Tocharian Abhidharma Texts II: A Philological Study of A 384–386 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Tocharian Abhidharma Texts III: A Philological Study of B 199
Journal Asiatique, 2023
This paper is the third installment in our series of philological studies on the Tocharian Abhidharma texts and follows upon our recent studies of the manuscripts B 197 (Catt, Huard, and Inaba 2020) and A 384–386 (Catt, Huard, and Inaba 2022). Here we present the first full English translation of B 199, a Tocharian B commentary on the Abhidharmadīpa, along with detailed notes on linguistic, philological, and Buddhological issues. The passage preserved in this manuscript concerns the 80,000 divisions of the Dharma (dharmaskandha), a term referring to the various discourses of the Buddha, and the related problem of the intrinsic nature of the Buddha's teaching (buddhavacana). After providing an overview of recent research on manuscripts of the Abhidharmadīpa, we discuss the concept of the divisions of the Dharma itself and offer some insights into the different ways in which this concept surfaces in the Buddhist literature. The main body of the article treats the linguistic and paleographic features of the Tocharian manuscript and provides a transcription, translation, and notes on the text. In addition to restoring the missing portions of the manuscript, we discuss issues such as copyist errors, the unique allative plural ending in-aiṣ, gender agreement, and methods of adapting Sanskrit loans into Tocharian. An appendix provides relevant passages from the Abhidharmakośa and the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā as an aid to understanding the passage from the Abhidharmadīpa.
Dissertation in Buddhist Studies submitted at Hamburg (Sanskrit/Tibetan), 2022
The research findings for this study can be grouped under the following three Categories: 1. First of all, this study includes a thoroughly annotated translation of the opening sections of the fourth chapter of Yaśomitra’s Abhidharmakośavyākhyā IV.1–4, an early sixth century commentary on of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, wherein Vasubandhu offers a basic exposition of Buddhist causality that has remained a pivotal resource in the traditional dissemination of Buddhist thought on that topical cluster. To date, said section in the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā had only been available in the original Sanskrit, its Tibetan and Chinese Translations, and, more recently, as a modern translation in the Japanese medium. Burnouf (1876, p. 399), amongst other scholars, had already by the mid-to-late nineteenth century understood Yaśomitra’s commentary to be a philosophically significant and historically impactful work, an early Buddhist commentary that is not only deeply embedded in the academic tradition of Nālandā-University, but that is also the only fully extant Sanskrit commentary to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya known to date. The extract chosen for translation centers on an exposition of early Buddhist causal models that contextualizes and elucidates early conceptions of the relation-ship between cause and effect; Abhidharmakośavyākhyā IV.1–4 has hereby been rendered accessible, for the first time, to the wider academic community, therein allowing for further philosophical, historical, and linguistic analysis by contemporary scholarls. 2. Secondly, this study assesses the philosophical debate between the Sarvāstivāda-school on the one hand, andn the Yogācāras on the other. The former posit that any phenomenon can be broken down into a clearly defined, limited number of ‘basic building blocks’ (dharmā) that in turn, by dint of their causal efficacy, need to be based on a positively established ontology (Dhammajoti 2015b, p. 74); the latter expend effort to refute any inherent link beteween causal efficacy and any such reified, positively established, ontological status. The extract contained in this study has been chosen with a focus on the exposition of the Sarvāstivādin concepts of vijñapti, avijñapti, and avijñaptirūpa—avijñapti in particular being considered by the Sarvāstivādins as indispensable and immutable ‘sustaining link’ between cause and effect. The counterarguments fielded by the Yogācāra-school, are likewise rendered, together with an assessment of the degree and scope of their cogency. 3. The translation of Abhidharmakośavyākhyā IV.1–4 contained in this study is based on a philological study and text-critical edition both of the Sanskrit original and its Tibetan translation. A fully positive apparatus records all variant readings of the seven Sanskrit manuscripts and three Sanskrit Editions, taking into consideration scholarly observations made by Funabashi, Sako, and others. Likewise, the principal transmission lines of the Tibetan commentarial canon (Bstan ’gyur)—inter alia Cone, Derge, Narthang and Peking—have been critically collated and certain readings amended, taking into account novel insights provided in secondary literature. URN: urn:nbn:de:gbv:18-ediss-112160 URL: https://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/handle/ediss/10483
The present study is divided into two parts. In the first part two main semantic oppositions between the Indo-European terms for 'man' and 'god' are discussed: 'terrestrial' versus 'celestial' and 'mortal' versus 'immortal' respectively. In the second part the binary oppositions are applied to the relevant Tocharian terms, giving a background for discussions about alternative etymological reinterpretations of both Tocharian A oṅk, B eṅkwe 'man' and A ñkät, B ñakte 'god'. Finally, the hypothetical Phrygian and Messapic continuants of the main Indo-European term 'earth' are analyzed.
Tocharian B Parallels to the Supāraga-Avadāna of the Old Uyghur Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā
Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
The collection of Buddhist legends entitled Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā (DKPAM) is best preserved in Old Uyghur. According to the colophons of this Old Uyghur version, it was translated from Tocharian. In this paper, two Tocharian B fragments that are parallel to the Supāraga-Avadāna of the Old Uyghur DKPAM are presented, together with a third Tocharian B fragment that may belong to the same avadāna, but is so far lacking a parallel in Old Uyghur.