrit texts, in which non-sskritic forms are not common while
the vobulary is the clearet evidenc that they blong to the BHS (= Buddhist Hybrid
Sanskrit) tradition. I etablishing the text Handurukade has tried to retai gammat
icl forms propr to BHS as far a the manusripts show evidenc of them. Although
she has ben awar of the danger of applying to mehaclly Edgeron's principle,
one cannot ep the impresion that too many BHS form have ben introduced into
the text. On page xv-xvi the editor lists some of the grammatical feture ofBHS which
are to be found in the Mar;icutivadina. Many of the feature hardly occur in texts
of Edgerton's third group. However, manusript evidence do not always support
the reading seleted by the editor. For the U of an adjetive i the acutive plural
qualifying a noun in the accusative singular the reader is referred to p. 5.2: prapnoti
tUi';" parama", yaias C. It is of course not nes to rlate paramar to yaa
insted of to tUi';",. Four features (us of a past pasive participle with active me;
transfer of a masculine ending to a feminine noun; us of a maune modifer with
a feminine noun; acustive plural ending in i) oc ur in a single sntenc p. 4.15-16:
Tatas sa Bodisatvayanubhavenirutapurvam ima", gatl", pratibhita. A is obvious
from the variant reading, one has to read: Taya ... purva ima gatha/ pratibhZiti
(tatas sa; A tata tasya correted to tatas sa, B C taya:D tatasya, E tatasma, F tata/ sa
imi", gatha",; A B imaf! gatha, C D E ima gatha - pratibhaiita, C F bhita/, D
bhavita, G pratibhakhito). Perhaps one must read purva-m-ima with -m- as 'hiatus
bridger' (F purvam; ABC D E G purvam); purvam Leasily have ben crrupt to
purvam. The reference given to Edgerton's Grammar 10.51 for the U of a acusative
singular ending in i (se p. 14.4-5: Tvayaiiam agramahi sthapayitva . . . ) is clerly
wrong for here Edgerton is discussing oc urrences of an acusative si i -i.
Moreover, he only deals with occurrencs of this form in verses blonging to the fit
and scond groups in his classifction. A to the us of a neuter modifer with a ('
masculine noun (Edgerton 6.14) the editor has failed to s that i ki",vikiro 'yam
1 The author refer to the setins into which she h divided the text. Some setions
compris more than two pages .. For this reason I think it more convenient to refer to
page and line. It is a pity that in the editions of the Pili Text Society the line are not
numbered in the margin by adding the fgures 5, 10, 15 etc. as has ben done in the
edition of the Pili Jitakas from volume 2 onwards.
..
12 MYb
u `r00 mvq)0I km0nus0m0 (. 2.5-6 km is part of a compound (se
Spyer, 0mkrI )nId, 408, Rem.), though her translation is corret.
Apart from the example mentioned above, the text is very well edited. In a few
plac another reading could be suggeted: p. 2.12 - read 0m0r0m I08k0r0 (cf. JI,
1,1957, p. 312); p. 16.7 )(00c0)0k0! -read ){00c0r0k0! p. 18.3 and p. 25.2 read
dh00jI0minstead of d00m(0I0m p. 36.8 k0ru)0m0n0muv0c0 - read k0ru(q 0-
m00 (sic MSS. CDEG) or k0ru( 0m0n0-m- uv0c0 p. 39.9 d0r)0qt 80muII0m0m
read d0r)0m GnuII0m0m! p. 48.4 0bh)IKIv0 read 0bh)IKI0|0h0mi 48.3 is prob
ably a scribal error for m)0) p. 53.13-14 0r)0Im0(0m 0n0)0nI I0mread 0r)0n-
mq0m0d)00II0m! p. 75.3 m0IrL}t 0rbh0vI08)0 read m0Ir0rbh0vIG8)0 p.
75.8 u010r0I8f)]
read u080r008f)]c (cf. p. 76.15); p. 85.11 `b0c0 vv0r)0
read `b0n0dv080! (cf. 82.11); p. 98.1 k0)c)u k0m0cch0d0m r0h0)0 I0d hu-
)0In0vIh0r red k0mc)u k0mGccwndm r0h0)0I0db0hu0vhr31.Iv).p. 225,28:
k0mc)u k0m0Cch0ndm v)00h0)0 I0d0hu0vh0r(m). I have noted the following
printing error: p. 13.7 read 0Ikr0nI0for 0Ikr0nI0 p. 15.13 red 0r0cG0rIh0mfor
0r0r0(t0rIh0m p. 74.5 read v0k)080kh)c0 for v0k0, p. 102.2 read I0Ih00I0u-
0n 0nu5mfI)0 for I0Ih00I0u(t0nu8mfI)0. I do not undertand p. 34.13 0k0r0)0m 080
(translated as 'he took') and p. 42.13 80m0k0r0)0m 080 ('he appared').
The translation which follows the text is excllent apart from a few minor points.
