The Mahavastu (great story)

by J. J. Jones | 1949 | 502,133 words | ISBN-10: 086013041X

This page describes manjari-jataka which is Chapter IV of the English translation of the Mahavastu (“great story”), dating to the 2nd-century BC. This work belongs to the Mahasanghika school of early Buddhism and contains narrative stories of the Buddha’s former lives, such as Apadanas, Jatakas and more..

Chapter IV - Mañjarī-jātaka

When the Exalted One had gone forth, had awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment and had set rolling the excellent wheel of dharma, it came to the ears of the monks that when as a boy he was distributing jewels to the young women, Yaśodharā had bashfully caressed him. A monk asked the Exalted One, “How, Lord, was it that Yaśodharā bashfully caressed thee when thou wast a boy?” The Exalted One replied, “Monks, verily, that was not the first occasion for Yaśodharā bashfully to caress me. There was another occasion.” The monks asked, “Was it so, Lord?” And the Exalted One replied, “Yes, monks.”

Once upon a time, monks, long ago, in the city of Benares in the province of Kāśi there was a brāhman of the Kauśika[1] clan. He, seeing the peril of sensual delights, went forth to the Himalayas to embrace the life of a seer. There in the Himalayas, on the banks of the Ganges, he built himself a hermitage, and, by long devotion to the practice of vigilance after the brāhman way,[2] he achieved the four meditations and realised the five branches of the higher knowledge. (49) He could touch the moon and sun,[3] and was, in short, a seer of great power and might. But he had not the virtue of generosity.

Now a relative[4] of his died and was reborn among the Gandharva devas as a Gandharva named Pañcaśikha. In his life as a deva he remembered Kośika. “I wonder,” said he, “in what region Kośika spends his life, or is he dead?.” He concentrated his mind on the matter, and then saw that Kośika had embraced the life of a seer and was dwelling in a hermitage in the Himalayas on the banks of the Ganges, but that he had not the virtue of generosity.

Pañcaśikha thereupon acquainted Śakra, lord of the devas, with this, saying, “He who, when I was a human being, was a kinsman dear to and beloved by me, has now embraced the life of a seer and dwells in the Himalayas on the banks of the Ganges. But he has not the virtue of generosity. For his sake let us go and urge him into the way of charity.”

Then for the sake of the seer Kośika, Śakra together with Candrama and Sūrya,[5] Mātali, his charioteer[6], and the deva

Pañcaśikha disguised themselves as brāhmans. At meal-time they entered the hermitage of Kośika one after another. [And Pañcaśikha, transformed into] a dog went through various metamorphoses.[7]

Kośika said[8]:—

I neither buy nor yet do I sell. I have no store of food at all. The food I have is scanty; His but a small measure of grain and not enough[9] for two.

The dog replied:—

Out of little one should give a little, out of what is moderate a moderate amount. (50) Out of much one should give much. There is never an occasion for giving nothing at all.

I tell you,[10] Kośika, to eat only after sharing. Thus will you enter on the noble path. He finds no happiness who lives for himself.

Candra then arrived, and Kośika said:—

I neither buy nor yet do I sell. I have no store of food at all. The food I have is scanty; His but a small measure of grain and not enough for three.

Candra said:—

He who, when a guest is seated with him, eats his food without sharing it, is like a fish that swallows an iron hook.

I tell you, Kośika, to eat only after sharing. Thus will you enter on the noble path. He finds no happiness who lives for himself.

Sūrya then arrived, and Kośika said:—

I neither buy nor yet do I sell. I have no store of food at all. The food I have is scanty; ’tis but a small measure of grain, and not enough for four.

Sūrya said:—

Vain is the sacrifice and vain the desire[11] of him (51) who, when a guest is seated with him eats his food without sharing it.

I tell you, Kośika, to eat only after sharing. Thus will you enter on the noble path. He finds no happiness who lives for himself.

Mātali, too, arrived, and Kośika said:—

I neither buy nor yet do I sell. I have no store of food at all. The food I have is scanty;’ tis but a small measure of grain and not enough for five.

Mātali said:—

Real is the sacrifice and realised is the desire of him who, when a guest is seated with him, only eats his food after sharing it.

I tell you, Kośika, to eat only after sharing. Thus will you enter on the noble path. He finds no happiness who lives for himself.

Śakra too arrived, and Kośika said:—

I neither buy nor yet do I sell. I have no store of food at all. The food I have is scanty;’tis but a small measure of grain, and not enough for six.

Śakra said:—

As one who sacrifices to the Sarasvatī and to deep Gayā[12] is he (52) who, when a guest is seated with him, only eats his food after sharing it.

I tell you, Kośika, to eat only after sharing. Thus will you enter on the noble path. He finds no happiness who lives for himself.

Kośika said:—

You are august brahmans, but why does this dog of yours display his various transformations? Now tell me, sirs, who each of you may be.

Śakra replied:—

Candra and Sūrya, they are here, and this one is Mātali, the charioteer of the devas. I am Śakra, the lord of the Three-and-Thirty devas. And this one here is Pañcaśikha.

The tabour,[13] the drum and sounds of tambourine wake up from sleep him[14] whose food and drink Pañcaśikha receives, and when he awakes he rejoices.[15]

In our former lives,[16] you were our kinsman, but now you are a sinful miser. We are come hither out of compassion for you, to prevent you from passing in sin to hell.

