Hybrid Sanskrit Research Articles

The Story of Mālinī (Mālinī-vastu) in the Mahāvastu

This paper presents a new edition and translation of the chapter Mālinī-vastu as preserved in the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit text Mahāvastu, together with a grammatical commentary and some notes on the structure of this chapter. The edition is based on the oldest manuscript of the Mahāvastu, the so-called ms. Sa, which often offers better readings than those proposed by Émile Senart in his editio princeps of the text from 1882–1897.

“Акалака” (akālaka): лексичний фантом у буддійському гібридному санскриті

Franklin Edgerton’s work on Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS) was groundbreaking for its time. With his grammar, dictionary, and reader, published in 1953, he made a strong case for his claim that “BHS is not Sanskrit”. But following their publication, both the grammar and the dictionary were subject to heated debates by scholars of Buddhist texts; some accused Edgerton of being too accepting of words and grammatical forms that were merely scribal errors or borrowings from contemporary vernacular languages, since many of the text editions that he used were based on only a handful of manuscripts, or even on a single fragment. This article will take up the BHS entry on the word “akālaka” and show that all three references cited for it – from the Divyāvadāna, the Mahāvastu, and the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra – are unreliable. Parallels in other Sanskrit as well as Pali texts reveal that the word is merely the result of scribal error, on the one hand, and mistaken emendations by editors of critical texts, on the other. When these errors were compounded, the word became codified by Edgerton as a dictionary entry – with what seemed like evidence from multiple sources – and was cited by later scholars. This case study raises a number of interesting questions about lexicography, especially of such “hybrid” languages – how can we reliably separate mistakes from “genuine” readings? What does it even mean for a word to be “genuine” or “false”, and how might we re-imagine dictionaries to take into account the uncertainties inherent in their source material?

Санскритский перевод одного тибетского текста

Introduction. Sanskrit was always perceived by followers of Tibetan Buddhism as the language of sutras and shastras, language of knowledge and culture. This resulted in that Sanskrit used to be extensively studied and taught. Tibetan clerical scholars could not only read Sanskrit but would make repeated attempts of composing original texts in this language. The to be examined Hundred Deities of Tushita guru yoga, a liturgical address to Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), is a rare phenomenon in Tibetan Buddhist literature — Tibetan-to-Sanskrit translation. This anonymous text was created approximately in 18th–19th centuries to further be transmitted in a number of xylographic editions across Mongolia and Buryatia up to the early 20th century. Goals. The article seeks to show the Tibetan-to-Sanskrit translation pattern and introduce it into scientific discourse along with due analysis. Materials. The study explores one xylographic Tibetan-to-Sanskrit edition of Hundred Deities of Tushita from Buryatia submitted by A. Kocharov. Results. The work concludes the Tibetan-to-Sanskrit guru yoga text contains multiple grammatical mistakes and inaccuracies when viewed from the perspective of standard Sanskrit. In some sentences the anonymous author does follow rules of Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, while in others observes no established Sanskrit declension and conjugation norms.

The Characteristics of Meter in Verse Portions of the <i>Saddharmapuṇḍarīka</i>: With Comparisons to Similar Verses in Early Buddhist Texts

The text of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka （SP） is written in a mixture of Middle Indo-Āryan （MIA）, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, and Classical Sanskrit （Skt.）. For this reason, the early version of SP has been thought to have been compiled in MIA and then Sanskritized as it was handed down through time. However, there are many objections, and a unified view has not been arrived at yet.

Buddhist Indian Loanwords in Sogdian and the Development of Sogdian Buddhism


 Buddhist Sogdian texts contain about 300 loanwords of Indian origin excluding the ones that are known also in Manichaean, secular, or Christian Sogdian texts. About sixty percent of these can easily be seen to be borrowed from Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. A further twenty percent or so are not so easily recognized as from that source because they also reflect linguistic developments within Sogdian. Another twenty percent are from a Prakrit or show the intermediation of another language, such as Parthian (probably including pwty ‘Buddha’), Tocharian, or Chinese. About one percent has unclear sources. The Indian loanwords in Manichean, Christian and secular Sogdian texts, in contrast, are in the majority from a Middle Indian source. In Buddhist Sogdian, the narrative texts like the Vessantara Jātaka feature more of the less regular loan shapes, which suggests a different path of transmission and probably an earlier date. An appendix discusses the role of Buddism in Sogdiana from finds there: personal names reflect the divinity of the Buddha; a wooden plaque with a devotional scene was recently discovered in Panjakent; a seal from Kafir-kala depicts a Turkish noblewoman rather than a Boddhisatva. A study of place names indicates the presence of Vihāras (Nawbahār, Farxār) at the gates of several main cities in and around Sogdiana.

