The story of Sudhana is one of the most popular of the avadānas of Northern Hīnayāna Buddhism. There are two main versions of this story, one adopted by the Mahāsanghika school and the other by the mūla-Sarvāstivāda school. The former is preserved in the Mahāvastu under the title Kinnarījātaka, and a similar version of this story is found in a Chinese collection called Liu-tu-chi-ching ‘Collection [of tales to illustrate] the six pāramitās’, said to have been translated in approximately A.D. 270 (Taishō Tripiṭaka, in, no. 152, 44 f.) and accessible to us in Chavannes's Tripitạka (Cinq cents contes et apologues, no. 80). The mūla-Sarvāstivāda redaction is found in a Vinaya text of that school called the Bhaiṣajya-vastu. It was translated by I-ching and is referred to as Ken pen chouo … by Chavannes (iv, 133).
1 Maliāvastu, ed. Senart, II, 94–115.
2 Dutt N. (ed.), Gilgit manuscripts, III, 1, 123–49.
3 Taisho Tripitaka, xxxv, 59 ff. (c. A.D. 700).
4 Tibetan Tripitaka, XLI, 193–3–5 (Ge 190 b 5 ff.).
5 Divyāvadeina, ed. Cowell and Neil, xxx, 435–61.
As the BhaiṢajya-vastu, the extant mūla-Sarvāstivāda text where this story appears, is incomplete, and as the Tibetan translation of it, with the exception of six verses (see p. 541, n. 41, and p. 545, n. 53) and a few minor points (noted by Professor Dutt in Gil. MSS) is almost identical with the Divyāivadāna version it will not be wrong to treat the latter as an authoritative Mdla-Sarvistivida version. I-ching's translation of the BhaiṢajya-vastu, in the light of random comparison made for me by Professor J. Brough, is based on a text not significantly different from the Divyāvadāna version (see p. 541, n. 41, and p. 545, n. 53).
On the sources of the Divyāvadāna in general, see Huber, ‘Lés sources du Divyānivadāna’ BEFEO, VI, 1906, 1–37; Lévi, ‘Les éléments de formation du Divyāvadāna’ TP, Sér. 2, viii, 1907, 105–22; Lévi, ‘ La DṛṢṭânta-pȧnkti et son auteur’ JA, ccxi, juillet-sept. 1927, 103 ff.; Przyluski J., ‘ Fables in the Vinaya-Pitaka of the Sarvāstivādin school’, IHQ, v, 1, 1929, 1–5. For a complete bibliography on this subject and a comparison of several versions of a similar story from the Divāvadāna (XIII) see Chen Kenneth K. S., ‘A study of the Svāgata story in the Divyāvadāna in its Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, and Chinese versions’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, ix, 3–4, 1947, 207–314.
6 Avadānakalpalatā of KṢemendra, ed. with Tibetan text by Das S. C. and VidyābhūṢaṇa S. C. (Bibliotheca Indica),II, 319–413. It consists of 337 verses.
7 Bailey H. W. (ed.), Khotanese Buddhist texts, 1951, nos. 7–12 (pp. 11–39). The Khotanese Jātaka-stava (Khotanese texts, I, 198–219) devotes eight verses (23 r 1–4) to this story.
8 The ‘extra-canonical’ nature of the Paññāsa-jātaka was first established by Feer L. in his article ‘Les Jâtakas’ JA, 7e Sér., v, 1875 (section ‘Recueils extra-canoniques’, pp. 417 ff.). In 1917 L. Finot published a complete concordance of the three recensions of this collection, one in Laotian and two in Pali. Of the last two, one is found in Burma and is called Zimmé Paṇṇāsa, and the other is the Paññasa-jāitaka found in Siam and Cambodia. For full details see ‘Recherches sur la litterature laotienne’ BEFEO, xvii, 5, 1917, 44–50. H. Deydier in his Introduction à la connaissance du Laos gives a brief description of the Laotian version and also states that the story of Sudhana is found in the paintings on the facade of a pagoda near Luang Prabang (p. 112). Both Finot and Deydier believe that these ‘extra-canonical’ works are of recent date and were composed in Chieng Mai during the fifteenth-eighteenth centuries by the local monks (see p. 535, n. 11).
Only one story of the entire collection has been critically edited and translated so far. This is found in Mme. Terral's G. ‘Samuddaghosajātaka: conte Pali tiré du Paññāsa-jātaka’ BEFEO, xlviii, 1, 1956, 249–351. In her introduction Mme. Terral deals at length with the manuscript material of these collections and the peculiarities of their language.
There are three MSS of the Cambodian recension of the Paññāsa-jātaka in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, one in Phnom Penh (Terral, op. cit., 266) and one in Colombo Museum Library (obtained from Cambodia in exchange—see Catalogue of palm-leaf MSS, I, 1938). Two Laotian nissayas of the Paññāsa-jātaka (entitled Ha-sip-rat) are listed in Pierre-Bernard Lafont's ‘Inventaire des manuscrits des pagodes du Laos’, BEFEO, LII, 2, 1963. The National Museum at Bangkok has a large number of palm-leaf MSS of the Paññāsa-jātaka (in Cambodian characters) hitherto unpublished. During my visit there in 1961 I was able to obtain, through the courtesy of the curator of the Museum, microfilm copies of eight (incomplete) MSS written during the post-Ayuthyan period and two MSS, one in Burmese (jātakas 1–17) and the other in Mon (jātakas 1–11) characters. I was also able to obtain microfilms of a MS in Laotian characters from the private collection of Dr. Christian Welder. This MS contains six stories and is dated Sakaraj 950 (A.D. 1589), perhaps the oldest MS of the Paññāsa-jātaka so far discovered.
9 Foucher in his ‘Notes d'archéologie bouddhique (les bas-reliefs de Borobudur)’ BEFEO, ix, 1909, 9–18, confirms Oldenburg's observation and adds that two more reliefs, nos. I, b, 1–2 also depicted the same story. For the purpose of this identification Mv. and Da. were compared but Ak. was not considered of any help as it was composed later than the Borobudur period. See Krom N. J. and Erp T. van, Beschrijving van Barabudur, 1920, 219–35, where details of 20 reliefs (Ser. I, b, 1–20, plates i-x) are given and compared with the corresponding story in Da. The Saka version was not then known and Zimmé Paṇṇāsa, although published in 1911, does not seem to have been consulted. As will be shown below (p. 554, nn. 71 and 75) certain scenes in reliefs nos. 15 and 18 can be satisfactorily identified only by means of the Pali versions.
10 Zimmé Paṇṇāsa (i.e. Chieng Mai 50) edited anonymously and published by the Hanthawaddy Press, Rangoon, 1911. The work, an octavo of 685 pp., has no introduction, critical apparatus, or variant readings.