They who are misers, given to wrath and sin, (53) who scorn the brāhman and the recluse, after their lives of evil deeds pass at death to hell.

But those who in this world wisely and cheerfully make gifts to brahmans and recluses, after their lives of virtue here pass at death to a state of bliss.

Kośika replied:—

Now this very day I shall begin to live a life of virtue and make gifts to brahmans and recluses. I shall give[17] them meat and drink. I would not even drink ambrosia without first sharing it.

As I thus give at all times, all my wealth will soon be spent.[18] Hence I shall pass to a state of bliss,[19] having cast away these inordinate desires of mine.

On the lordly height of fair Mount Gandhamādana,[20] the daughters of the lord of devas lived in care-free joy.[21]

Thither came a noble seer universally honoured,[22] carrying in his hands a flowering bough of the goodliest of trees.[23]

(54) “Give us this bough, worthy friend,” said they, “and you will be to us[24] as Śakra himself is.”[25]

The brāhman looked on her[26] as she begged, and then made a reply that stirred up a dispute. “I have no need of these flowers,” said he, “let her who is best of you tie[27] them on.”

“You, brāhman” said they, “are the one to consider this matter. You, sir, decide which of us is best. To whomsoever of us you give the branch, she will be accounted the best of us.”

“Ye fair-limbed maidens, such talk is unseemly. What[28] brāhman is there who would speak such an invidious word?”[29] Go to the lord of creatures[30] and question him, for he will know who of you is the best.”

Then they, aware of the highest good,[31] proud and desirous of the palm of beauty, went and spoke to the lord of the Three-and-Thirty. “Sire,” said they, “decide who of us is the best.”

The Razer of Strongholds,[32] beholding the maidens so earnest[33] in their quest, joyously replied, “You are alike in all things, O fair-limbed maidens. (55) Who, then, has already[34] stirred up this dispute?”

“The great seer named Nārada, who ranges over the whole world and who is valiant in truth, said to us, on Mount Gandhamādana ‘Go and ask the lord of creatures’.”

[Śakra said to Mātali:][35]

“In a region far from here, on the banks of the Ganges on the slopes of the Himalayas, dwells Kośika, whose supply of food is scanty. To him, O charioteer of the devas, take[36] ambrosia.”

[Kośika said to him:][37]

“As I am getting ready to sacrifice to Agni you come like a light dispelling the darkness of the world, like a sun in the world. What god are you and wherefore are you come?

“Never before have my eyes beheld the like.[38] White as a pearl is it, without compare, fragrant to smell and beautiful to gaze upon. What god are you and wherefore are you come?”

[Mātali replied:]—

“Mighty seer, I was sent by great Indra. I came in haste to bring you this ambrosial food. Know that I am Mātali, the charioteer of the devas. Partake of this, the choicest food that one could wish.

“By eating of this you will destroy[39] twelve evils, namely hunger, thirst, discontent, old age, fatigue, (56) anger, enmity, strife, calumny, cold, heat and sloth. It is the supreme essence.”

[Kośika said:]—

“O Mātali, it is not seemly for me to eat alone. Though formerly I held that to eat without sharing was the ideal conduct, I no longer approve of eating alone.[40] For he who eats without sharing does not find happiness.

“Betrayers of friends,[41] brigands, violators of women, and robbers, with these, misers are classed as equal. I would not taste[42] the ambrosia without first sharing it.”

The four maidens, his own daughters, Faith, Hope, Glory and Honour,[43] in shining splendour were sent by the king of the devas to the hermitage where Kośika dwelt.

When Kośika, the devout and thoughtful seer, saw the four maidens standing in radiance and unsupported, each in her own quarter of the heavens, he addressed them each in turn.

“O goddess that standest in the east like the star of healing[44] with thy slender-waisted body all golden,[45] (57) I implore thee to tell me who thou art.”

[Glory said:]

“I am Glory, revered of men, always serving the great and seeking their success. I am come before you, O wise man, to ask you to regale me with ambrosia”

[Kośika replied:]

“Though a man be endowed with virtue, character, wisdom and skill in all he does, [without thee he achieves nothing.][46] This is not well done by thee.

“Again, a man that is lazy, unskilled, ill-favoured and ugly to boot, helped by thee, O Glory, becomes rich and successful, and orders the well-born man[47] about like a slave.”

[Kośika next addressed Faith:][48]

“Thou that art radiant and splendid with glory as thou standest over against the pleasant north-east,[49] with thy golden slender-waisted body,[50] prithee tell me what goddess thou art.”

[Faith replied:]

“I am Faith, revered of men, always serving the great and seeking their success. I am come before you, O wise man, to ask you to regale me with ambrosia

[Kośika said:]

“His[51] wife may be of high degree,[52] honourable, (58) chaste and devoted, but yet a man may leave her, daughter of a good family[53] though she be, and put his faith in a slave-girl.[54]

“Through faith men at times display morality, learning[55] and self-control. But when faith is at fault, has it not the appearance of a destroyer?[56] This that thou dost is not well done.

“I tell it to thy face. I know thee for a fool and a gambler. Such an one as thou does not deserve a seat or water, not to speak of ambrosia. Begone, thou dost not please me.”

