Virtually Unknown Benedictive

8/13/2019 Virtually Unknown Benedictive

1/7

The Virtually Unknown Benedictive Middle in Classical Sanskrit: Two Occurrences in the Buddhist Abhisamaylakra

The benedictive or precative is one of the tenlakra s or verb tenses/modes of Pinis system of Sanskrit grammar, where it is termedr-li . Yet it is extremely rare in classicalSanskrit in its active, or parasmaipada form, and is thought to benonexistent there in its middle, ortmanepada form. W. D. Whitney in his still standardSanskrit Grammar (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1879, 2nd ed. 1889) states:The precative active is a form of very rare occurrence in theclassical language. . . . The precative middle is virtually unknownin the whole later literature, not a single occurrence of it havingbeen brought to light. (paragraph 925).

The Abhisamaylakra , a Buddhist work attributed toMaitreya (or Maitreyantha), though written down by Asaga,circa fourth centuryC.E., was first edited and published in 1929

by Th. Stcherbatsky and E. Obermiller, in the BibliothecaBuddhica series, Leningrad. Its opening two verses include twooccurrences of the benedictive middle. Here are these two verses, with the benedictive middle verbs in italics.

sarvkrajat-mrga sitr yo tra deita |dhmanto vkiras tam anlha parair iti || 1 ||smtau cdhya strrtha dharma-cary datmikm |sukhena pratipatsrann ity rambha-prayojanam || 2 ||Because of the rarity of the benedictive, it will be useful to

review its formation for the two examples cited. After resolvingsandhi , these stand asvkiran and pratipatsran . The conjuga-tional ending, -ran , is recognizable as that of the optative or


2/7

2 The Virtually Unknown Benedictive Middle

potential (vidhi-li ) middle (tmanepada ) third person (accord-ing to Western usage; but in Sanskrit, prathama-purua , first person) plural. However, the stems (aga s) are wrong foroptatives. Leaving off the prefixes (upasarga s), vi- and prati- , wehave the stemski (from the root k , see) and pats (from theroot pad , go) respectively. The optative, being in the so-calledpresent system (but called in Sanskrit grammarssrvadhtuka ),builds its stems according to the ten conjugation classes (gaa s)of roots. So from the rootk , being a class one (orbh gaa )

root, we would get the stemka ; and from the root pad , being aclass four (ordiv gaa ) root, we would get the stem padya . Theonly other lakra (tense/mode) taking the distinctive optativeending -ran is the benedictive, which is also thought of as theoptative of the aorist system. In the aorist system the stem ismade directly from the root, without regard to the conjugationclass orgaa , and has seven varieties of formation. Of these thesimple aorist stems are used for the benedictive active( parasmaipada ), and the sibilant aorist stems are used for thebenedictive middle (tmanepada ). Since -ran is a middle end-ing, we are looking for sibilant aorist stems, formed by addings to the root, with or without interposed i according to whether the root is classified in Pinian grammar asse , withi, orani , without i. So from the rootk , being ase root whichinterposes i, we would get the stemki (change of s to

after i due tosandhi ); and from the root pad , being an ani root which does not interpose i, we would get the stem pats (change of d to t before s due tosandhi ). These are exactly the stems we have. As to why we have middle instead of activeendings, again according to thePinya Dhtupha , both theseroots should take only the middle (tmanepada ) endings. Thus we have invkiran and pratipatsrantwo perfectly formedbenedictive middle verbs, following all the rules of the Piniansystem of grammar.There is little question that these are the correct readings. All five later editions of/including theAbhisamaylakraIconsulted agree with the first edition for these two verbs (I wasunable to see the edition by K. Kajiyoshi inGenshi Hannya-kyo no Kenky , 1944, 274-320, listed in Edward ConzesBuddhist


3/7

3The Virtually Unknown Benedictive Middle

Scriptures: A Bibliography ). None cite any significant variant readings for them. The variant readings cited from the threelate paper manuscripts used by Stcherbatsky/Obermiller areapparently the result of scribal error, e.g., pratipatmran . Thefive later editions of theAbhisamaylakra are included ineditions of its commentaries: two editions of HaribhadrasAbhisamaylakrloka , by Giuseppe Tucci (Baroda: OrientalInstitute, 1932), and by Unrai Wogihara (Tokyo: The ToyoBunko, 1932-1935), and also a composite edition of these two,

by P. L. Vaidya (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1960), a recon-structed edition of HaribhadrasSphurth , by RmaakaraTriph (Srantha, Vras: Kendrya-Tibbat-Ucca-ik-Sasthnam, 1977), and an edition of the firstabhisamaya of rya VimuktisenasAbhisamaylakra-vtti , by Corrado Pensa(Roma: Is.M.E.O., 1967). Of these, Tucci cites from a papermanuscript one variant reading,vkasrasta , while Wogiharaand Pensa cite no variants for these verbs.

We have no direct evidence as to how the Indian commen-tators and the Tibetan translators understood these verbs.Haribhadra in hisAbhisamaylakrloka and in his Sphurth , rya Vimuktisena in hisAbhisamaylakra-vtti (editions just cited), and Ratnkaranti in hisSratam (ed. Padmanabh S. Jaini, Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1979), donot gloss these verbs. The Tibetan translators, of course, were

hampered by the fact that no corresponding verb form existsin Tibetan, so that their translations,mthong gyur( phyir ) forvkiran , and rtogs pa for pratipatsran , help us little.