MSS of Zp. are not found, to the best of my knowledge, anywhere outside Burma. In 1961, I was unable to find even a single MS of it in the libraries of Rangoon, Mandalay, and Pagan. I learnt from an elderly Mahathera, chief abbot of Pagan, that, according to an oral tradition urrent in his young days, King Myndon of Mandalay (1853–78) had disapproved of this apocryphal work and consequently very few MSS of it were to be found in the monasteries of Burma. It is not found in Siam, not even in Chieng Mai, possibly the place of origin of this work as the title seems to indicate. In 1962, however, a MS of it consisting of 162 leaves was discovered by the Venerable U Wa Tha Wa in the Zetawun monastery in Monyway (in Monywa district) near Mandalay. I have been able to obtain photographs of this rare MS by the courtesy of the Venerable U Wa Tha Wa and U Maung Maung Tin of the University of Mandalay. The MS is complete and is dated Sakaraj 1169, i.e. A.D. 1807. It is identical with the published Zp. and might have been the source of the latter.
11 Three parts containing 15 jātakas have been published by the Institut Bouddhique, Phnom Penh, 1953.
An abridged Siamese translation (with the original Pali verses) of the Paññāsa-jātaka was first published in Bangkok in 1926. It was published again in 1956 by the Fine Arts Department, and is entitled Pannyāt Chādok (Paññāsa-jātaka) chabap hō samut haeng chāt (National Library version). In his preface to the first edition, Prince Damrong states that these stories were composed in Chieng Mai around A.D. 1467–1667. He also refers to the tradition that these stories were not approved of by a king of Burma. The second edition published in two volumes contains 61 stories instead of the traditional 50 found in the Cambodian version.
12 ‘The Sudhana poem of Ṛddhiprabhāva’ BSOAS, xxix, 3, 1966, 506–32. I am deeply grateful to Professor Sir Harold Bailey for his kind permission to use the typescript of his translation in preparing this article.
13 Na bhiksavo idānīm eva Yaśodharā khedenā labdhā anyadā pi eṢā mayā mahatli khedena mahatā śrameṇa mahatā vīryeṇa labdhā (Mv., II, 94). The first Chinese version (Liu-tu-chi-ching— ‘Chinese A’) gives a totally different nidāna. Here the story seems to illustrate not how Gautama obtained his wife, but Chandaka's former rendering of assistance to Sudhana which ultimately made him responsible for helping Gautama to become an ascetic. At the end of the story Chandaka is identified with one of the two monks (unlike Mv., where Chandaka is identified with Vasantaka) who help the prince in his search for Manoharā. Chandaka plays a very minor role in the story, and it is likely that the source lacked the attested Mv. nidāna.
14 Punar api mahārāja yan maiyānuttarasamyaksambodhiprāptaye dānani dattāni puṇyani kṛtāni vīryapāramitā ca paripūritā anuttarā samyaksambodhir nārādhita tac chrūyatām (Da., 435).
15 Tatazitgam āliṅganayor nirāśā bhāintākhilāśā viṢamūrcciteva/
dhṛtiṃ vayasyām, iva vārayantīṃ nirasya saudhāt tanum utsasarja/ /
Yadā tadā pallavapeśalāṅgī dehaṃ samultsṛṢṢṭavatī satī satī sa/
tadā tadā manmathantohitāṃ tāṃ dayārdracakṢur bhagavān rarakṢa//(Ak., 4–5).
The words of Mv., mahatā khedena labdhā, find an echo in
Mayāpi tasyā viraheṇa pūrvaṃ janmāntare māravimohitena/
saṃsaktasantāpanimittabhūctaḥ khedaḥ prabhūaavyasano 'nubhūtah,/ /(Ak., 8).
16 ‘Kuto nu āgacchaai luddakd’ ti. Imaṃ ditammadeactnaṃ aatthā Jetavane viharanto ekaṃ ukkamarūpadharaṃ ārabbha kathesi. So kira ekadivasamhi bhikkāya caranto ekaṃ itthiṃ uttamarūpadharaṃ diavā paṭibaddhacitto hutvā tato nivattetvā ekaṃ antaṃ pattaṃ ṭhapetvā adhomukho dummano pajjhāyanto nisīdi. Tadassa sahāyakā(o) ‘bhikkhu taṃ disvā bhante, tumhākaṃ aphātsukan’ ti pucchi. ‘Āruso, na me aphāsukaṃ, hiyyo bhikkhācāratthāya caranto ekaṃ itthiṃ disvā paṭibaddhacitto hutvā tena me ukkaṇṭhitam eva āvuso’ ti. Te pi bhikkhū taṃ gahetvā bhagavato santike dassesuṃ. Te satthārā ‘kiṃ nu kho bhikkhave anicchamānaññ eva bhikkhuṃ gahetvā agacchathā’ ti vutte taṃ attham ārocesuṃ. ‘Saccṃ kira tvaṃ, bhikkhu ukkanthitosi’ ti pucchitvā ‘ānia bhante’ ti vutte, ‘mā bhikkhu evarūpaṃ kareyyāsi, tvaṃ saddhāya pabbajito attano pitaraṃ chaddetvā mama niyyānike sānene pabbajitvā kathaṃ kilesarasaṃ gaccheyyāsi? Bhikkhu, māitugām, o nāma anatthakaro dujjayo tasmā hi bhikkhu sankilitthaṃ duccaritadhammaṃ vinodeyyāsi, kathaṃ ukkaṇthitaṃ gaccheyyāsi? Pubbe paṇḍitā mātugāmaṃ nissāya mahantaṃ rajjasiriṃ mātāpitūnañ ca anoloketvā attano ca aganetvā mātugāmarasena atidukkaraṃ agamaṃsū’ ti vatvā tuṇhī ahosi. Tehi yācito atīhaṃ āhari. Pj., 29–30.
The Zp. version of this passage is larger than Pj. by almost a half and is repetitive and elaborate, showing a certain interest in such items as śamatha, vipassanā, and asubha-kammaṭṭāna. Pj. is as usual short and more to the point.
17 According to ‘Chinese A’ the two kings are related to each other as father and son, the latter (Nan-lo-shih) being the father of Sudhanu.
18 In ‘Chinese A’ the king of Ni-ho-pien (Sirphapura ?) learns from some selfish brahmins that it is possible to go to heaven alive by performing a sacrifice of all beings. The king undertakes this sacrifice. After four months the brahmins put up an impossible condition of including a kinnarī among the beings to be sacrificed so that they can escape the blame if the sacrifice does not yield the desired result. In Mv. the ṛṢis who are invited by the king to inspect the sacrifice and point out any deficiencies suggest that it is incomplete without a kinnarī (pratyavekṢantu bhagavanto yajñavāṭaṃ kiṃ paripūṇaṃ na yeti… Deva kinnarīye ūno … (Mv., ii, 96)).