[Kośika next addressed Hope:]

“Thou that standest with thy slender-waisted golden body like the star of healing when night wanes[57] and the sun rises, prithee tell me what goddess thou art.

“Like a straying doe, driven off and separated (from the herd) through fear of the (hunter’s) arrow,[58] thou turnest thy timid eyes to me. Gentle-limbed goddess, what comrade seest thou here? Art thou not afraid of being alone?”

[Hope replied:]

“No friend of mine has come hither. I am a goddess from Masakkasāra.[59] I am Hope, come hither to ask for ambrosia. (59) O, wise man, do you therefore regale me with ambrosia.”

[Kośika said:]

“In hope the husbandmen till their fields, and sons and wives gather to help them. But rain destroys their work or lightning comes to blight it. This that thou doest is not well done.

“In hope men embark on ships in quest of wealth, and cross the seas. But they sink with their ships[60], or else they miserably escape with their lives, losing all their gains.

“I tell it to thy face. I know thee for a fool and a gambler. Such an one as thou does not deserve a seat or water, not to speak of ambrosia. Begone, thou dost not please me.”

[Kośika then addressed Honour:]

“Who art thou that art seen [ ][61] draped in clusters of blossoms, with lion-bracelets,[62] burnished girdle,[63] flaming hair,[64]and well-fitting ear-rings. With thy complexion like the uśira[65] thou art radiant to behold.

“Thou that art come hither like a plant in the rainy season, in autumn, with its crown of scarlet leaves stirred by the wind,[66] I ask thee of the golden slender-waisted body who thou art.”

[Honour replied:]

“I am Honour, revered of men, ever serving men of high degree. (60) I am come into your presence to seek ambrosia.[67] Yet I can not, mighty seer, ask it of you.”

[Kośika said:]

“No low-born woman is here, I know it. O fair-limbed one, thou shalt receive[68] what is thy due.[69] E’en though thou askest not for it, this ambrosia will I produce for thee, this life-giving draught I give thee.

“I invite thee of the slender-waisted golden body to enter my retreat. I would honour thee with all good things. Although I refused before to share this ambrosia, there is enough of it for thee and me.”

This retreat was strewn with divers flowers and echoed to the sweet notes of birds. The fair-complexioned Honour then entered the retreat which was well-watered and abounding in fruits and roots.

Here many tree-tops were in bloom such as the sāl tree, the piyal, the bread-fruit, the tinduka,[70] the śobhāñjana,[71] the lodhra[72] [ ],[73] the trumpet-flower tree,[74] and the fragrant mucilindaka.[75]

By the entrance were the jujube-tree, many tamālas, the holy fig-tree, the banyan-tree, and the glomerous fig-tree, the tilaka,[76] the kadamba,[77] the campaka[78]and plants of rice and millet.[79]

(61) There a couch was laid, made with fragrant kuśa grass and covered with deer-skin. Kośika said to Honour,[80] “Pray, lovely one, sit down in comfort on this couch.”

And as she sat on the couch of kuśa grass, Kośika, in matted hair and antelope’s skin,[81] with his own hands brought her what she wished,[82] the ambrosia on freshly gathered leaves, and gladly[83] the great seer presented her with the ambrosia.[84]

She joyfully took the gift at once and in elation addressed the matted-haired recluse, saying, “O Kośika, great is the honour which you have shown me. Now I go to wait on the Three-and-Thirty.”

Proud of the honour paid her by Kośika she came to the Three-and-Thirty, eager for the prize. And when she had come thither she said to the hundred-eyed Śakra, “Here is the ambrosia. This is my meed of victory, O Vāsava![85]

The messenger Mātali was there, having returned earlier, and now stood before the assembly of the devas. To him [Śakra] said,” Go again and inquire for what reason Honour won[86] the ambrosia.”

And Mātali took out his chariot from its place.[87] (62) It was a golden chariot, of refined gold, flashing like the sun, and adorned with divers golden images.

There were elephants, monkeys, tigers and leopards instinct with life,[88] and antelopes wrought of beryl appeared there as well.[89] All were splendid, brilliant and beautiful, like previous stones and beryl.

Below was a manesī[90] and above was a kupsara[90], and the chariot was also adorned with crescents of gold.[91] And as he mounted this finest of chariots Mātali made the great earth rejoice in all its ten quarters.

The whole earth quaked, with its snakes, rocks, forest trees and oceans. Quickly and speedily he came to the retreat where Kośika abode.

Then Mātali [said...][92] “I am his messenger. The Razer of Strongholds[93] asks you on what score you think that Honour is better than Glory, Faith and Hope

[Kośika replied... ] “O Mātali, Glory appears to me a partial jade.[94] Faith again, O charioteer of the devas, is fickle, (63) and Hope, it seems to me, is prone to break her word.

“But Honour is gracious and completely pure. When men in the van of the battle have lost all heart and are sore bestead,[95] are dispersed [96]  and assailed by arrows,[97] Honour checks the inmost thoughts of their hearts.

“Honour is best among men, O Mātali. She is desirable to the young and to the old.[98] She turns the foeman’s rage to love. She checks the inmost thought of the heart.”