Russian language as a means of interpreting Buddhist cultural heritage: creating target-orientated vocabulary

Russian Buddhist scholars face the daunting task of translating into Russian the main works of Buddhist heritage currently preserved in the languages of India (P ali, Sanskrit, Prakrit, the hybrid Sanskrit), in Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian and other languages of East and South Asia. Scholars of no country have so far coped with this task. With regard to the Russian Foederation, Buddhism is the historical religion of several peoples who live there and occupies the minds of literally millions of Russian speakers. Regardless of the fact, that translation of the Buddhist heritage into Russian has been conducted for the last 200 years, one can say that the scholars who deal with this task are still only going through a stage of preparation. Nevertheless, the task of translating into Russian main works of Buddhist heritage was set at the Conference of Buddhist Text Translators, which was held at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow) in November 2018 during the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Institute (November 6–9, 2018).

Effective Action (arthakriyā), Activity (kāritra), and Nonactivity (nirvyāpāra)

Effective Action (arthakriyā), Activity (kāritra), and Nonactivity (nirvyāpāra) Zhihua Yao 1. Introduction A perplexing concept is usually a hallmark of the creativity of the thinker who conceived it. In the history of Buddhist philosophy, arthakriyā (effective action) is such a concept, which is credited to Dharmakīrti, one of the most creative and influential Buddhist thinkers. Although this term did not originate with him, he developed the concept into one of the key tenets of his own complicated philosophy and of subsequent Buddhist thinking. Some contemporary scholars have attempted to trace this Dharmakīrtian concept to early Buddhist sources. Nagatomi (1967–68, 64–67) traced arthakriyā to the Abhidharma sources, but he seemed to head in the wrong direction by focusing on a curious concept, nengsheng 能生. Akimoto (2004) made a pioneering study that explicitly spells out the continuity between the Vaibhāṣika concept of kāritra (activity) and the Dharmakīrtian concept of arthakriyā. In this article, I will study more carefully the relationship of arthakriyā with the Vaibhāṣika concept of kāritra and the concept of nirvyāpāra (nonactivity) as found in Dignāga, Vasubandhu and the early Yogācāras. I will examine some major works of these Buddhist philosophers and their many commentators, focusing on their concepts of effective action (arthakriyā), activity (kāritra) and nonactivity (nirvyāpāra), and demonstrate the following main points: [End Page 7] 1. The Dharmakīrtian concept of effective action (arthakriyā) can be traced back to the Vaibhāṣika concept of activity (kāritra). The main difference is that the latter assumes the reality of all three times, whereas the former is committed to an ontological stance of momentariness. 2. The early Vaibhāṣikas understand activity (kāritra) in three main aspects: intrinsic activity, causal activity, and the activity of arising and cessation. The term vyāpāra in most cases refers to the intrinsic activity of factors; sometimes it can be used interchangeably with kāritra to cover all aspects of activity. 3. The theory of nonactivity (nirvyāpāra) denies not only intrinsic activity but also causal activity by reducing causality to similarity. This theory can be identified as one of the main doctrines of the Yogācāra-Sautrāntikas, a group of Sautrāntikas influenced by Yogācāras. 4. Dignāga is ontologically committed to nonactivity, in the sense that he denies both intrinsic and causal activities. Hence, he is qualified to be a Yogācāra-Sautrāntika, but Dharmakīrti is ambiguous. When commenting on relevant passages from Dignāga, he seems to accept the theory of nonactivity, but his key concept, effective action (arthakriyā), endorses causal activity or even intrinsic activity. The tension between the two thinkers can be eased only when we interpret effective action as a conventional reality. By restoring the central status of the concept of nonactivity, we also view the two related concepts “activity” and “effective action” in a new light. This study shows the subtlety in the development of Buddhist philosophical concepts and the complexity of the interactions between various Buddhist philosophical schools. 2. Effective Action (arthakriyā) and Activity (kāritra) Evidence shows that the term arthakriyā had already been circulated among some non-Buddhist and Buddhist writers before Dharmakīrti. For example, it is found in the Naiyāyika Vātsyāyana’s Nyāyabhāṣya, in the Grammarian Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya, and in Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccayavṛtti (PSV) chapter 5.1 According to Harada (1990), the term in these examples can be understood in the sense of “purposeful action.” This [End Page 8] word, with its Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit variation, arthacaryā, also occurs frequently in Buddhist literature, referring to one of the four means of attraction (saṃgraha-vastu).2 According to this teaching, a Bodhisattva uses four means to train his relationship with other beings and to draw them to the Buddhist teachings. They are generosity (dāna), kind words (priyavadyatā), beneficial action (arthakriyā), and sympathy (samānārtha). In these cases, the various usages of the term arthakriyā share the meaning of “purposeful or beneficial action.” In Dharmakīrti’s...