The Abhisamaylakra has been translated into English by Edward Conze (Roma: Is.M.E.O., 1954). It is not clear to mehow he understood these two verbs, as his translation of vkiran , to enable [the wise] to behold, differs somewhat from his vocabulary entry, have been able to behold, and histranslation of pratipatsran , will be able to make progress, isgiven a little differently in hisMaterials for a Dictionary of the Prajpramit Literature (Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation,1967), are able to make progress. As benedictives, they couldbe translated may [they] behold, and may [they] progress,respectively. In any case, this great scholar must be exempted


4/7


5/7


programs without ever encountering the benedictive. Such anexcellent primer as the Devavpraveik: An Introduction to the Sanskrit Language , by Robert P. Goldman and Sally J. Sutherland(Berkeley: University of California, 1980, 2nd ed. 1987), now widely used, has found no need to mention it (though it otherwise retains traditional grammatical classifications such asthe ten gaa s, unlike Edward PerrysSanskrit Primer following Whitneys Sanskrit Grammar ). Readings in classical Sanskrit texts typically follow this in the programs, so that unless one

specifically takes up Pinian grammar (or Vedic texts, where afew benedictives do occur), one is quite unlikely to encounterthe benedictive. This is particularly true for students inBuddhist Studies programs. Contrary to this, Sanskrit study inIndia now and for ages past, almost certainly including thetime the Abhisamaylakra was written, has meant study of the traditional classifications such as the tenlakra s; and many Indian Buddhist writers such as Maitreya/Asaga show fullfamiliarity with classical Sanskrit grammar.

The second reason for not recognizing these benedictivemiddle verbs, occurring in a Buddhist text, is perhaps the perva-siveness of the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit concept in modernscholarship, this despite the fact that theAbhisamaylakra is not written in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. When FranklinEdgertons Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary

appeared in 1953, John Brough pointed out in a review article,The Language of the Buddhist Sanskrit Texts (BSOAS 16,1954, 351-75), that Edgertons approach may influence editorsto see hybrid forms where they do not exist, particularly in thelate Nepalese paper manuscripts where scribal errors abound.Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar, after all, according toEdgertons own classification (Grammar , p. xxv) really pertainsto only a minority of the Sanskrit Buddhist texts. Since then J. W. de Jong has more than once called attention to this very problem in his always valuable reviews (e.g., of Isshi Yamadasedition of theKarupuarka , IIJ 13, 1972, pp. 301-313, and of Ratna Handurukandes edition of theMaicvadna , IIJ 13,1971, pp. 140-143). The prevalence of Edgertons work hasresulted in a widespread tendency to see all Buddhist Sanskrit


6/7

6 The Virtually Unknown Benedictive Middle

texts as hybrid, so that any unusual form is attributed toBuddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, thereby obviating the need to seekany other explanation.

Another example of this may prove useful. Gadjin Nagao,to whom we are indebted for much pioneering work on texts of the Maitreya/Asaga school, cites in his article, Tranquil Flow of Mind: An Interpretation ofUpek (Indianisme et Bouddhisme: Mlanges offerts Mgr tienne Lamotte , Louvain: 1980, pp. 245-58),a definition ofupek given by Sthiramati in theTriikvijapti-

bhya as praahat . Nagao proceeds to show that praahat , whose noun-stem praaha is first known to occur in MaitreyasMadhyntavibhga (4.5, 5.28), means tranquil flow of themind. He notes that this word is accompanied by the phraseswithout volitional effort (anabhisaskrea ) and without special exertion (aprayatnena ), and states that among these various terms praahat is a difficult and curious word. (p.251). He then gives the views of several scholars on the meaningof this term, bringing out the problem that words from the root ah normally have meanings like very false or wicked, asindeed is the case with the wordhya , guile, deceit, alsooccurring in these texts, which are obviously inapplicable here.However, the Tibetan and Chinese translations point to theapplicable meaning, tranquil flow of mind. This has leadscholars to suggest etymological theories such as that praaha

may be a Prakrit form of Sanskrit praratha rel

chement (orrelaxation), or to suggest a relationship between praaha and pranta on the basis of its Tibetan equivalents. (p. 252).This latter scholar later left it as meaning uncertain, andNagao similarly sums up that its etymology in Sanskrit seemsto be problematic, before moving on to what meaning can bederived from the Tibetan and Chinese translations. Despite theamount of effort expended on this question, it seems that noneof these scholars bothered to check thePinya Dhtupha .This lists and gives meanings for four rootsah (numberedX.28, I.363, X.152, X.310, in the convenient and accurateedition by Sumitra M. Katre, included in hisAdhyy of Pini , Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987). These include the well-attested one meaning deceive, etc. (kaitave ca I.363,


7/7


p. 1176), another having a related meaning speak ill of(samyag avabhae X.310, p. 1199), while a third, meaningflatter (lghym X.152, p. 1198), is not relevant to ourquestion. The remaining one (X.28, p. 1196) has two meanings,given in a dual compound which is by convention declined inthe seventh case:asaskra-gatyo . The meaning asaskra ,unconstructed, or in reference to the mind, without concep-tion, is quite in line with what we are looking for, and indeed isclosely related to the gloss of Sthiramati,anabhisaskra . The

fact that thePinya Dhtupha was not consulted can only beattributed to a widespread tendency to view unusual terms inSanskrit Buddhist texts as anomalies due to Buddhist HybridSanskrit, rather than to systematically search out the answers intraditional grammatical sources.

[The foregoing article was written by David Reigle, and published inIndo-Iranian Journal , vol. 40, no. 2, Apr. 1997, pp. 119-123. This onlineedition is published by Eastern Tradition Research Institute, 2006.]

Virtually Unknown Benedictive

Documents

Transcript of Virtually Unknown Benedictive