“Who established this belief[99] in you, Kośika? Was it mighty Indra or Sahāmpati?[100] O kinsman of Indra,[101] Indra longs for you, O younger brother of the companionship of his state.”[102]

Then Kośika, casting off his corporeality,[103] endowed with virtue and without an equal,[104] and having acquired rich merits in his retreat, on the dissolution of his body passed to the joys of heaven.

It may be again, monks, that you will think that at that time and on that occasion the seer of the Kauśika clan, named Nārada,[105] was somebody else. You must not think so. And why? I, (64) monks, at that time and on that occasion was the seer of the Kauśika clan named Nārada. Again, monks, you may think that somebody else was at that time and on that occasion the daughter of Śakra, lord of the devas, named Honour. But you must not think so. And why? Because it was Yaśodharā here who at that time and on that occasion was the daughter of Śakra, lord of the devas, named Honour. Then, too, did she bashfully caress me as she did on that other occasion.

Here ends the Mañjarī-Jātaka.

Notes on the Mañjarī-jātaka:

This Jātaka is so called in the colophon (p. 64, text), but none of the various meanings of mañjarī would seem to make it an appropriate title. Most likely the word should be emended into matsarī, “miser,” (Pali maccharin). For the theme of the story is the vice of miserliness, and, apart from the nidāna, this Jātaka closely corresponds with the Pali Śudhābhojana Jātaka, No. 535 Fausböll (J. 5. 382 ff.), which has the same characters and practically identical gāthās.

Footnotes and references:

1.

The text throughout refers to him as “the Kauśikan,” i.e. a member of the Kośika clan, but it simplifies translation to speak of him as “Kośika,” that is, to call him by his clan name. In the Pali Jātaka the corresponding character is Kosiya or Maccharikosiya (“the miserly Kosiya”). Kośika (Kosiya) was the name of a brāhman clan, several members of which are named in the Pali texts (See D.P.N.). There was one actually living in Gotama’s time who from his miserliness was dubbed Maccharikosiya, the exact name of the mythical character in the Sudhābhojana Jātaka.

2.

Vāhitakena mārgena, See p. 27, n. 6.

3.

This is one of the ṛddhis (iddhis) at 5. 5. 282, etc.

4.

Jñātika, Pali ñātaka. But in the Pali version Kosiya is Pañcaśikha’s son and successor. In that version, too, all the other characters are mutually related. Kosiya was the fifth in descent from the wealthy householder who was reborn as Sakka, and whose successive descendants were reborn as Canda, Suriya, Mātali and Pañcaśikha.

5.

Devas of the sun and moon respectively, in Pali Canda and Suriya. See preceding note.

6.

Saṅgrāhaka, Pali saṅgāhaka.

7.

Literally, “exhibited various high and low appearances,” nānāprakārāṇi uccāvacāni varṇāni upadarśeti. As no allusion has so far been made to Pañcaśikha’s transformation, Senart assumes a lacuna in the text. But comparison with J. makes it obvious that this is misplaced rather than incomplete, and should come on p. 52 (text), where Kośika is described as being driven by the various transformations of Pañcaśikha to ask his visitors who they really were.

8.

The baldness of this version as compared with the minute and picturesque detail of the Pali is to be noted.

9.

Reading nālam (na-alam), which is found in one MS, and also in J., for nalam of the text.

10.

The text of this stanza begins natvāham, which, if correct, puts the negative required by the sense in a strange place. The na is required rather with vindate of the next line. Following the analogy of the Pali taṃ taṃ vadāmi, the text has, therefore, been emended into tamtvaham (tam-tu-aham, “this I tell you”) with the negative before ekāṃśam. As the word preceding the latter ends in -nno, the careless omission of na is easily explicable as a piece of haplography.

11.

Reading samīhita, as in J., for samāhita of the text.

12.

The text here is very unsatisfactory. As printed it reads, Sarasvatīṃ so juhoti cāhutāṃ gamaye api. This, as Senart hesitatingly suggests, could only mean something like, “he pours the Sarasvatī in libations and makes it, after being thus poured, flow again”.

The corresponding Pali is:

Sarasañ ca yo juhati bahukāya Gayāya ca
Doṇe Timbarutitthasmiṃ sīghasote mahāvahe
Atra c’assa hutaṃ hoti atra c’assa samīhitam
.

That is, as the Commentary suggests, sacrifice to a stream or pool brings its reward only for the man who charitably shares his board. On the analogy of the Pali, cāhutāṃ gamaye has been emended into ca bahukāṃ Gayāṃ. But even with this emendation the Mhvu. falls short of the full meaning of J., for it does not express the idea that the effectiveness of the sacrifice in question is dependent on charitableness (cf. the sentiment of Mātali’s gāthā), but merely the idea that charity is as effective as such sacrifice. (For Gayā as the name of a pond as well as a town, see D.P.N.).

13.

Pāṇisvara—a musical instrument played with the hand.

14.

Reading suptaṃ tarn for suptam na. Cî. J., suttaṃ etam.

15.

I.e. in the music. The allusion here is to the musical abilities of Pañcaśikha, the Gandharva. (See D.P.N. for references.) He pays, that is to say, for any hospitality given him with music. For once, the Mhvu. is fuller and clearer than J.

The latter reads:—

Pāṇissarā mutiṅgā ca murajālambarāni ca
suttaṃ etaṃ pabodhenti, paṭibuddho ca nandati
.