Direct and indirect evidence for lability in Middle Indo-Aryan

The paper is devoted to the labile verbs in the Middle Indo-Aryan languages. To begin with, the general causes of the diachronic development of lability are taken into consideration. The main such cause is suggested to be the casual diachronic deletion of the valency changing morphemes. In this respect, the valency changing verbal morphology of late Sanskrit, along with its outcome at the Middle Indian stage, is taken into consideration. All of the possible sources of ambiguity are identified. Subsequently, it is shown how these ambiguities effectively brought about the creation of labile patterns, which are indeed attested in our sources in MIA languages (namely, literary and epigraphic Prakrits, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and Pāli). At the end, some indirect traces of labile verbs in MIA languages are hypothesized through the analysis of the writings of the Pāṇinian grammarians.

Mahāvastu再校訂の試みと仏教梵語研究

Mahāvastu再校訂の試みと仏教梵語研究

Mandala of Architects in Ancient India

Can we translate manndalipakara in Theragatha 863 with “a circular rampart”?In the Jataka there are many concepts of vastu-purusa-mandala which is a plan for a temple or a city, but this is not expressed with the word mandala/mandalin. The meaning of mandala/mandalin in verses of the Pali canon can be figured through synthesis with “a theory of mandala” in the Arthasastra of Kautilya and “tisu mandalesu” of the Milindapanha.It means “a unit with peripheral countries led by one great power in the center” and should be treated as the mandala of politics/military affairs.The mandala comes to mean “the whole unit with order relation in the center and the outskirts” in primitive Buddhism. And when it is located in the latter half of a compound, it means “a thing in the center (or the best thing) among the aggregation of the kind”.On the other hand, mandalin means “ruler of a (minor) region” used in “a theory of mandala” as explained in the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary.Mandalipakara should be translated with “the rampart for (or to protect) a lord or a king of a (minor) region”.

Buddhist (Hybrid) Sanskrit Three Articles from a Panel of the XIIth Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies

The following three papers have been originally read at a panel «Buddhist (Hybrid) Sanskrit» organized in the framework of the XIIth Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies held in Lausanne (Switzerland) on August 24, 1999. The purpose of the panel was, as formulated in the call for papers, first, to reassess the seminal work of Franklin Edgerton which is mainly known as his monumental Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary to which a series of his articles dealing with this language (labeled hereafter «Buddhist Sanskrit») are to be usefully added. The reassessment has been and still is deemed possible indeed on the basis of new analysis of the texts in Buddhist Sanskrit known to Edgerton as well of the texts discovered and published after Edgerton’s work has been completed. The second purpose was to reconsider the problem of the internal structural cohesion of the Buddhist linguistic tradition involving a thorough analysis of grammatical and lexical evidence in Buddhist Sanskrit texts. The three scholars who responded to the call and whose papers have been prepared for the present publication base their research on different data and use understandingly different approaches, but I like to stress that all are aware of the complex nature of the linguistic and literary phenomena they examine. Interestingly, two of them, S. Karashima and K. Lang, share unpremeditatingly, needless to say, several presuppositions which seem to me as fertile as promising for further research. The main point common to these two authors is that beyond the general bewildering picture of Buddhist data, commonly considered as escaping any attempt to uncover an underlying linguistic structure and norm, the authors still see at least regular phenomena following a technique which cannot be due to a haphazard use of the language material and forms. The position of R. Salomon is different as different as his evidence, as will be seen from his article.

“Gāndhārī Hybrid Sanskrit”: New Sources for the Study of the Sanskritization of Buddhist Literature

L'A. examine le phenomene de sanskritisation conduisant a la formation du sanskrit hybride bouddhique dans les regions ou la langue orale la plus repandue etait le prakrit gāndhārī (plutot qu'un dialecte de l'indo-aryen moyen) et ou la langue ecrite la plus repandue etait le kharosthī (plutot que le brāhmī). Le degre de sanskritisation est tres important par exemple dans certains fragments kharosthī schoyen

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Studies by Computer (3)

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Studies by Computer (3)

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Studies by Computer (2)

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Studies by Computer (2)

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Studies by Computer (1)

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Studies by Computer (1)

On and around Hybrid Sanskrit in the Mahavadanasutra and the Sanghabhedavastu

On and around Hybrid Sanskrit in the Mahavadanasutra and the Sanghabhedavastu

Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit. Its Rise, Spread, Characteristics and Relationship to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit. Its Rise, Spread, Characteristics and Relationship to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Ali, Kali as Grammatical Terms in Tibet

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Ali, Kali as Grammatical Terms in Tibet

The Buddhism and the Sanskrit of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