19 Later in the story Mv. mentions the names of two hunters, Utpalaka and Mālaka, whom the kinnarī meets on her way home in the Himālaya. In ‘Chinese A’, however, these two are referred to here as ‘deux religieux’ (p. 294); by an order of the king they are brought to the capital, are fêted, and requested to find a kinnarī.
20 This name is not noted in Pali, but appears frequently as a name of a king of the kinnaras in Buddhist Sanskrit works. A Mahāyāna text called Drums-kinnara-rāja-paripṛcchā-sūtra, translated into Chinese by Kumarājīva, is reported by Hajime Nakamura in his ‘A critical survey of Mahayana and esoteric Buddhism’, Acta Asiatica, VI, 1964, 68.
21 Ṛại āha. Satyavākyena etā badhyanti na śaknonti antarahāyituṃ ….
Dhītā tvaṃ kinnararājasya Drumarājño yaśvinī/
etena satyavākyena tiṢṭha baddhāsi kinnarī/ /
Yathā tvaṃ Drumarājasya dhītā Drumeṇa rājñā saṃvṛddhā/
satyavacanena bhadre Manohare mā padaṃ gaccha// (Mv., ii, 96).
On satyavacana, see Burlingame E. W.: ‘The Act of Truth (saccakiriya)’ JRAS, 1917, 429–67; Norman-Brown W.: ‘Basis of the Hindu Acts of Truth’, Review of Religion, v, 1, 1940–1941, 36 ff.
In ‘Chinese A’ Manoharā is named ‘Devi (à forme humaine)’. Nor is there any mention of the satyavacana; the two monks learn a spell from the hermit, pronounce it, and bring her in a bamboo cage to the capital.
22 Mv. lists here the ten kuśala and akuśala karmapathas. ‘Chinese A’ devotes several long passages to the condemnation of brahmins and their sacrifices.
23 Rājñā Subāhunā Sudhanukumāro śabdāpito. Putra jānapadā oravanti. Arthārthāni na samanuśāsi yathāpūrvaṃ, Manoharāye … pramatto viharasī visarjehi putra etāṃ.… Rājñā ca amātyā āṇattā uparundhatha kumāraṃ, … Manoharā … anujñātā Niratiṃ kinnaranagaraṃ gamanāya … mātāpitṛanāṃ sakāaśaṃ/ … (Mv., II, 101).
24 Tahiṃ … duve lubhdaputrā mṛgavyāṃ aṇvanti. Eko … Utpalako nāma dvitīyo … Mālako nāma (ibid.).
‘Chinese A’ again refers to them as ‘deux religieux’ who had apparently returned to their abode after first baying captured her.
25 So dāni rājakulāto niryātvā sārdhaṃ Vasantakena ekinā paricārakena … (Mv., ii, 103). This name occurs only in Mv. In ‘Chinese A’ the guardian deity of the palace shows him the way, but the prince leaves alone in search of the ‘Devī’.
26 … iha uddeśe vānarā prativasanti. Yo teṢām yūthapati so mama abhiprasanno … tam ahaṃ vānarārajaṃ adhyeṢiṢyaṃ …. ṚṢi āka. Imaṃ kumāraṃ ātmanaā caturthaṃ Drumasya … kinnaranagaram tahiṃ nehi. Vānaro āha. Bhagavan nemi (Mv., ii, 108).
In ‘Chinese A’ this monkey is Śakra in disguise: ‘En ce moment, Śakra, roi des devas, prit la forme d'un singe dont le merveilleux prestige faisait trembler la montagne … ’(p. 301).
27 Evaṃ Sudhanu mahāle vibhūṢaye … kinnararājño nagaraṃ praveśito … Drumeṇa ca … abhinandito utsange sarṃveśito … (Mv., ii, 111).
28 … Subāhunā mārgaṇā kāritā … tasya bhavati mrto bhaviṢyati kumāro. …. Tena rājñā kumārasya Sudhanusya mṛtasya kāryaṇi kṛtāni … (ibid.).
This incident is not found in ‘Chinese A’ or any other version.
29 The names Dhana (only once Mahādhana, Da., 435) and Sudhana in Da. are less convincing than their Mv. counterparts Subāhu and Sudhanu. Grammatically it is more likely that -u changed to -a than vice versa. In Da., ayaṃ dārako Dhanasya rājñaḥ putro bhavatu dārakasya Sudhano nāmeti can account for the advent of Dhana. The name Subāhu appears only in Mv., but Sudhanu reappears in Zp., despite an explanation by the latter: tassa pana jātadivase yeva tesu ṭhānesu tā pi nidhikuntbhiyo bhūnnito uṭṭhahitvā pākaṭā honti. Atha Adiccavaṃsarājā pi taṃ acchariyaṃ, disvā … Sudhano tv eva nāmaṃ akāsi (Zp., 146). Thus Zp. introduces Sudhana but discontinues this in favour of Sudhanu. Pj. is consistent in calling him Sudhana, Sudhanakumāra, and Sudhanarāja.
30 ‘As a frontier king lived king Mahendrasena’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 507).
cf. Babhūva tasya bhūbliartur bhūpatir bhūmyanantaraḥ/
mānī Mahendrasenākhyaḥ prakhyātapṛthuvikramaḥ//(Ak., 13).
31 ‘A meritorious nāgarāja by name Citra dwelt where in the ground at all times the seeds ripen’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 507).
cf. viṢaye nāgarājo 'sti Citro nāma bahftdakaḥ/
akāle śasyaniṢpattis tat prabhāveṇa jāyate/ (Ak., 33a, 34a).
32 Da. gives the name of this hunter as Halaka but it is stated in the footnote (p. 437, n. 2) that MS C generally gives Phalaka. Professor Brough, who checked I-thing's transcription of this name, informs me that Phalaka is the correct reading in the mūla-Sarvāstivāda version. This is also confirmed by the reading in the BhaiṢajya-vastu (Gil. MSS, 1, 133).
Da. actually refers to two hunters called Saraka and Phalaka. These might correspond to She-li and Yu-pen of ‘Chinese A’ (p. 294); Mv. in this context does not name the hunter, but on a subsequent occasion it refers to two hunters called Utpalaka and Mālaka (Mv., ii, 102). It is possible to conceive some relationship between Phalaka, Yu-pen, and Utpalaka, but we cannot determine which is the more original form. As for Sāraka (corresponding to She-li and Mālaka) his name is mentioned only once in Da.: tatra … dvau lubdhakau prativasataḥ Sārako Plialakaḥ. Sārako kālagato Phalako jīvati (Da., 437). It is not clear why his name should be introduced as he does not play any part in the story. This obscurity is removed in both Saka ' and Ak. where the two hunters called Padmaka (‘Saka’: Padamaka) and Utpalaka are related as father and son. The father obtains the nāgapāśa and when he dies it passes to his son who captures Manoharā:
‘When he (Padamaka) passed away, after the son carried on, Utpalaka by name; the noose descended to him’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 508).
cf. Lubdhakaḥ Padmako nāma sa me saṃraksaṇakṢamaḥ/
putrāyotpalakākhyāya pāśaṃ dattvā vyapadyata/ (A k., 48a, 65b).