Here the tabours, etc., awake Pañcaśikha, which is the exact opposite of what the Mhvu. says. J. introduces the verse as being Sakka’s eulogy of Pañcaśikha, but there does not seem to be much merit in being awakened by music; one need not even be a musician. It would seem, therefore, that the text of J. is here defective.

16.

Senart assumes a lacuna before these words, and remarks on the coincidence that both here and previously (p. 49, text) a lacuna occurs precisely where reference would be expected to be made to Pañcaśikha’s transformation into a dog. But as has already been suggested, the latter lacuna is obviated by a transposition of the text, although we would still be left without an explicit statement regarding this transformation. As for the second of Senart’s lacunas, a comparison with J. would seem to suggest that, if it really exists, it does not represent the omission of a reference to Pañcaśikha’s being changed into a dog. Really, however, we have to do not with lacunas, but with the disconcerting brevity of the prose connecting the gāthās, which are left to tell the story themselves. In view of the abruptness with which the gāthās are introduced, the second lacuna need be no more than the omission of Pañcaśikha āha. But even this assumption is unnecessary, and the following verses may equally well be put in the mouth of Śakra, the speaker of the preceding verses. For, according to J., Śakra was as much of a jñātin (“kinsman”) of Kośika as Pañcaśikha was.

17.

Dadyād, 3rd pers. for 1st. Though it would be equally easy to read dadyām here, Senart supports the text reading by citing a similar inflexion in Vol. I, p. 51 (text), adrakṣīt, which may be explained, he says, by Prakrit morphology.

18.

Kṣipihanti, Prakrit fut. act. for passive.

19.

Sugatim. This word is entirely Senart’s conjecture. It does seem rather out of place with the verb pravrajati, which in our text is invariably used in the sense of “to go forth as a recluse,” etc., although the simple verb vrajati is used above in its ordinary sense, “to go,” with sugatim. In J. the corresponding verse has tato aham pabbajissāmi Sakka, and possibly, therefore, the right restoration of our text would be the insertion of Śakra after the reading tato aham pravrajiṣyāmi of two MSS., “hence, Śakra, I’ll go and be a religious.” Cf. note 5.

20.

One of the five mountain ranges that encircle Anotatta. See D.P.N.

21.

Another instance of the abrupt introduction of gāthās without any introductory prose. In J., however, we are told of how Kośika retired to the Himalayas where he lived to old age. In the meantime Sakka’s four daughters, Hope, Faith, Glory and Honour came to Mount Manosilā in Tāvatiṃsa, where Nārada, a brāhman seer, had gone to rest for the day. The nymphs asked him for a branch of the flowering coral-tree which he held in his hand.

22.

Reading upāgato ṛṣivaro sarvapūjito for upāgatā ṛṣivara sarvipūjitum of the text. Cf. J., athāgamā isivaro sabbalokagū.

23.

I.e. the coral-tree of Indra’s heaven, pāricchatta(ka) in Pali. It is called pāripātra at Mhvu. I. p. 32 (text). See Vol. I, p. 27, n. 1.

24.

Literally, “of us,” mo. See Senart’s note Vol. I, p. 601, where instances are given of the use of this form for nom. acc. and gen. pl. But we should, perhaps, here read no, as in J.

25.

Senart’s text here is sharply at variance with that of J., and, to judge from the readings of the two MSS. which he gives in the apparatus, with the MS. tradition of the Mhvu. itself. His reading is śākhām dadensurnama astu māriṣa, “Let them give the branch, we pray; let it be so, sir.” But as J. makes it clear and as the context demands, dadensu (3 pl. aorist in optative sense) should be changed into an imperative or optative singular. The two MSS, referred to read respectively tām hi śākhām dadet sarvaṃgamāsi mā° and tām hi śākhām dada sarvādgamāsi maSarvam (-ād) gamāsi is obviously reminiscent of the sabbagatī in J., dadāhi no sabbagatī ijjhantu, and seems to be the basis of Senart’s reading °surnama astu. Without a collation of all the MSS, however, it would be unwise to attempt the restoration of the line as a whole, and satisfactory sense may be obtained by merely reading dadet for dadensu. I.e. “Let our worthy friend give and be = You, worthy friend, give, and you will be.”

26.

I.e. the spokeswoman of the four sisters. Senart’s note, in which he claims the sense of “offer” for the middle yācamāna, shows that he misunderstood the whole passage.

27.

Senart prints gṛhṇātū (“let her take”) in brackets as it is a substitute for the MŚS. reading of which he cannot make anything. It is probable, however, that pi ta in the MSS. reading so pi ta° is a remnant of a reading which corresponded to piḷayhatthā in J. This latter form is from piḷayhati, shortened from apiḷayhati or apiḷahati, Sk. apinahati, “to tie on,” “wear,” which itself is sometimes found shortened into pinahyate. The original Mhvu. reading may thus have contained a form of this verb with either or n, and the translation has been made on this supposition.

28.

Reading ko, with J., for sa of the text.

29.

Literally “a sound of anger,” krodhaśabda.

30.

I.e., Indra.

31.

Paramārthadarśino. This epithet sounds out of place here. J. has paramappakopitā “greatly stirred.”

32.