IN THE DECADE SINCE the publication of Franklin Edgerton's Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary and Hybrid Sanskrit Reader (New Haven, 1953) scholars have certainly profited by this monumental accomplishment. The present writer, for one, made much use of the Dictionary in a work Analysis of the 6rivakabhiimi Manuscript (Berkeley, 1961) and was rewarded by Edgerton's review (Language, 38: 3, 1962, 307-10), in the course of which he replied to one critic by name and generally replied to all the critics of his Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS) thesis. In his last years Edgerton gave generously of his time to such reviewing, sometimes carried on in personal correspondence. He considered the adverse positions of Nobel and Waldschmidt in an article, On Editing Hybrid Sanskrit, JAOS, 77:33, 1957, 184, ff. I concede inability to defend his thesis with the vigor and erudition which he displayed, but a different approach may be helpful; and I shall restrict myself to consider the AngloIndian criticism in John Brough's The Language of the Sanskrit Texts, BSOAS, 1954, xvi/2, 351-75; and in Raghavan's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, Suniti Kumar Chatterji Jubilee Volume, 1955, 313-22. Briefly speaking, Brough feels the BHS Dictionary to be of more use than the BHS Grammar to a future editor of a text. Indeed, the Grammar- a systematic collection of anomalies -does not completely describe the grammar of texts. He claims that Edgerton frequently takes as genuine forms what are merely scribal corruptions. Sanskrit is not hybrid, but merely possesses different degrees of bad fluctuation from correct Sanskrit. Above all, Brough rejects Edgerton's thesis of a single Prakrit dialect as the 'original' language of Buddhism. Brough provides valuable data on Nepalese manuscripts; but since he limits himself to considerations of text transmission, his advice reduces trivially to a warning that text editors should use Edgerton's Grammar with caution! Paghav an criticises more gently than does Brough. His observations are more suggestive of the true state of affairs because he recognizes that Sanskrit is Buddhistic just as the Rdmdyana is Brahmanical. Thus, he asserts (op. cit., p. 314), we can see that the base of this mixed language is the spoken form and that it is not exclusively Buddhistic but common to the class of Brahmanical literature called the Epics. In support of this statement he cites twenty-seven expressions from the BHS Dictionary to show that they are also found in the Vedic or Epic vocabulary or in strictly classical Sanskrit. However, Edgerton's policy statement (Grammar, p. 9) makes it clear that his inclusion of an expression from a BHS text is independent of its appearance or non-appearance in non-Buddhistic sources, only stipulating that it not be 'standard Sanskrit.' So only those items of Raghavan's that were 'standard Sanskrit '-and of course the mere fact of being in the Epic does not prove this condition-indicate mistaken inclusion in the BHS Dictionary. Also Raghavan points out that a certain construction which Edgerton claims to be known only in PAli and Sanskrit Buddhism, i. e. the special usage of yena . . . tena, is in fact found also a number of times in the Rdmayana Epic. Both Brough's and Raghavan's positions are consistent with the usual practice of modern Indian writers as well as a number of European scholars to depict the Buddha as a product of the Brahmanical system and Mahayana Buddhism as a compromise with the Hindu bhalcti systems.' Likewise, the words in the Sanskrit books are Indic words: there is nothing exclusively 'Buddhist' about the vocabulary outside of a relatively few terms used in a special sectarian sense and a group of words which they have caused to look slightly different from the standard form by means of addition of a prefix or a -ka suffix. By like reasoning, there cannot be a 'Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar,' because the Buddhists did not

EDGERTON, FRANKLIN : Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (I: BHSG, II: BHSD); Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Reader (BHSR). New Haven (Yale University Press)-London (Cumberledge, Oxford University Press). 1953. (In the William Dwight Whitney Linguistic Series.)

Abstract Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is the appellation used by Professor Franklin Edgerton to design the peculiar religious language employed in the Buddhist texts of Northern India that have become known to us during the last 125 years in manuscripts found chiefly in Nepal, Japan, and Chinese Turkestan. Indologists will know this very curious idiom by other names, such as Buddhist Sanskrit, Mixed Sanskrit, the Gatha-dialect. The last term, which was the first to be used, when the linguistic individuality of the idiom was realized, suggests the fact that scholars investigating the texts first believed that the verse portions (or some of them) were composed in another dialect than the prose parts, which were thought to be simply Sanskrit, rather poor Sanskrit most of it, and badly treated by scribal tradition. However, as early as 1882, when Senart published the first volume of his edition of the Mahavastu, one of the oldest texts, it was made generally known that also the prose portions of at least this text belonged to the Gatha-dialect, for which term Senart substituted the designation “Mixed Sanskrit”. In his widely read History of Indian Literature (Vol. I, 1905), Winternitz expressly states that an old Middle Indie dialect is employed in verse portions and also in large parts of the prose of this literature.