33 ṚṢiḥ kathayati. Kiṃ ratnaḥ … tasya bhavane amogho nāma pāśas tiṢṭhati taṃ yācasva (Da., 439).
34 … alaṃ mama ratnaiḥ kiṃ tv etaṃ, amoghapāśaṃ prayacchatheti … yadi asti kṛtam upakrtaṃ, cānuprayaccetti … (ibid.).
cf. Nāgapāsaṃ taṃ yācami, tenāhaṃ idluz gacchami/
tasmā taṃ detha taṃ sīghaṃ, nāgarājā mahiddhiko ti//
… bho nāgarāja, tvaṃ atipapañcaṃ avatvā nāgapāsaṃ va me dehī ti (Zp., 153).
35 ‘He (the nāga king) … presented wealth to him. He for his part asked them for the amogha-pāśa …’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 508).
cf. abhyaracamānaś Citreṇa kañcit kālam uvāsa saḥ/ /
Kadācid atha nāgena pūjyamānaḥ savismayaḥ/
vidyuddāntopamaṃ pāśam amoghākhyaṃ dadarśa saḥ//(Ak., 60b, 61).
36 Zp., 154–5; also 156.
37 Tayā śirasthaś cūḍāmaṇir datta uktaś ca. EṢa cūḍitmaṇir yasya haste tasyāhaut vaśī bhavāmi (Da., 443). Cf. Atha so luddako … bhoti devī, tvaṃ tuyhaṃ pādapuraṇañ ca alankātrabhaṇḍañ ca mayhaṃ dehī ti (Zp., 155).
For similar tales where bird-maidens were captured by stealing their feather-robes, see Hatto A. T., ‘The Swan Maiden: a folk-tale of north Eurasian origin ?’ BSOAS, xxiv, 2, 1961, 326 ff.
38 Gaccha kumāra … kārvaṭikaṃ saṃnāmaya. Evaṃ deveti … antaḥpuraṃ praviṢṭo Manoharādarśanāc cāsya sarvaṃ vismṛtaṃ. …. Rājā kathayati … nirgataḥ kumāro 'ntahpurāt preṢayitavyo yathā Manoharāyāḥ sakāśam na prativasatīti … (Da., 446).
39 See p. 537, n. 23.
40 Iii patrā samādiṢtaḥ samīltitaraṇotsavaḥ/
kinnarīvirahāolaḥ so 'bhūd dolākulaḥ kṢcsaṇam//
Acirāgamanākhyānair yatnenāśvāsya vallabhām/(Ak., 153, 154a).
cf. Madhāsatto, bhadde, teaṃ mā socasi, mā paridevesi, mama gamanaṃ ciraṃ na hoti …
khippaṃ eva āyāmi ti taṃ samassāsetā … nagarato nikkhami (Zp., 161).
41 So Manoharāsantakaṃ, cūḍāmaṇim ādāya mātus sakāśśaṃ … kathayati …
Duhitā Śakrakalpasya kinnarendrasya māninī/
pālyā virahaśokartā madvāitsalyadhiyā tvayā / / (Da., 446).
This verse is not found in the extant BhaiṢajya-vastu (Gil. MSS, iii, 1, 139) nor in its Chinese and Tibetan translations (see p. 545, n. 53). It is, however, found in Ak.:
jananīṃ svairam abhyetya praṇipatya jagāda saḥ/ /
Duhitā Śakrakalpasya … madvātsalyadhiyā tvaya/ /(Ak., 154b, 155).
42 Tena khalu samayena Vaiśravaṇo mahārājo … paśyati Sudhanakumārant … Tasyaitad abhavat. Ayaṃ bhadrakalpiko bodhisattvaḥ … sahāyyam asya karaṇīyaṃ … Pāñcikaṃ … āmantrayate … (Da., 447).
cf. Tasmiṃ khaṇe sakalanagare āraklchadevatāyo … āhṃsu:
Bho devatā sabbe mayaṃ vasantā sabbaṭṭhānesu/
ā.vakkāma tattha tattha gataṃ sasenaṃ. Sudhanuṃ sadā/ / (Zp., 161).
Both Da. and ‘Pali’ give long descriptions of the battle. The ‘Saka’ is very brief and Ak. devotes only half a line: sa yayau tūrṇanaṃ sainyācchāditadiṅmukhaḥ/(157b).
43 Da.; Dhanena ca rājñā svapno dṛṢṭaḥ. Gṛdhreṇāgatya rājña udaraṃ sphoṭayitvāntrāṇy ākarṢya tan nagaram antrair veṢṭitaṃ saptaratnāni gṛhaṃ praveśyamānāni drṢṭāni (447).
‘Saka’: ‘That night king Dada saw a dream that all his enemies had surrounded the city, they had burst open his belly, drawn out the intestines, had three times fastened it around the city’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 510).
Ak.: DṛṢtam adya mayā svapne niruddhaṃ:śatrubhiḥ puram/
pāṭitodarakṛṢṭaiś ca mantāntrair parivestitam/ / (164).
Zp.: Evarūpo supino altosi: rañño antaṃ kucchito nikkhamitvā sakalajambudīpaṃ tikkhattuṃ parivaṭṭetvā puna kucchiyaṃ pavisitvā aṭṭhāsī ti (162).
These four accounts of the dream show a curīous relationship between the four versions. The gṛdhra of Da. and the corresponding ‘enemies’ in both ‘Saka’ and Ak. are absent from ‘Pali’. The ‘three times’ of ‘Saka’ is missing in Da. and Ak. but is found in ‘Pali’. The reference to saptaratnāni is peculiar to Da., while the words grhaṃ pravaśyamānāni correspond to ‘Palik’ kucchiyaṃ pavisitvā. Da. agrees with ‘Saka’ -Ak. for the opening but with ‘Pali’ for the close.
44 Tyajed ekaṃ kulasyārthe graāmasyārthe kulaṃ tyajed/
grcimaṃ janapculasyārthe ātmarthe pṛthiviṃ tyajed//(Da., 448).
This verse is found in the Mahābhārata and several other works. See Sternbach Ludwik: Cāṇakya-nīti-text-tradition, I, 1, Hoshiarpur, 1963, 109.
Tyajante jīvitasyārthe nijadeśapriyātmajāḥ/
jīvitād aparaṃ rājan jīvaloke 'sti na priyam/ /(Ak., 193).