Puraṃdara. It is worth noting that this Vedic epithet of Indra (Śakra, Sakka) as the god who “shattered the fortress” or the cloud, and so released the life-giving rain, has in the Pali texts been distorted into purindada, which was variously interpreted as “a giver of alms in times past” (VvA. 171), “a bestower of the gift of dharma” (MA. 3. 98), or “a giver of gifts from town to town” (S. I.229). For an interesting note on the Pali term and its implication of a belief in the identity of the Buddha and Sakka, see Miss I. B, Horner on M. I.386 in her forthcoming translation of that work.

33.

Reading āyattamanā as in J., for anāttamanā of the text.

34.

Thehapūrvam = (a) tha-iha-pūrvam. But the reading is suspect.

35.

The interlocutors are supplied from J.

36.

Reading prāpaya (as in J.) devasārathi for preśayi devasārathis of the text, which latter would make Mātali himself send the ambrosia. But in J. we read of Sakka deliberating and finally deciding to send Mātali with the ambrosia.

37.

I.e. to Mātali when he arrived with the ambrosia.

38.

I.e. the like of the ambrosia.

39.

Literally, “destroy,” imperative, if, that is, the lacuna in the text .... ] hi is to be supplied by jahi. J. has hanti.

40.

Reading ekāsanam (with bhojanam understood. See references in P.E.D.) for ekasya na of the text, which, as Senart’s translation shows, gives an incongruous sense.

41.

The text has mitraṃ opayikam, which is obviously incorrect. The corresponding passage in J. (5. 397) enumerates four classes of evil doers, to which misers are added as a fifth. That the Mhvu. also intends the same would seem to be indicated by the presence of the numeral adjective pañcama in two MSS. Mitraṃ opayikam, “a suitable friend,” therefore, cannot possibly be the right reading. Senart says that it was suggested to him by one MS. (L); but a better clue to the right conjectures seems furnished by another MS. (c), which has mitra oparipattika. The latter would suggest the Pali paripāṭeti or °paṭeti, causative of paripaṭati, in BSk. paripāṭayati (Divy. 417), “to destroy,” “ruin.” The sense, therefore, would be satisfied by a form of the causative of pat, perhaps opātenta (= avapātentā), “those who ruin or betray friends.” But it is not safe to make a definitive emendation without collating all the MSS. It is to be noted, further, that for the reading of the text ye (a)paharanti artham, “robbers,” two MŚS. have ye svapanti artham, where the verb seems to be an echo of the Pali sapanti in J.’s sapanti subbate “curse holy men.”

42.

Literally “eat,” nāse for nāśe from na-aś, “to eat,” and not as Senart says from naś “to destroy” J. has nāsmiye = na-asmiye, indie, pres. mid. of asati, “to eat,” in sense of future.

43.

The text reads sudhām pi ādāya pratigrahārhām, “(the maidens) bringing the ambrosia that was worthy of acceptance.” But it was not they who brought the ambrosia to Kośika; it had already been brought by Mātali, and they themselves were come to ask for a share of it. The translation, accordingly, follows J., the corresponding verse of which names the four maidens thus Āsā ca Saddhā ca Sirī Hirī tato. The four corresponding Sk. names, though not in the same order, could plausibly be substituted for the text reading. Sudhām and ādāya, at any rate, readily suggest Śraddhā and Āśā, and perhaps the whole verse originally read, Śraddhā ca Āśā ca śiri Hirī tathā.

44.

Tāravarā oṣadhi. See references in P.E.D. (s.v. osadhi).

45.

Kāñcanavedivigrahe. For vedi J. has velli, and the Commentary explains the compound word as kāñcana-rūpaka-sadisasarīra, “body like a form of gold.” It is interesting to note, however, that velli at J. 6. 456, where it is similarly applied to describe the slender waist of a woman, is explained by the Commentary as vedi (“rail,” “cornice”), the actual form in our text. See J. trans. (5, p. 213, footnote) for references to passages which would seem to make velli = some part of dress.

46.

The last pāda but one of this stanza is wanting. What is printed in its place is the duplicate of the third pāda of the next stanza. The missing pāda is supplied in translation from J., tayā vihīnā na labhanti kiñcanam. The last pāda is misplaced as the concluding pāda of the next stanza, tadidamasādhu yadidaṃ tvayā kṛtam, which corresponds to the Pali tayidaṃ na sādhu yadidaṃ tayā katam, but is here, for the purpose of the translation, restored to its proper place, replacing preśeti dāsaṃ viya bhogavāṃ sukhī which, in turn, is transferred to its proper place as the fourth pāda of the next stanza.

47.

Reading jātimantaṃ pi for jātimantiyā (sic) of the text.

48.

In J., Hope is the next to be addressed.

49.

Manorameśāhvayanāṃ diśam. Senart admits that his restoration of the text is very doubtful here, and he can adduce in support of it, only the expression eśānī diś, a term used for the “north-east.”

50.

See n. 2.

51.

Reading se = asya for me.

52.

Sadṛśā, so translated after the Commentary’s explanation of sadisīsu in J., jātigottasīlādihi sadisīsu.

53.

Reading sukulāṃ dhītaram for svakulaṃ dhītarā of the text.

54.

Reading kumbhadāśiye, “the slave-girl who carried the pot,” for °kāsiye of the text. The latter form naturally puzzles Senart and prompts him to suggest °kāriye, and to imagine a reference to a tale in which a man leaves his high-born wife for the wife of a potter!