P. 14.. n0 h u(t)0m 0u(t)0m v0 0r080mI0n0m 80mr0m0I, "neither merit nor de
merit fnds continuance in others" - rather: "neither merit nor demerit pass over to
an other srie (i.e. individual; seEdgerton's Dictionary S.v. 80mI0I and 80mI0n0)
p. 39.8: kfI8n0m]00I 0rIr0Ium ud)0I08)dd)0 Ic k)0m0m, "It is posible for you to
save the whole world now, for which you d ready ... " - "It is now proper for you, who
are ready to sve the whole world... "; p. 42.15 vfkk0m v0 hfd)0m0q0mcmm08I)k0m
v0,"tht heart or the feh and fat of the heart" - "the kidneys or the heart, the feh and
the fat" (there is no justifcation for gving the meaning 'hearf to vfkk0mas is done in
p. 42, n. 32); p. 59.11 . 8mfI)0r0m0)c,"mindfulnes, abstinenc from thef" - "non-los
of memory" (s M IcI0n0r) s.v. G80mr0m0)0(w} p. 59.15: 80m80n, "on oc a
sions" -"concisely"; p. 63.6: 8ukhG80mjmm Iu m0k0r]kGdcdfh0c0r0kc, "Do not
ever deigate the word 'happines' in relation to one who leds a houhold life" -
" ... in relation to the prison of the hous". This vers of the J0I0k0m 0 is tranlate
in the sae way by all translators: Speyer "one who live i the hou"; Barannikov
(1962)

L h v dome" ['life in the hous']; Gnoli (196) "uno cho vive la vita di C.
I classical Sanskrit 3K0u]. rIh. and IG8Gk.) and in Buddhist Sanskrit c0r0k0 often
L U i the meaning 'prison" (se M IcI0n0r) s.v. c0r0 I0I0v8I0r0, ed.
S. Lfmann, p. 20.9; Iv)0vGd n0, pp. 365.4; 377.16, 23: IhGrm0mu0c0)0 IV, 4a);
p. 66.7: h0rIum, "to kill" - "to take away"; p. 82.10: k0mGv0r0@0I 0rh(w, "dis
regarded (the pain), through (the power of) his detachment from snsuality" -"deprived
of his detachment from plesure"; p. 89.4-5: d0nm 80IV0 8v0k0m 0 b0hum
/hI0mn0 08)0nI, "pople could not 5 other, even thos who held their own d
"People could not even stheir own U which they gaspd".
I the second part of the introduction (pp. xxxiii-xlv) the editor studie a metrical
version of the MaJcica story which is containe i the fourth chapter of the v0)0m-
bhuv0mh0ur0(w of which the only known manuscript is in the Bibliotbeque Natio
nale. This version h bn analysed and studie by de La Valle Pousin ("Marci
Qavadana, d relate i the fourth chapter of the SvayambhipuraQa [Paris, dev. 78],
JRS, 1894, pp. 297-319). It is surprising that this article is not mentioned in the
introduction although reference in note sbOW that it was known to the editor.' This
The Tibetan translator renders c0r0k0 by bI80n-r0 'prison', cf. 0njur (Peking
edition), Mdo-'gl, XCI, p. 68a5: bI80n-r0 dr0-bG kh)m-0 / n0m5-)0n bdc-b0r m0
8cm!-8.
metrical version of tho A0pIc w comprises 473 verses, and, inserted btwen
vers 78 and 79, a very corrupt pros stion of which a translation is given in the
introduction (pp. xxxv-xxix). This version contains a few stions which have no
parallels in the prose avadana. For establishing the text the editor has beable to use
ony one manusript. I several plac the text is incomprehensible, which is probably
due not only to the corruption of the manuscript but also- to the fact that some parts
were written by an author who did not know Sanskrit very well. Nevertheless, in quite
a few place the text L b emended without too many difcultie. In the following
remarks I refer to the verss by their number and to the prose section by page and line.
2d: d I0vGd I080)0 d nv0d I0 25 b: d n00m)0bh80m0mc `d0n00m)0bh-
80m0m 63d: vccrurvrccur (cr. 149d); p. 154.17: 80rv0m dr80)0m 80rv0dr-
8n (MS. 80rv0dr8m) p. 155.10: m0hm0m m0hm0n0m (sic MS.): p. 155.24:
0r000I0 0r0b0dI0 p. 155.26: 0h0vGd G5r0)0I (MS. 0Ir0)0I) bh0v0d 8r0mc!
p. 156.22: ]v0r0-u00rc(w k0muk0m -} r0(!0k0muk0 (MS. j00du00rc(t0-
k0muk0) da. 5v0m M0m 8v08)0 (MS. 5v088)0) 149a: ur0d080 - ur0d080.
I3/C: mukh0r m0khc (MS. mGkh0) 188a: 080)0m 0I0)0 (sic MS. cf. 193b:
n0rm 0m) 221 a: h0r0m h0r0(MS. h0r0) 224 cd : 0vqm)0 jjA08I0m - 0bhq0)0
jqn08Ium! 228c: k)ud rI0)0)00m kud0rI0)00r0m (MS. `I0)000m) 26d:
v0800mv0ddmI0Im v0800mv0drqt (sic MS.) I0Ih0,312d: bhumk0m0n0
0humk0m0n0m 335d: 0m0n0m 00n0m 345c: 80m010 `80m010 380c:
rcrI0m - 0rI0 (MS. crI0m).
The third text published i this book is the Tibtan text of the drama I0k00nd0
which is based on the MaJiciQa legend. One must be gateful to the editor for having
published the text of this drama together with a detailed introduction and a synopsis.
She streses the desirability of a reonstruction of the Sanskrit original (p. 203). A
English translation would probably b more usful, and one must hope that the editor,
who ha taken such pains in studying this text, will herslf undertake its translation.
I have not bn able to compare the text, which was transliterated fromthe Peking and
Narthang editions, with one or more editions of the 0njur. However, a quick look
at the text shows that quite a few misprints and erroneous readings have to be correted,
for instance, p. 210.12: mk0 mk08 p. 210.23: bcc08 bc08 p. 213.21: mI0nbdu-b0
ml`0t- du- p. 225.13, 17: bkr0-8c8 ~ bkr0-88 p. 227.7: bIun bIud p. 229.9:
80n I0n (PN 8I0n) etc.
Australian National University J. W. de Jong