Suṇāhi me kathaṃ deva na thomenti paraṃ rakkhaṃ/
attāinaṃ anurakkhā va thomenti yeva paṇḍitā//
Sasīse patati aggi puttaṃ pi jahati tadā/
kiṃ mocesi pare dukkhī tvaṃ gavesi sukhaṃ sadā/ /(Zp., 164).
45 Tat samanantaram eva Manokarā gaganatalam utplutya gāthaṃ bhāsate. … (Da., 449). Cf. When she came forth into the maṇḍata-vāla-grārna (gathering of the circular sacrificial enclosure) she three times incanted, she rose into the air (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poemk, 511).
cf. Śvaśvā dattaṃ samādāya baddhvā mūrdhni śikhāmaṇim/
nṛpāhṛtā kratukṢetraṃ gatvā vyoma vyagāhata//(Ak., 193).
46 Narānaṃ migapakkhīnaṃ viyogo to kato pubbe/
tena atthi vipākena viyogo t'ajja patinā//
Kiṃ karomi mama pubbe kareyya paraviyogaṃ/
tena kanimavipākena viyogo hoti amhākan ti//(Zp., 166).
47 These and other striking similarities have been noted by Gawroński A. in his Notes sur es sources de quelques drarnes Indiens, 1921, 18–39, where the author discusses at great length the relationship of Sudhanakumārāvadāna (Da.) to the legend of Purūravas and Urvaśi in general and to Act iv of Vikramorvaśīya in particular.
48 Mv., 108: So dāni vānarādhipati tato eva ciat ātsramāto catmanā caturthaṃ kumāraṃ pṛṢṭaṃ ārohayitvā … Da., 455:… tān apy atikramya Himavān parvatarājaḥ. Tat praveśena tvayā imāni bhaiṢajyāni samudānetavyāni … vānaraḥ. samudānetavyo … On p. 457: … tatas tena yathopadiṢṭāḥ sarve samuclānītāḥ stlāipayitvā vārtaraṃ. Alaṃ kuntāra … tvaṃ ….
Schiefner's translation differs here from Da.: ‘When he had obtained all but the monkey, he came back with them to the Rishi. The Rishi gave him a monkey and said, 0 youth, … alone, without companions, …’ (Tibetan tales, 70). See Tibetan Tripitaka, xli, 201–5-6 (Ge 20486).
‘Saka’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 512): ‘He will come to the Black Mountains called Kaukūlaka. There lives a king of monkeys, huge in limb. To him food is to be given, and he will take him on his back’.
Ak., 262b, 263: Himavantaṃ atikramya Kukūlādrim avāpa saḥ//
Phalopahāraiḥ svīkrtya tatra vānarayūthapam/
Vāyuvegakhyam āruyha sa taṃ śailam alaṇghayat/ /
Zp., 172: Evañ ca vatvā mahāsatto attano magganāyakaṃ makkaṭapotakaṃ ādāya … gamanam ārabhi.
49 There is no reference to any bird helping the prince in Mv. Da. refers to a ‘king of birds’ which will convey him over a mountain called Vajraka, fourth in a list of nine mountains: (Vajrake pakṢirājena praveśaḥ (Da., 450; 456).
In ‘Saka’ (on the next mountain called Kāmarūpi) there is a rākṢasī: … (he) will come to the kāintarūpins. In that place one amorous rākṢasī lives who through passion entices beings, at the last destroys them. …. The rākṢasī carries him off, mounts him on the mountain peak. There he must promptly slay her …. Afterwards he will come to the mountain by name Ekadhvaja. There dwells a vulture-shaped rāksasī. For her let him touch the vīnā and surely he will escape without danger’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 512).
Ak. is in close agreement here with the ‘Saka’ account except that here the prince uses the viṇā not against the vulture-shaped rākṢasī on Ekadhvaja but against an ordinary rākṢasī on the mount Kāmarūpa. Here the ‘vulture-shaped’ rākṢasī appears on the mount Vajraka and carries him off to the peak of that mountain:
Vīṇāāsvanair vaśīkṛlya rāksasint kāmaritpiniṃ/
Kāmarūpādrim ullaṅghya prayayau kinnarīpriyaḥ//(265).
Athogrataram āruyha Vajrālcahyaṃ sa parvatam/
grdhrarūpāṃ samālokya rākasīṃ piṢitaitṢinīm/ / (267).
Māṃalubdhā tam utkṢipya gṛdhrarūpā
nidadhe aikharasyāgre bhoktuṃ bhīṢartavigrahā// (268).
Although some common basis exists for the incident of a rākṢasa-bird carrying the prince across the mountains, ‘Pali’ alone shows this bird to be friendly to the prince and refers to his flight (in the last stage of his journey) tied to the wings of it: Tasmiṃ khaṇe bahū Hatthilingasakuṇā taṃ vettavanaṃ āgantvā tatth' eva nisīdantā aññamaññaṃ pucchiṃsu. Bhonto, ajja mayaṃ kuhiṃ gocaraṃ gaṇhāmā ti … Atha mahātsatto ekassa pakkhantamajjhe pavisitvā khaggarajjuyā pi attānaṃ bandhitvā nipajji (Zp., 173). See p. 554, n. 75.
50 Mv.: Sudhanu pṛcchati. Kahiṃ udakaṃ imaṃ nīṢyati. Āhansu. Sā Manoharā snāpayiṢyati. Tasyā manuṢyagandhaṃ apanayiṢyati. Terra kumāreṇa aṅgulīyakā paścime udakaghaṭe prakṢiptā yathā tāhi kinnarīhi na dṛṢṭā. Manoharā snāyatiye ca aṇgulīyakā snāyantīye tato ghaṭakato utsaṅge patitā. Manoharāye sā aṅgulīyakā dṛṢṭvā parijñātā (II, 110).
Da.: Tenaikasyāḥ, kinnaryā ghaṭe 'nālakṢitaṃ prakṢiptā sā ca kinnarī abhihitā anena tvayā ghaṭena Manoharā tat prathamataraṃ snāpayitavyā (458).
A k.: KumbhotkṢepe śramārtāyas tatraikasyāḥ sametya sah/
hastālambena sāhāyyaṃ kṛtvā papraccha tāṃ śanaḥ//(283).
Mātaḥ kasya kṛte toyamidaṃ yatnena nīyate/
yad bhaktyā gaṇyate nāyaṃ, bhavatībhiḥ pariśramaḥ/(284).
Zp.: Sace panāthaṃ, tassa mama saccādhiṭṭhānapāramipūraṇena tāya Manoharāya saddhiṃ samaggavālsaṃ labhissāimi tāsu ekikā kinnarīkaññā tam udakaghaṭaṃ, ukkhiptuṃ asakkontī tatth' eva tiṭṭhatū ti adhiṭṭahitvā … aṭṭheisi (174).
51 ‘During this interval twelve years had passed’ (Bailey, ‘Sudhana poem’, 512). Cf. Atha bodhisatto manā ussāihena gacchanto sattavassāni sattamdsasattadivasādhikāni … (Zp., 172).
52 Gacchainaṃ, pracchannaṃ, praveśiaya. Tayā pradeśitaḥ, sugupte pradeśe sthāpitaḥ. Tate Manoharā pituḥ patutuḥ nipatya kathayati … (Da., 458).
In ‘Saka’ they meet secretly before his arrival is announced to king Drums: ‘They agreed with her thought, they brought him into the palace. They searched out a place, all were in the secret…. For many days they well honoured him. The kinnarīs secretly at night used to fetch him …’ (Bailey‘, Sudhana poem’, 513).
Ak. follows ‘Saks’:
Tayā guptatare nyastaṃ kāmtam udyānamandire/
kumudvatīva Śaśinaṃ gatvāpaśyan Manoharā//(293).
Yad yat premṇaḥ sadṛśam ucitaṃ yad yat autsukyarāśe/
tat tat sarvaṃ praṇayasubhagaṃ dampatī cakratus tau/j(295 cd).
53 Āha ca:
A Tvayā kāntyā jitās tāvad ete kinnaradārakāḥ/
saṃdarśśitaprabhāvas tu divyasambandham arhasi//
B Atyāyataṃ śaravanaṃ kṛtvoddhṛtya śaraṃ kṢaṇāt/
vyuptam anyūnam, uccitya punar dehi tilālaḍhakaṃ/ /
C Saṃdarśaya dhanurvede dṛḍhatakṢādi kauśalaṃ/
tataḥ kīrtipatākeyaṃ tavāyattā Manoharā/ /(Da., 458).
These three verses are identical with Ak., 313–15.
D ŚatakratusamāiṢṭair yakṢaiḥ sūkararūpibhiḥ/
utpāṭite śaravane same vyuptaṃ tilāḍhakaṃ//
E Ekīkṛtaṃ samuccitya ŚakrasṛṢfaiḥ pipīlikaiḥ/
kumāraḥ kinnarendrāya vismitāya nyavedayat// (Da., 459).
These two verses are preceded by the following three verses in Ak.:
F Mithyāśramakleśaphale pravṛttaṃ śarapāṭane/
taṃ vijñāya SahasrākṢaḥ pakṢapāṭād acintayat//
G Kiṃ bhārakalpiko bodhisattvo 'yaṃ pārthivātmajaḥ/
niyuktaḥ kinnarendreṇa niṢphale kleṢakarmaṇi //
H Asyāsmin samyāyāse kāryaṃ, sāhāiyakaṃ, mayā/
iti sañcintya Śakro 'sya karmaniṢpattim ādadice//(Ak., 317–19).
Although verses A, B, C, D, and E, together with one more verse, viz. Duhitā Śakrakalpasya …, cited above (p. 541, n. 41), appear in both Da. (in all MSS used by Cowell and Neil) and Ak., they are not found in Lching's translation of the BhaiṢajya-vastu. (Professor Simon, who kindly checked this for me, found that several other verses—notably 12 of Da., 455–7, from DṛṢṭvā, … to Candrasya khe … —although found in the Tibetan, are missing from I-thing's translation. Cf. Taishō Tripiṭaka, xxiv, 63b-64b.) The six verses in question are also missing from the Tibetan translation of the BhaiṢajya-vastu. It is probable on the evidence of the Chinese and Tibetan translations, particularly of the latter, that these verses do not belong to the original BhaiṢajya-vastu.
Verses A, B, and C appear to be quotations as they are preceded by the words āha ca in Da. These are followed by a prose passage containing a significant line: Devatāś. caiṢāṃ autsukyam āpatsyante avighnabhāvāya (p. 459). At the end of this passage occur D and E which explicitly state that yakṢas performed the feat at the instruction of Śatakratu.
Whether this intervention by Śakra was introduced into the BhaiṢajya-vastu story by the compilers of Da. (taking a clue from the line devatāś caiṢāṃ …) or whether Da. was following a different MS tradition of the BhaiṢajya-vastu containing these verses cannot be determined on the available evidence.
Only these six, out of 44 verses found in this avadāna of Da., are repeated (not as quotations) by KṢemendra in his poem consisting of 331 verses of his own. It is not improbable that Ksemendra was here introducing the intervention of Śakra either following some other version of the story or as one of his own innovations. His three verses (F, G, H) preceding D, E leave no doubt that the latter were also his own compositions. It seems likely, therefore, that the six verses in question were interpolated into the MSS of Da. at a later stage and have survived since then in all our known MSS of Da. The fact that Śakra's intervention at this stage of the story is not found in the Pali versions points to the same conclusion.
54 Taṃ sutvā Sudhano … attano dhanuṃ āropetvā … vijjhati. Atha so saro dhanujjiyā mutto sattatālarukkhe ca satta udumbararukkhaphalake … evaṃ, paribhinditvā … puna Sudhanuss' eva hatthe patiṭṭhnsi (Zp., 176).
55 Mahāsatto. mahalla pāsāṇaṃ, nāma nīlavaṇṇapāsāṇaphalakaṃ upasaṃkamitvā tikkhattuṃ padakkhiṇaṃ katvā … sace 'haṃ, anāgate bodhirukkhamūle … nisinno mārabalaṃ vidhaṃsetvā … anuttaraṃ sammāsambodhiṃ abhisaṃbujjhissāmi, api ca kho pana sace 'haṃ sakalalokasannivāsānaṃ sattānam jātyādimānasaṅkhātamahāpabbataṃ sankamituṃ sakkomi, idāni idaṃ mahallapāsāṇaṃ nāma jātigarukaṃ, lahukam eva hotū ti saccādhiṭṭhitvā adhiṭṭhahitvā taṃ, ukkhipi … (Zp., 177).
56 Yathā Drumasya duhitā, mameha tvaṃ, Manoharā/
śīghram etena satyena padaṃ, vraja Manohare//(Da., 459).
cf. Haṃsānāṃ vacanaṃ, śrutvā yathā me NaiṢadho vṛtaḥ/
patitve tena satyena devās taṃ pradiśantu me/ /(NalopOtkhyana, v, 17).
57 Abhinnavarṇarupaānāṃ tutyābharaṇavāsasām/
kinnarīṇāṃ sthitāṃ madhye gṛhāṇa nijavallabhām//
Ity uktaḥ sa pumas Lena kinnarīśatapañcakam/
tulyavarṇavayoveśaṃ dadarśa vyagram agrataḥ//
Tāsāṃ madhye parijñāya sa jagrāha Manoharām/
vallarīvanasaṃchannāṃ, bhṛṅgaś cūtalarām iva/ /(Ak., 327–9).
58 Rājā attano sattadhītaro … samānarūpā … paṭipāṭiyā nisīdāpetvā bho Sudh, anakunmāra, passasi mama dhītarabbhantare lava bhariyā atthi udāhu natthī ' ti āha. Mahāsatto … ajānitvā upāyaṃ cintento … adhiṭṭhahanto āha:
Yadi saccaṃ ahaṃ, pubbe sabbasattahitaṃ karaṃ/
paradāraṃ, na gacchāmi pūressāmi manorathaṃ/
na kiñci paradūresu ācikkhantu me devatā ti//
Evañ ca pana vulvā Sakkassa ḅhavanaṃ uṇhākāraṃ dassesi. Sakko āvajjanto taṃ kāraṇaṃ ñatvā ākāsena āgantvā santikaṃ mahāsattassa etad avoca: tāta, mahāpurisa, ahaṃ suvaṇṇamakkhikaṃ nimminitvā suvaṇṇamakkhikā yassa itthiyā, sīsaṃ padakkhiṇaṃ katvā taṃ lava bhariyaṃ jānāhī ti (Pj., 71).
In Zp., Sakka arrives in the guise of a golden fly and settles on Manoharā's hand: Atha Sakko āvajjanto taṃ kāraṇaṃ ñatvā suvaṇṇamakkhikena āgantvā bodhisattassa kaṇṇasamīpe samullapat;: sāmi Sudhanu, ahaṃ, Sakko va sañcaraṇamakkhiko hutvā Lava bhariyahatthe patiṭṭhāmi, tvaṃ tāya saññāya etaṃ hatthaṃ gahetvā ayaṃ devī mama bhariyā ti vadesī' ti (Zp., 178).
For further changes in this scene made by the popular Burmese dramas see below (p. 557, n. 86).
59 Tāta Sudhanu, ahaṃ pi idāni tayā saddhiṃ manussalokaṃ gamissāmī ti…. Dumarājā bodhisattassa mātāpitūnaṃ nānappakārāni datvā āpucchitvā puna attano nagaram eve agamāsi (Zp., 180).
60 Evañ ca pana vittāretvā dhammadesanaṃ āluzritvā bhikkhave, evaṃ pi pubbe paṇḍitā mātugāmaṃ nissaya … pakkamiṃsū yevā ti. Saṅkh, epen' eva … tesaṃ pi bhikkhrinaṃ cattāri saccāni pakāisento imaṃ gāthadvayant āha
Dukkhasaccaṃ samudayaṃ nirodhañ ca maggasaccaṃ/
iti hi taṃ catusaccaṃ sabbā tā kathitā mayā/ /
Tebhtūmakaṃ dukkhasaccaṃ taṇhā samudayaṃ Hama/
nibbānaṃ nirodhasaccaṃ aṭṭhaṅgikaṃ maggasaccan ti//
Bluzgavato desanāvasāne so ukkaṇṭhito bhikkhu arahattappatto nikkileso nibbhayo yeva ahosi. Aññe pi sampattaparisā sotāpattiphalādīni pāpuṇiṃsū ti (Zp., 181).
61 The story of Sudhana is absent from the Pali Jātalca book and other aṭṭhakathās. The Khaṇḍahāla-jālaka (no. 542, J, vi, 129–57), however, offers several points of comparison with both Mv. and Da. Here also the king wishes to undertake a sacrifice to attain heaven alive (as in Mv. and ‘Chinese A’). Here also the king's credulity is exploited by a wicked brahmin minister (Khaṇḍahāla) who encourages the king to engage in human sacrifice with a secret plan to kill the prince Canda the bodhisattva (as in Da.) who has exposed his acts of injustice. In this as well as in Mv. and ‘Chinese A’ the bodhisattva gives long sermons on the evils of sacrifice, the main Buddhist message of the stories concerned. But whereas the story of Sudhana develops into a beautiful love story with all the ingredients of an epic, the Khaṇḍahāla-jātaka remains a purely didactic one being terminated by a rather premature intervention by Sakka at the performance of an Act of Truth by the wife of the prince.
62 We ignore a scene found only in Da. showing the lamentations of the childless king Dhana, his prayers to gods, the conditions (pratyaya) of conception, the treatment of the queen in her pregnancy, and the birth of the child. This stereotyped description (tasya krīḍato ramamāṇasya na putro na duhitā … vardhate hradastham iva paṅkajaṃ, … (Da., 439, 11, 26–30 to 441) is also found in the Koṭikarṇāvadāna and Supriyāvadāna. It is also found with slight variations in the following avadānas of the Avadānaśataka: Kusīda, Maitrakanyaka, Hiraṇyapāṇi, and Gangika.
63 See p. 539, n. 31.
64 See p. 541, n. 43.
65 See p. 541. n. 41, and p. 545, n. 53.
66 See p. 534, n. 8.
67 See p. 544, n. 51.
68 See p. 534, n. 9.
69 On the significance of the winged eonch in Indian (and Borubudur) sculpture, see F. D. K. Bosch, The golden germ, 115 ff., where a similar standard from the Borobudur reliefs is reproduced on pi. 52d. The conch is usually associated with ViṢṇu or his avatāras. In Theravāda Buddhism it is associated with Sakka, e.g. in the scene of Māravijaya: Salcko devarājā Vijayuttarasaiikhaṃ dhamamāno aṭṭhasi, so kira saṅkho vīsaṃhatthasatiko hoti, sakiṃ vātaṃ gāhāpetvā dhamanto cattāro māst saddaṃ karitvā nissaddo hoti … (Jātaka, I, 72).
70 ‘18 (L. 36). II se résout enfin, ainsi qu'il est écrit et qu'on peut voir, à accorder au prince la main de sa fille’, BEFEO, ix, 1909, 16.
71 We cannot accept Krom's suggestion (Bcschrijving van Barabudur, 234–5) that relief no. 18 is depicting the majesty of the bodhisattva by giving him a halo, since elsewhere in the reliefs the same prince appears without halo. As regards the trace of a halo on the figure of the prince in relief no. 20 which according to Krom may be faintly visible, this is certainly an illusion produced by a slight break in the relief above his head.
72 See p. 546, n. 58.
73 Tataḥ kinnarīsahasrasya Manoharāsamānarūpasya madhye Manoharāṃ sthāpayitvā … (Da., 459).
74 Yāvan Manoharā kinnarī pañcaśataparivāritā avatīrṇā snātuṃ, (Da., 443). Cf. Atha tā sattakinnarikaññāyo Dumarajadhitdyo … kinnarīgaṇaparivuta … tassa tīre otaritvā nisīdiṃsu … (Zp., 154). Mv. does not give any number: Manoharā nāma dhītā bahūhi kinnarehi kinnarīhi ca parivāritā … (Mv., n, 97).
75 In this connexion, a pair of birds perched on the branch of a tree on the left-hand corner of relief no. I, b, 15 might be of some special interest. The relief depicts Sudhana's meeting with the hermit and liis obtaining the ring from the latter. From here onwards he starts on his journey through the forests and mountains until he arrives at the lake (relief no. 16). In the Pali versions alone he is brought there tied to the wings of a bird (see p. 543, n. 49). The fact that these two birds are seated and are not flying (unlike those in nos. 2, 3, 5, 11, and 16) suggests that their presence in this relief is probably linked with the story rather than merely forming a part of the scenery of the forest. There is, however, one more bird seated in the remote right-hand corner of this (no. 15) relief. But it is sitting right on top of a lake and may therefore have no other significance.
76 I am indebted to Mr. John Okell for furnishing me with a list of published Burmese works on Sudhana. Of the unpublished mention may be made of a Mon MS called Lik bra rat iṇaṅ kaṅrī ‘The book of the diadem of the kinnarī’ (124 pp.) found in the Bernard Free Library, Bangoon, a microfilm of which obtained by Mr. H. L. Shorto is in the Library of SOAS.
77 Mandalay, Hanthawaddy Piṭakat Press, 1929.
I am grateful to Professor Hla Pe for comparing Nawade's work with Zp. and establishing their relationship.
78 See extracts in Anthology of Burmese literature, ii, Rangoon, 1922, 131–4.
79 Rangoon, Bengalee Job-printing Press, 1880.
80 In his Burma past and present, 1878, II, 26–58. The translation is by Lieut. Sladen and Colonel Sparks made in 1856.
81 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, no. 91, 1839, 535–51.
82 See Bot lakhōn khrang krung kao ‘Theatrical pieces of the Ayuthyan period’: Nang manōrā and Sang thōng version in t h e National Library, Bangkok, third ed., 1964, 130 pp. I am indebted to Mr. E. H. S. Simmonds for a comparison of Nāng manōrā with Pj. The Thai text contains only one scene depicting Manoharā's corning to bathe in the pond culminating in her capture by the hunter. (A miniature painting from a Thai MS of Traiphum dated A.D. 1776, depicting the scene of Manoharā's capture by t he hunter is reproduced by Klaus Wenk, Thailāndische Miniaturmalereien, Wiesbaden, 1965, pp. 79–81 (plate xvi).) For brief theatrical extracts from eighteenth-century fragments based on this story, see Schweisguth, Étude sur la litterature siamoise, 146–52. Also see Jean Drans, Histoire de Sang Manora et Histoire de Sang Thong, Tokyo, 1947.
83 Renè Nicolas, ‘Le lakhon nora ou lakhon chatri; et les origines du thèatre classique Siamois’, Journal of the Siam Society, xviii, 1924, 85–110.
84 The Hermit: There is one way, and only one, my son.
To gain the end you seek. A magic noose
The King of Dragons gave himself to me. …
But take it, if you list, and snare your bird. Fytche, op. cit., 33.
In Smith's translation the hunter captures Manoharā with his own noose: JASB, no. 91, 1839, 539.
85 The lifting of the heavy stone reminds one of a similar incident in the episode of two giants known as the Kala brothers in the Glass Palace Chronicle: ‘When they had eaten it they said, “Let us test whether what our teacher told us be true or no!” So they made assay, and lo! they could lift a stone slab ten cubits in length, eight cubits in breadth; and they put it at the foot of the stairs of the monastery’ (tr. Pe Maung Tin and G. H. Luce, 1923, 76).
The testing of enterprises by the lifting of stones is not unknown in present-day Burma as the following note kindly sent to me by Mr. H. L. Shorto would indicate: ‘Omen stones or touchstones (Mon tma' nimit) are kept at various pagodas (in Lower Burma) in front of a particular image of the Buddha or of the guardian nat of the pagoda. After praying to the Buddha or nat the suppliant tries to lift the stone (about the size of a cannon-ball, of stone or metal); if he is successful he will be lucky. The formula is a sort of saccakiriya: “If I …, may I lift this stone”’. See also Shway Yoe, The Burman: his life and notions. Third ed., London, 1927, 240.
It is possible that this particular test in the Pali versions might have been introduced by the monks of Burma from some such popular tradition.
86 King: Before my daughters let a seven-fold screen
Of silk inwrought with gems suspended be,
And from within let each of them, in turn,
One taper finger carefully expose.
If he, who claims the lovely Dwaymenau,
By this can single her from the rest,
I will admit his title to her hand. Fytche, op. cit., 58.
87 Of the 31 stories not less than 23 are found in Pj. and there also Sakka is identified (in the samodhāna) with Anuruddha. The only story where he is identified with Moggallāna is Akkharalikhita-jātaka (Zp., no. 43). Of the remaining 19 stories where Sakka does not play any part, 12 are to be found only in Zp. These could possibly be much later additions to the earlier collections of Sakka stories in both versions.
88 On Anuruddha, first cousin of the Buddha and one of his chief disciples, see DPPN. The Pali scriptures and aṭṭhakathās speak often of his iddhi powers and in 14 jātakas he is identified with Sakka. In Mahāyāna texts Anuruddha's name appears as Aniruddha: tatas tāny ābharaṇāni cireṇa kālena Bhadrikasya Śākyakumārasya Mahānāmno Aniruddhasya cābadhyanta sma (Lalitavistara, 229). See Edgerton's BHSD.
89 Mr. E. H. S. Simmonds to whom I owe the following note informs me that Aniruddha is mentioned along with the Buddha in theatrical invocation texts in Thai: ‘In a shadow-play MS in the Library of the University of Edinburgh (Oriental collection, no. P L 42) Aniruddha appears immediately after the Buddha in the following passage:
I salute the Buddha the Supreme One,
compassionate towards innumerable creatures,
may we be raised to t h e s t a te of Nirvana.
I salute Aniruddha, he who sets all in being
the jungles of wood and water,
all streams t h a t pour down from the hills’.
90 On Anuruddha (transcribed as Anawrahta in modern Burmese) king of Pagan, see the Glass Palace Chronicle, tr. Pe Maung Tin and G. H. Luce, 1923, 64–100. On p. 96 he is referred to as king Anuruddhadeva. See also Maung Htin Aung, Folk elements in Burmese Buddhism; Shorto H. L., ‘The 32 myos in the medieval Mon kingdom’, BSOAS, xxvi, 3, 1963, 590.
Early terra-cotta plaques bearing the name of this king spelt Aniruddha are referred to in the Report of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of Burma, for 1906 (p. 10), 1912 (p. 19), and 1915 (p. 15). The last reads: Eso bhagawā mahārājā sirī Aniruddhadevena kato vimuttatthaṃ sahatthenevā ti.
But the same king's name with a different spelling Anuradhā occurs in an inscription (Inscriptions of Burma, portfolio ii, pi. 160a) dated Sakarāj 609 (A.D. 1247) in the phrase Cakkawatiy Anuradhā klon thu so kywan lay (1. 6).
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.