55.

Śrutam, unless we read tyāgam (“charity”), corresponding to cāgam in J. The text of the next pāda is very corrupt. The translation of the distich follows J., in which the second pāda is ādāya saddhāya karonti h’ekadā. Corresponding to this our text has śraddhā satī yatra [ ] ekadā. The similarity between the Sk. and the Pali is sufficiently close to justify translating from the latter, but the apparatus contains nothing to help towards a full restoration of the Sk. pāda.

56.

Naiṣa sāvadyena vighātadarśanā. This is rather obscure, but the obscurity is due to the abridged character of the Mhvu. text rather than to defects in it. It is worthy of special note that sāvajja ana anavajja are the adjectives used by the Commentary on the corresponding passage in J. to denote the wrong (faulty) and the right (faultless) type of faith respectively. The right kind of faith has been instanced in the first half of this stanza, but there is no example of its contrary in the second half, only a statement, almost a definition, of its nature, much as though a whole pāda had developed from a gloss (sāvadya).

57.

The text here has jahāti rātrī, but Senart doubts this reading, and we should probably read jaghanyarātrīm, “when night is low (in the west)”; the whole pāda then corresponds to the Pali dighaññarattiṃ aruṇasmi ūhate (J. 5.403), which, however, there introduces the appearance of Honour, not Hope as here.

58.

The text has sara (= śara) bhāya varjitā, which Senart translates “jetée en proie au śarabha.” It is difficult, however, to see the point of throwing a mṛga as prey to a śarabha, practically one deer to another. Seeing that an authority like Senart overlooked the possibility of it, the translator is diffident in making what seems to him the obvious conjecture that sarabhāya hides a form of sara (or śara-), “fear of an arrow,” perhaps the ablative sarabhayā (for sarabhayād). At any rate, this gives a more plausible sense and has been adopted for the translation. It is, moreover, fairly close to the reading of J., sarocāpadhārinā virādhitā “missed by one holding a bow and arrow,” i.e. by a hunter.

59.

Senart leaves a lacuna here, reading [ ] pravarāsmi devatā, but as one MS. reads masakkasāra pra° the whole pāda has been restored as masakkasāraprabhavāsmi devatā, which makes it identical with J., masakkasārappabkav’ amhi devatā. Masakkasāra was a name given to Trāyastriṃśa (Tāvatiṃsa). See D.P.N.

60.

Ālambane, literally “on what supports them,” if, that is, this is the right reading, of which Senart is far from assured. Anyhow the translation here given would seem preferable to what Senart proposes for ālambane tatra sīdanti, “ ils sont uniquement appliqués à ce but,” à savoir, gagner de l’argent. J. has te tattha sīdanti atho pi ekadā.

61.

Lacuna in text.

62.

Sīhāṅgadā. Senart takes sīha to be corrupt; but one may compare Pali sīhakuṇḍala, “lion earring” (J. 5. 348). Sīha is used for siṃha above p. 34, n. 5. J. has cittaṅgadā, “spangled bracelets.” Note that this part of the description of Honour is applied in J. to Hope.

63.

Kāñcipramṛṣṭadhāraṇī. J. has kambuvimaṭṭhadhārinī, “wearing bracelets of burnished shells.”

64.

The text has kuśāgraraktā, “coloured like the tip of kuśa grass,” which hardly makes sense here. J. has in the corresponding pāda, kusaggirattaṃ apilayha manjarim, “wearing a sprig the colour of flame fed by kuśa grass.” It would seem easy to emend kuśāgra° into kuśāgni, “the colour of the kuśa flame,” and understand it as being applied to the hair.

65.

The fragrant root of Andropogon Muricatum.

66.

The description now comes back to that of Honour as in J. Our text has for the second pāda alaṃkṛtā lohitamālinā, followed by a lacuna. The first pāda reads gate, yathā prāvṛṣi atra sārade. Some noun is evidently wanted here to complete the simile implied by yathā. J. has for the first pāda kālā nidāghe-r-iva aggijāt’ iva which J. trans., following the Commentary, takes to refer to a plant growing on burnt ground and identified in a footnote as ipomoea. The second pāda in J. reads anileritā lohitapattamālinī, and the corresponding one in our text has been emended and completed accordingly as anileritā lohitāpatramālinī. The latter compound is taken to qualify the implied word for “plant” required to complete the simile. Neither J. nor Mhvu. text seems above suspicion, but the Pali has in its first pāda a more definite allusion to a particular plant.

67.

Reading sudheṣinî for sukheṣinī of the text.

68.

In spite of lakṣate on p. 58 (text), which Senart takes to be for passive lakśyate, “est vu,” it is better to take lakṣase here either as a mistake for lapsyase (=labh) or as a Sanskritisation of Pali lacchasi in the corresponding pāda at J. 5. 404. Otherwise the sense is not clear.

69.

Dharmeṇa.

70.

Diospyros embryopteris.

71.

Hyperanthica moringa.

72.

Also rodhra, Pali lodda. Symplocos racemosa.

73.

Lacuna in text, but no more than a conjunction seems lacking.

74.

Pāṭalā. Bignonia suaveolens.

75.

Barringtonia acutaṅgula.

76.

“A species of tree with beautiful flowers, so-called either because it is similar in some way to the sesamum plant, or because it is used as an ornament on the forehead”.(M.W.)

77.

Nauclea cor difolia.

78.

Michelia champaka.

79.

The text has prasātikā śyāmaka tatra taṇḍulā, literally “(a kind of) small-grained rice, millet (Panicum frumentaceum), and (rice) grain (or, “a vermifuge plant”). The allusion is obviously to certain plants, not to grain, but there is no means of ascertaining what particular kinds of rice-plant are meant. Hence the paraphrase above.

80.

This pāda is too corrupt for solution, and even as restored by Senart—āśītakurvī harate niṣaṇṇo—does not admit of a coherent translation. The translation given above is of part of the corresponding pāda in J. (p. 407), Hirim etad abravi. The karate of our text would seem to suggest that originally the pāda contained the word Hirīm, if not also etad. In any case, the assumed translation fits in with the next pāda, which is practically identical with the corresponding one in J.

81.

Reading jaṭājinaṃdhārin for jaṭāyantaṃ dhanena.

82.

Reading yad icchamānāya for jayettamānaye.

83.

Literally “in haste,” tvarito. See next note.

84.

Our text here reads sā adhyabhāṣi tvaritā mahāmunim, but this is obviously incorrect. For the reply of Honour is given a little further on, when she is said to be actually holding the gift in her hands. It is a simple matter to amend this pāda into sudhāmdbhydharṣīt tvarito mahāmuni, on the analogy of J.’s sudh’ābhihāsi turito mahāmuni.

85.

Name of Śakra (Indra). Several explanations are given of the title. See D.P.N.

86.

Abhilabdhe,? aorist. If this form is inadmissible, Senart would suggest the past part, abhildbdhā in an active sense.

87.

? (a)vatārād, i.e. where the charioteers “alighted” and the chariots were kept.

88.

Literally “went,” gatās. The participle is taken to imply that the pictures or images were realistic and the animals depicted instinct with movement. Cf. J. mig'ettha... yuddhāyutā, “Here antelopes and deer are seen as if prepared to fight.”

89.

Upāgatā, see preceding note.

90.

Two inexplicable words. J. affords no clue to their interpretation.

91.

Suvarṇacandra. J. has suvaṇṇacanda, which the translation (5. p. 217) renders “peacocks of gold,” although the Commentary explains by suvaṇṇamayā candakā ettha rathe. The verse passages in J. trans. are too often poor guides for construing the text, accuracy being sacrificed for the sake of poetic style.

92.

Lacuna.

93.

See p. 52, n. 1.

94.

Lacuna in text. As, however, the epithets applied to the others correspond in both J. and our text, it is justifiable to supply here the Sk. equivalent of the addhā of J., viz. ardrā, “moist, soft.” The expression “partial jade” is borrowed from J. trans.

95.

A paraphrase selected to suit the context, rather than an exact translation of pravarjitā, a conjecture of Senart’s, which he admits to be very doubtful. For it demands a strained application of the technical sense of this word, “to place in or on the fire” (in a sacrifice), from which Senart would deduce the meaning of “mis au feu,” “éprouvé.” The MSS. have pravrajitā, which would suit the context, but is unmetrical. Could not the right reaḍiṅg, however, be the causative form pravrājita “driven away” (from the fight), i.e. fleeing?

96.

Reading vipadyamānā for vipaśyamānā, which is Senart’s conjecture for vipuny° of the MŚS., but which he admits is an expression “d’excessive platitude.”

97.

Reading śarair upadrutā for surabhi upadrutā. Senart is at pains to prove that surabhī can mean “humble” or “resigned.”

98.

Mahallike. According to P.E.D., mahallika is “a distorted mahariyaka > ayyaka > allaka.” Both mahallaka and mahallika ate found in the Mhvu., e.g. 1. 262, 302; 3. 206, 265. At 3. 265 mahallikā is a feminine form.

99.

Reading dṛṣṭim for dṛsṭam. Senart leaves a lacuna for the verb, but this may be supplied in translation from odahi (< o = ava + dhā) of the corresponding pāda in J., which is otherwise identical with our text.

100.

A name for Brahmā or Mahābrahmā deva. (See DPN.)

101.

See p. 49, n. 4. Kauśika is a well-known name of Indra.

102.

Tasyaiva bhāvasahavratānuja (voc.), but the last compound is suspect. The apparatus criticus, however, affords no help to bring the pāda nearer the corresponding one in J., which reads ajjeva tvam Indasahavyatāṃ vajā ti “to-day enter into fellowship with Indra.” Perhaps we should read accordingly °vratāṃ vraja. Sahavratā is, of course, the BSk. equivalent of Pali sahavyatā.

103.

Ucchraya. Cf. samucchraya, Vol. I, p. 134, n. 1.

104.

Asadhuryabhūta. So interpreted by Senart.

105.

This implies that the brāhman seer who has throughout been referred to by his clan name Kośika (Kauśika) had as his personal name Nārada. But in J. the latter is the name of the seer who first caused the dispute between the four nymphs by offering a branch of the Pāricchattaka tree to the best of them. He is identified with Sāriputta, not with the Buddha as here, while Kosiya (Kośika) is identified with an unnamed dānapati bhikkhu, “a monk of lordly generosity.”

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: