වෙසතුරු දා සන්නෙ - INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The present edition of the Vesture – Da – Sanne is based on three Manuscripts : (1) A, a copy made on paper, of Palm-leaf Manuscript A 1 lent to me by the late Sir D.B. Jayatilaka , (2) B, a Palm-leaf Manuscript, also lent to me by Sir D.B. Jayatilaka : and (3) C, a Palm –leaf Manuscript belonging to the Colombo Museum Library and bearing the number A.M.-13 in the Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Colombo Museum. In the last Manuscript C, which consists of three books, the present work runs into sixty seven Ola Ieaves from gha to ji.
My attention was first drawn to the Vesaturu-Da-Sanne by the numerous references made to it and by the high praise showered on it by Sir D.B. Jayatilaka during the time I was engaged in the compilation of the Sinhalese Dictionary of which he was the First Editor-in-Chief. Although Sir D.B. Jayatilaka was eager to prepare an edition of the “Vesaturu-Da-Gatapadaya,” as he called the present work, he was prevented from doing so by his official duties, earlier as Minister of Home Affairs and Leader of the Ceylon State Council, and later as Representative of the Government of Ceylon in India. On his death, therefore, I set about to prepare this critical edition both as a tribute to his memory and in view of its importance.
The first Palm-leaf Manuscript A I was copied for me by Mr. A. P.Gunaratna of the Staff of the Sinhalese Dictionary about ten years ago. This copy which I have designated A , I have compared with Manuscripts B and C. As I have not had access to the Manuscripts A 1and B after I returned them several years ago, my observations on those Manuscripts have to be confined to the notes I had taken down while consulting them. The Manuscript A 1. I believe, had been borrowed by Sir D.B. Jayatilaka
67 68 INTRODUCTION
from the Buddhist Templeat Pamburana in the Southern Province, and that Manuscript is undoubtedly the best of the three I have consulted. A 1 seems to go back to one archetype, and B and C to another. The palm leaves of the original Manuscript from which B has been copied seem to have been mixed up towards the latter half of the book, and in consequence the collation of that portion of B presented great difficulty. The readings in the concluding portions of the Manuscripts B and C, beginning from about Section 527, duffer so much from the readings in A that it has not been possible to record merely the variant readings of those two Manuscripts, as had been done up to that place. I have had to record one after another, two sets of readings, one as found in A and the other as in B and C. It is difficult to state why the divergences have been so great only in the concluding portion of the book. One might wonder whether that portion was absent in the Archetype of B and C, and that a separate Sanne has had to be written for those verses at the end. Linguistically, however, the concluding portions of B and C do not seem to be any later than the earlier portions.
The present work is, for the most part, a verbal parra
Phrase in Sinhalese or a sane of the
The Title pali stanzas occurring in the com-
Mentary of Vessantara Jataka.
It is admitted’ that the Pali verses constitute the Jataka proper and that these verses are older than the prose commentary, Being a Sanne or a Sinhalese Paraphrase of the Pali Vessantara Jataka, the present work can justly be called a Vessantara jataka sane or in Elu, Vesture da – sanne.
The three Manuscripts I have consulted differ in the titles they have given to the work. The Manuscript A I concludes by saying’ “Vasturu – Da sannaya” i . e., ‘ (Thus concludes) the Vessantara – Jataka – Sanne.’ Manuscripsts B and C say in the Colophon’ “Vesture – Gatha padarthayai,” i.e., ‘(Thus concludes) the verbal paraphrase of the stanzas of the Vessantara (Jataka).’ Manuscript C however, aftsr making the above statement says further,
1. See Buddhist Birth Stories by Rhys Davids (Revised Edition) p. lxx.
INTRODUCTION 69
In conclusion : “Vessamtara –Jataka –Attha –Vannana nitthita ,”I .e., ‘The explanation of the meanings of the Vessantara Jataka has been conluded .’Thus C agrees with A 1in calling the work a “Paraphrase of the Vessantara Jataka” or “Vesaturu-Da-Sanne.”
The Venerable Totagamuve Sri Rahula Thera, who flourished during the 15th century, had consulted an old paraphrased of the stanzas of the Vessantara Jataka and has given the following quotation form it in his Pancika Pradipaya (p. 115):-
“Vesture – Da – Gatha – Sanyayehi ‘tomara, adayatiyayi’ kihu,” i. e., (The Palia word) tomara has been explained in the paraphrase of the verses of the Vessantara Jataka as an adayati (lance).” Although the identical quotation the not found in thepresent work, there is in it an extract, viz., “tomarankusapanihi, adayati ha akusu gat at ati” (603), from which Sri Rahula has, in all probability, quoted the relevant portion leaving our the rest’ It is Quite likely that by “Vesture – da – gatha – sannaya,” Sri Rahula meant the present work. As the verses constitute the old Vessantara Jataka, a Paraphrasd of the verses cannot but be a “Paraphrases of the Vessantara Jataka.” Besides, two of the Manuscripts mentioned above call the present work a “Sinhalese Paraphrases of the Vessantara Jataka” or “ Vesture – Da – Sannaya.”
An objection to calling the present work purely a “ Paraphrases of the verses of the Vessantara Jataka” is that, although it is meant primarily for explaining the verses of the Vessantara Jataka, it also comments on or explains, though not frequently, some extracts for the prose portion of the Vessantara Jataka – Atthakatha or the Pali Commentary on the Vessantra Jataka. It is also possible that the extracts form the commentary in prose and their explanations are interpolations made in subsequent times’ But the indebtedness of the author of the present work to the pali Commentary, and the linguistic evidence prove beyond all doubt that the pali extracts from the prose commentary and the explanations on them were as old as the rest of the book.
70 INTRODUCTION
Many a Sinhalese author has been quite contented with
Producing Various literary works The Authorship and without revealing his or ter identity
Date of the In consequence, we have to depend Vesture –Da – sanne largely on internal evidence and, In its absence, upon indirect external evidence. We do not know, for instance, who the authors of Sasa – Da – Vata or of Muvadev – Da -vata were. The authorship of the Hamsa – sandesaya is very much open to controversy’ Hardly anything is known of the authors of most of the sannes and Gatapadasa of pali Canonical as well as post – canonical works, and also of various Sinhalese literary works. I have not come across in any Manuscript I have seen, any mention of the authorship of the Vesture – Da – Sanne, but, on detailed examination, one notices that this work, whilst containing a stratum of old language which may date back to the early polonnaruva or even the Anuradhapura times, is less Sanskritic than the Abhidharmaratha – Sangraha – Sannaya, Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya and other similar works belonging to the polonnaruva period. There is every possibility of the present work being older than the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya. Hence the Vesture – Da – Sannaya may be dated somewhere about the 12the century A. D.
There has been a Wealth of exegetical literature in Singhalese on the Buddhist Canonical works, the The exegetical earliest and the most important of Literature in such works being the helatura1 or the Sinhalese Sinhalese commentaries written by Mahinda’ They gradually fell in to disuse on account of labours of the Commentator Buddhaghaosa and finally disappeared. Although there is room to think that they existed up to about the Dambadeniya times (13th century), actual references 2 to them, and quotations 3 form them, however
1. a long account of the helatuva appears in the “ Early History Buddhism in Ceylon,” by E. W . Adilaram. 1946’
2. Page 51 – line 21, 103-12, 24, 105- 26, 112-27, 115-29, 121-3, 31, 132 -10.
3. 79-8, 136 -16, 148 – 16, 149-13. For a praise Worthy attempt at explainiug the extracts said to have been cited form the Helatuva and for reconstruction the original readings, see the Introduction to the Majjhima Nikaya, Vol. 1 (vidyalaikara Tripitaka series) 1946. by Y. Prajiarama thera.
INTRODUCTION 71
Corrupt they be, are found at the latest, in the Dhampiya Atuva –Gatapadaya, an exegetical work on the Pali Dhammapadatthakatha , said to have been written by King Kassapa V (10th century ).
During the reign of King Buddhadasa (5th century A. D . ) monk called Dhammakathi1 is said to have rendered into Sinhalese the Buddhist Suttas belonging to the Three Pitakas. All theose Works too have been lost.
In subsequent times various works of an exegetical character were produced nikaya – sangrahava 2, a Sinhalese work belonging to the 14th century, says in summing up the literary activity from the time of Buddhaghosa until the time of its composition :- “Between the time of Buddhaghosa, the Great Commentator who lived during the reign of King Mahanama mentioned above, and the present, Venerable teachers like the Maha – theras Buddhadatt, Dharmapala, Jotipala, Ksema,Dharmasri, Nanda, Ananda, Anuruddha, Upatisya, Buddharaksita and Maudgalyayana, And also the Great Elders such as Sangharaja Sariputra, as sharp in intellect as a vajra and capable of committing to memory thousands of works (or Granthas) on but a single hearing, and others like Sangharaksita, Sumangala, Vagisvara, Dharamakirti, Nagasena, Ananda, Vedeha, Buddhapriya and Anvamadarsi, illumined the teachings of the Buddha by producing various sub – commentaries, commentaries, and various other religious treatises facilitating the study of the commentaries, Sanna, Gatapada, Pitapot, etc.
In like manner Theras such as Sloka – siddharatha, Sahitya – Vilgammula, Anuruddha, Dipankara, Mayurapada and Dharmasena, and lay scholars like Surapada, Dharmakirtipada, Dhiranagapala, Rajamurari, Kavirajasekhara, Guruludami, Agamacakravarti, Parakramapandita and Agra – pandita produced various religious treatises, para-
1. See cula Vaman, Ch XXXVII, 175, and Catalogue of the Sinhalese Manuscripts in the British Museum by D. M. De Z. Wickremasinghe’ 1900, Introduction. 2. Edited by Simon de Silva, A. M. gunsekara and W. F. Gunawardhana, 1922, pp. 22- 23. See Sinhalese Introduction to the present work, p. 5. 72 INTRODUCTION
Phrases and glossaries discussing meanings and interpretations of great interest, and various other works of the exegetical character.
Men of learning, up to this day, have drawn upon those early exegetical works and have produced various explanatory works to suit their times and have thus shed luster on the teaching of the Buddha.”
Although most of the above works have disappeared in course of time, they have often been referred to or have been quoted from
The extant exegetical literature in Sinhalese consists mainly of the Gatapada, pita – pota and Sanna. Gatapda, Sanna Among the Gatapada or Glossarial And piga – pot or Glossarial works, the three most important that have come down to us are: (1) the Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya 1 written during the 10th century ; (2) the jataka – atuva – Gatapaday 2 ; and (3) the Bodhi – Vamasa – gatapadaya 3, the last two of which are said to date back to the Polonnaruva times, i.e., about the 12th century A. D. Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya is a glossarial commentary on the Pali Dhammapadatthakatha. Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya too is a similar work on the Pali Jatakatthakatha. Maha Bodhi – Vamsa – Gatapadaya explains the difficulties in the Pali Maha – Bodhi – Vamsa.
Sri Rahula Sangharaja, in his Pancilka – pradipaya, refers to and sometimes quotes from the follwing Gatapada Which evidently existed during his time (i.e., 15th century ) :- Khandahala Jataka Gatapadaya a Glossary of the Khandahala jataka, (p. 114) ; Umam – da – Gatapadaya, a Glossary for the Ummagga jataka, (p. 114); Saunaka – jataka – Gatapadaya, a Glossary for the Sonaka Jataka, (p. 115_ ; Ruvan – Sutra – Aruva – Gatapadaya, a Glossary for the commentary of the Ratana Sutta, (p. 115); Demala –
1. Edited by Sir D. B. Jayatilaka, 1934, For an account of this book see J. R. A. S. (Ceylon Branch) XXXII, No. 86, 1933, pp. 359-971
2. Edited by Sir D. B. Jayatilaka, 1943. For an account of this work see J. R. A. S. (Ceylon Branch) XXXVI, No. 97, 1944, pp. 220- 223.
3. Ed. Sri Dharmarama
INRODUCTION 73
Jataka – Gatapadaya, a Tamil Glossary for the Pali jatakas, (pp. 114, 115) ; Rupasiddhai – Gatapadaya, a Glossary for the Pali Grammar Maha – Rupa – Siddhi, (pp. 67, 115) and Vinaya – Gatapadaya, a Glossary for the Vinaya, (p. 116)
There seem to have existed three old Gatapada1 in Sinhalese for the Pali commentary on Vinaya, viz., Maha Ganthipada, Majjhima – Ganthipada and cula – Ganthipada, and also another Ganthipada in Pali for the same.
Sariputta Maha - Thera says2 towards the beginning of his Sarattha – dipani, the sub – commentary on Vinaya, that whenever he refers to the Maha – Ganthipada or the Majjahima – Ganthipada or the Cula – Ganthipada, the reference is always to “ the glossarial works in Sinhalese,” and that when he refers simply to the Ganthipada the reference is invariably to “the glossarial work in pali.”
The author of the Sarattha – dipani, in explaining the circumstances that led him to undertake the writing of that sub – commentary, says, at the very commencement of his work, that the exegetical works on Vinaya written by the scholars of early times cannot be understood by the bhikkhus everywhere because they have been written in sinhalese. Certain writers who have begun with giving their explanations in Pali have, in due course, mixed up that language with other languages presumably including Sinhalese. There is also a mass of worthless (exegetical) literature which only tends to make obscure even the things that can be easily understood. Hence, as the people of different countries cannot grasp the sense (of vinaya) on account of the defective nature of the extant
1. Vinayattakathaya Sihalabhasaya yeva Maha – Ganthipada. Majjhima Ganthipada’ Cula – ganthipada numani tini ganthipadani ahesum. Magadha Bhusaya. Pi ekameva ganthipadamuasi, Vimati – Vinodani – Ed. B. dhammadharatissa Thera. 1935’ (Introduction p.iv)’
“Tayo ganthipada cula – Maha- Majjhima sannita
Lankadipa – nivashiti – thereheva pura kata.”
Sasana – Vamsa – Dipa – Ed Vimlasara Thero , 2473 B. E.. p. 130 ver. 1211.
2. “Sabbattha kenaciti vutte Vajirabuddhi – tikakarenati gahetabbam. Mahaganthipade ti Majjhima – Gauthipade’ ti va Cula – Ganthiparloi’ti va vutte sinhala – ganthipadesuti gahetabbam’ Kevalam ganthipade’ti vntte Magadhabhasaya likhite gauthipade’ti gahetabbam’ sarattha’ Dipani – Ed. Bihalpola Devarakkhita thera. 1914 . p. 7. 74 INTRODUCTION
exegetical literature, the author says that he will discard the language in which the explanations had so far been couched (viz., Sinhalese) and that he will extract what is best in those Sinhalese works and give his explanation clearly (in Pali).1
The extract referred to above shows that a wealth of Glossaries and other exegetical. Works on Vinaya existed in Sinhalese at the time of composition of the Sarattha – Dipani – Tika (12th century A.D.)
Two extracts said to have been quoted from an old Kankhavitarani – Gatapadaya, a Glossarial work on pali Kankhavitarani, occur in the Kudusika – Sanne.2
The two Gatapada mentioned in the following extract form Kankhavitarani – pita – pota 3 may refer either to two glossarial works – one in pali, and one in Sinhalese – written for the Kankhavitarani, or to two Gatapada for Vinaya :- “ Nama – matta – vasena va,. nama – matra – vasayen ho’; ‘nama matra – vasenuti patho; nama – gotta – vasenati likhanti’ yanu gatapadayi’ Helu gatapadayehi da
1. vinayatthakathayaham linn. Sarattadipanim Karissami suvinneyyam paripunnamanakulam Poranehi katam yata linatthasee pakasanam Na tam sabbattha bhikkunam attham sadheti sabbaso Duvinneyya sahavaya sinhalaya niruttiya Gauthipadesu nekesu likhitam kinei ketthaci Magdhikaya bhasaya arabhitvapi kenaci Bhasantarehi sammissam likhitam kincideva ca Asara’ ganthabharo’ pi tattheva bahu dissati Akulam ca katam yatta suvinneyyampi atthato Tato apparipunnena tadisenetta sabbasa Kathamattham vijananti nandesanivasino Bhasantaram tato hitva sarmadaya sabbaso Nnakulam karissami paripunna. Vinicchayam” - Sarattha ‘ Dipani (beginning). 2. Sanna sahit Kudu - Sika – Ed. Harumalgoda Sri Sumangala. 1928. p. 129, verse 399: “ ‘ Phutikammam nama samakam va atirekam va tadaggha nakamz e vajana mila ho vada dima ho phati karam nami’ Me masi – puru a rangahahata demi yi kala guru – badu veyi nobejiya – yutu ‘ sangini pirimajini biivini, me saji himiyanata vasegini ganinata demi vi kala guru hidi hotuju depevata bejeyi vasegini ganiti vati yi da vaki seyini karati dosa nata ayapa vata bejeyi gata nolabeyi’ Me masi – putu vasegini ganinata sangahata demi yi ki dosa nati’ Palami sangihi peremiji kiyayi kala guru – badi veyi yanu kankhavitarani – Gatapadayi.”
“Samiko apaloketva yi barin himiyana kiyehi lati dos nati, e – karunehi bikisangini ayati vatuyehi lati dos nati,” yanu Kankhavitarani – Gatapadayi ibid. p. 144 verse 365.
2. Ed. Kalukondayawe Pannasekhara Thera, 1936’
INTRODUCTION 75
‘nama – mattam’ yi gena me – nam avatayi araha gathu” (p. 39.)
The Gatapadaya mentioned in :
Apatti ca, vyatikramayen avan avat namudu veyi Me – ma kiha Gatapadayehi “vitikkamenapannapatti namam tassa namam,” also from Kankha Vitarani Pitapota (p. 40), may be a glossarial work either for the Pali Kankha Vitarani or for another commentary on Vinaya’
The work referred to as the Atuva- Gatapadaya in : Dutthanca kilesa – sandusitam – ragadi kilesin kiliti vinuyi dusta namudu veyi’ Thulanca, asukhumam ampunan ti vuttam hoti – mahat varadak heyin thula namudu veyi Prajnavage siyum – bavak visada – bavak ehi nati heyin asukhuma anipuna namulu veyi yanu Atuva Gatapadayi (Kankha – Vitarani – Pitapota, p. 26) may be either a Glossarial work on Kankha – Vitarani which is itself a commentary on the Patimokkha, or it may be a glossarial work on a Vinaya commentary such as is referred to by “ Vinaya – Atuva – Gatapada- Vivaranaya” on page 32 of the Kankha – Vitarani – Pitapota’
Although the glossarial works referred to above are Known as Gatapada (= Pali : ganthi- Difference between pada), it is sometimes difficult to Gatapada and sanna differentiate between the Gatapada, Sanna and Pitapot’ The author of The Visuddhi – Marga – Sanne1 says: “Yam padayak’huge arthaya durvijneya vi – nam he Ganthi – pada nami ‘ Yamak huge abhipraya durvijneya – da he Artha - pada nami,” i.e., That word or expression, of which the meaning cannot be understood easily, is called a Ganthipada. That word or expression, of which the sense or the idea sought to be conveyed, is difficult of comprehension, is called an Arthapada.” Thus although ‘Ganthipada’ originally meant only those expressions or portions of a text, the meanings of which were obscure, in course of time those explanatory works which dealt with such difficulty extracts or collections of them were themselves known in pali as Ganthipada, and in Sinhalese as Gatapada.
1. Visuddhi – Margaya, Vol. V. Ed. – M. Dharmaratna, 1917, p. 25.
76 INTRODUCTION
Those works that explain any text, word by word or which are verbal paraphrases, are called sanna. Sometimes, possibly through confusion, a Gatapadaya is called sanne, as has been done at the end of the Dhampiya Atuva – Gatapadaya: Debisevaja Abha – Salamevan Kasub maha – rajahu dahampiya atuvavata kala sanyayi, i.e., ( This is) the Sanne of the commentary on the Dhammapada, Written by the Great King Abha – Salamevn Kasub, the on of the twice anointed Queen.”
Pandit Kalukondayawew Pannasekhara Therea, in the Introduction to his Edition of the Pita – pot Kankhavitaram – Pita – Pota,1 says: “ Although it seems to be appro- priate to use the term Pita – pota for any Work translated from (Pali or Sanskrit or such other) parent language, the present book (viz., the Kankhavitarani – Pitapota) seems to be hardly different from a Gatapadaya or a glossarial work. I have not seen or even heard of any other Pitapota besides the present text and the Sili – Pitipata connected with the Namarupa – Samasaya. The Sili – Pitapata is a word for word paraphrase of the Namarupa – Samasaya. Hence the term “ Pitapata” seems to have been used without any distinaction even for a Sanne. Why the present work has been called a ‘Pitapata’ needs further investigation.”
It should be noted that in accordance with the above statement of Pannasekhara Thera, a Sanne could aslso be called a Pitapata.
Pandit Kodagoda Nanalok Thera, Principal of the Vidyacandra Pirivena, Ahangama, thinks that the term “ pita – pota” admits of a different explanation. He says2 “ The word pita which is an inhearited from of Sk. Prstha, has acquired in Sinhalese the values ‘ other, different, foreign , etc.’ a in piata – rata (another land, foreign country), pita – sakvala (antother world – systems, ) etc. In Singhalese usage pita – pata is a copy made of an original
1. Edition 1936 – Introduction. See Sinhalese Introduction to the present work . p. 54: 2. In a personal letter to me. INTRODUCTION 77
document, and pitapat - kirima is ‘copying or wirting in a different sheet of paper , or on a different leaf what is found in the original document.’ 1 But Pitapata meaning ‘ a copy’ should not be confused with pita – pota, which refers an ancienet practice among the scribes who wrote Ola Manuscripts. Sometimes a Glossary or Paraphrase or other explanatory notes, intended to facilitate the study of a particular text, were added to it at the end, or immediately after. it, so that both the text and the notes happened to attached or bound together. Thus the pota or the work which happened to be immediately outside the body of the main text was called a pita – pota.” Pandit Nanaloka says further that he has seen several pita – pot of this description bound together with them main works.
Thus in accordance with the statements of both Pandit Pannasekhara and Pandit Nandaloka, nothing prevents a pita – Pota from being a Gatapadaya or a Sanne or any other work of an explanatory character.
Although pita – pota (literally ‘an extraneous work,) and pita – pota (copy) were different in origin, in course of time pita – pota itself was known also as a pita – pota, or even as a piti – pata. Thus the three terms pita – pota, pita – pata and piti pata seem to have been used indiscriminately , and there seems to have been large number of such works as Kankha – Vitarani – Pitapota, Namarupa – Samasaya pilibanda Sili – Pitapata, Rupasiddhi – Pitapata, and Kasayinpitipat.2
The name Sili – Pitapata calls for some explanation. That work may have been known by that name because it explains, in brief, the teachings of the Namarupa parichedaya of Anuruddha Therea.3 “Sili” or better “Sili” may be a Taddhita or a derivative form sulu meaning “small” Thus “Sili – pitapata” may mean a “small hand – book” or “ short notes.” The author of the
1. It may also mean “translating” or “making a copy of an original, or giving a version of it, in a different . languagbe.
2. See Pancika – Pradipaya. P. 115.
3. I am thankful to Rev. Matara Indasara for having suggested this meaning to me.
78 INRODUCTION
Wisuddhi – Marga – Sannaya1 also mentions in his work a Sili – Sannaya Which seems to be entirely different from the Sili – pitapata referred to above.
“mandalam karontass, (kamsa – bhajanadiyehi) vata rekha helannahuge; sat’hi madili helanuva yanu Sili sannayi” p. 369) ; Sili – sanyayehi vanahi yam yam Kasinalambanayeka . . .” (p. 401 – wrongly numbered 311 for the second time)’
All the Sanna said to have been written for the sutra Pitaka by a monk called Dhamma- Sanna or Sanne kathi during the reing of King Or sanya Buddhadasa have disappeared com- Pletely. Even among the later Sanna, it is very difficult to state definitely which of them back to the Anuradhapura period. A few of the old Sanna extant now belong to the Polonnaruva period (12th entury) ] but most of them seem to have been written during the Dambadeniya times (13th century) or there bouts. Even after the 13th century quite a large number of Sanna were produced , and they ar being written even today.
The Abhidharmaratha–Sangraha–Sannauya, written by sangharaja Sariputra to facilitate the study of the pali Abhidhammattha – sangaha of Anuruddha Thera, is an importent Sanne quite representative of the mixed Sankrit yle typical of the polonnaruva period.
Several Sanna which were possibly older than the Abhidharmaratha – Sangraha – Sannaya. have been referred in various literary works. But those Sanna have not come down to us’ References to and quotations from a vinaya – Sannaya are made in the kudusika – Sannaya2 and Kanikha – Vitarani – Pitapota.3 To cite a few passages from it :- “ Nati vat la vatu saldandudu dabaridu andun naliju noma vati yet yanu Vinaya Sanyayi” (Kudu – Sika-
1. Ed – K Dhammaratana Thera , Vol. 11, 1929, p. 369, p. 401 2. Ed – Herumalgoda Sri sumangala Tera , 1928; verses 9 (p. 6); 40, 56 (p. 24) ; 62 , 90 (p. 36) ; 94, 100 (p. 40); 121, 194, 241 (pp. 93 – 94) ; 245 (twice), 266, 270, 274, 276, 326, 342 (p. 130), 348 (p. 134), 436 (p. 189) 3. Ed. – K. PannaseKhara Thera, 1936: pp. 49, 90, 106, 127, INTRODUCTION 79
Sannaya, p. 74. ver. 194); “Majabinde vilitudu kota bandut noma vati Ek vilitulu banin mahina puna puna sisira bandut vanahi vati yanu Vinaya – Sanyayi” (ibid. p. 93, ver. 241) ; “ Hindina adi kalahot sathanin ek thanek binda giya veyi yu tani yanu Vinaya – Sanyayi ( Kankhavitarani – Pitapota. P. 49); “ Vasala ikmimen ma paciti veyi yeti Vasal ano ikama digin gehi hindut dos natayi yet yana me Vinaya – Sannayehi kiva – da baliya yutu” (ibid’: p. 90)
The Kudu–Sika–Sannaya, in number of places, refers to and quotes form an Atuva – Sanyaya. The Kankha vitarani – Pitapota (p. 65) too, in explaining a passage which it cites from the vajirabuddhi–Tika, says :- “Atuva – Sanyayehi valuva katabam ki bavin” (i.e.,as “vatvava katabbam” has been stated in the Atuva – Sanyaya). On examining the references made to the Atuva–Sanyaya, I am inclined to think that the work spoken of may be a Vinaya–Atuva–Sannaya or an old Sanne of the Commentary on Vinaya.
The kudu – sika – Sannaya, written somewhere towards the close of the Dambadeniya period2 refers, in number of instances,3 to a Purana Kudusika–Sannaya or an older Sanne of the Pali Khudda – Sikkha’ Judging by linguistic evidence, one cannot but conclude that the work is as old as the Anuradhapura times, (i.e. prior to the 11th century). A few extracts will demonstrate this :- “Govanasimatiye ekipaki vasa madili atihoti hiki parali atihoti paralimatyehi eki – deni amihoti nam nami noveyi yanu mehi Sanyayi” (Kudusika – Sanne p. 61 ver. 152) ; “Bhattagge ca, but agehi – ju veherehi divayi pirivesana tanhi ev bojunu – halhiev yanu mehi Sanyayi” (ibid .p. 76, ver. 198) ; “ Bhisihi sanata anujati pativana ki eva pamana ikita – hoti kottakanvayi nikata nalabeyi yam kavari eva pamanihima karani yanu mehi Sanyayi” (ibid. p. 78, ver. 201.) Thus
1. verses: 115 (p. 45) , 140, 245, 247, 307, 341.
2. The Kudusika – Sannaya contains a few quotations (41 p. 18, 271, 245 p. 95) from the Vanavinisa – Sanyaya called also Nisandeha, and said to have ben written by King Parakramabahu II. Hence the Kudusika – Sannaya cannot be older than Vanavinisa – Sanyaya.
3. Verses : 56 (p. 24) 84, 106, 141, 152, 189, (p. 73) , 198, (p. 76), 201; (p. 78), 281, 324,
80 INTRODUCTION
two Sannes seem to have been written in Sinhalese for the Pali Khudda – Sikkha – an older Sanne from which only some quotations have been preserved to us, and a later sanne (which has recently been edited and published by Harumalgoda Sri Sumangala Thera).
An old sanne may have been written for the Mula – Sikkha as well. Matara Sirisaddhammacariya Nanindasabha Thera who wrote a New Sanne1 for the Mula–Sikkha states in the Introduction to his work that there. is an old Sanne for the Mula–Sikkha, and that as its language is very old and is difficult to be understood; he is writing a New Sanne. To give the reader an idea of the language found in the Old Sanne, Thera Nanindasabha cites a few specimens from it. One finds that all the passages quoted are from the Sikha – Valanda. As the subject–matter dealt with in this work is much the same as that of mula sikkha, it is quite likely that the Old Sanne of Mula – Sikkha referred to by Nanindasabha Thera is none other than the Sikha – Valanda.
Four extracts2 said to have been quoted from Vijam vatara–Sannaya or vijam–Avatara–Sannaya, an Old Sanne of Pali Abhidhammavatara by Buddhadatta Thera , are found in the Visuddhimarga – Sannaya of Parakramabahu II. The following is a specimen :- Aghata yanu jana tumahata vajina ev tuma janahata bajana ev jana janahata – ma vadana ev aga yanu Vijam – Avatura – Sannayi” (Visuddhi – Margaya, Ed. M. Dharmaratna, Vol. V 1917, p. 189).
An older Sanne of Visuddhi – Magga, called Sili – Sannaya is mentioned several times3 in the Visuddhi – Maraga sannaya of Parakramabahu II . The follwing quotation form the Sili – Sannaya will give the reader an idea of the nature of the work:- Drstiya eki – eki dharmayanudu nitya–ya sukha–yayi viparyasa grahanava vatama ditthivipiyutuva kumata no – upaddi yat ; ‘balalu bavin ditthi-
1. By Matara Sirisaddhammacariya Sannidasabha Thera, 1887.
2. Visuddhi – Maragaya . Ed. – M. Dharmaratna, V. 1917, pp. 189 (in two places) ,190, 197.
3. Ed. – Kamburupitiye Dhammaratna thera, II, 1929, p. 369; p. 401,
Ed.- M. Dharmaratna , V. 1917, p. 199.
INTRODUCTION 81
-bala meva niyata visin pat kap gati vana bavin man – bala meva arahat – maga rju bavin eseyin de–jene–ju bala vu bavin ek sita upadiya yet yanu siti Sannayi.” (part V, p. 199).
Of all Sanna referred to in the Visuddhi–Marga–Sannaya of Parakramabahu II the most important one seems to be a still older Sanne of the Visuddhimagga itself. One might wonder why Parakramabahu should have considered it necessary to write a fresh Sanne for the Visuddhimagga when there was already a large Sanne for it. The Sanne of Parakramabahu quotes profusely from the oder Sanne, and say very often1 after stating a certain view on some subject: “This is the idea sought to be conveyed by the Tika. But as for the Old Sanne, the view expressed is such and such.” Thus while the Sanne of Parakramabahu and the Pali Tika share the same views, both of them differ nearly always form the views expressed by the Older Sanne.
Pandit Paravahara Vajiranana Thera who edited the First Part of the Visuddhimaraga–Sannaya says in his Introduction (p. ii) to the work :- “Form the kecivada mentioned in both the Visuddhimagga – Tika and in the Visuddhimaraga – Sannaya ( of Parakramabahu II) it becomes quite clear that there was an explanatory work in Sinhalese on the Visuddhimagga, much older than the Visuddhimagga Tika, and that it had almost disappeared in course of time, as it had failed to convey the real Significance (of the original text) because it had been renderad impure by having absorbed into itself the views of the Abhayagiri and the Jatavana sects.”
Visuddhimagga was tower of strength for the Maha vihara sect. In propounding the views embodied in the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa sometimes disagrees with or criticizes the views held by certain Schools or Scholars. When he states: “Some hold such and such a view,” or “Some have said thus,” it is not always easy to ascertain
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬1. Visuddhi – Margaya. Ed. – M. Dharamratna, Vol. II, 1895, pp. 721, 752, 768, 840, 982; Vol. IV, 1909, p. 221; Vol. V, 1917, pp. 55, 61, 154 , 294; Vol. Vi, 1926, p. 312.
82 INTRODUCTION
Whom he referred to by some. Besides the assistance given by the Visuddhimagga Tika in the identification of the different Schools and Scholars referred to, the Visuddhi maraga–Sannaya too furnishes a certain amount of valuable material. Thus :- “Keci pana, Abhayagirivasso vanahi 1” i.e., “As for the Abhayagirivasins” (Visuddhimaragaya, Ed. M. Dharamratna, II, p. 970)’ “keci Abhayagirivasihu” (ibid. IV, p. 374); “Keci yi idin Abhayagiri vasihu abhipreta vu nam,” i.e., “ If by some the abhagirivasins. Were intended” (IV, p. 375); Keci yannen Mahasarighikayan kerehi samahara acryavaruyi. Ovun aturen Shudhammacrya paksayehi attavun mese kiyat,” i.e., Some refers to certain teachers among the Maha sanghikas. Among them too the followers of the teacher Sudhamma state as follows :- (V, p. 56)’ “ Apare, Abhayagirivasso” (IV, p. 57); -Te, e. Sudhamma Abhayagiri–vasi dedena” (ibid.); “Ekacce yanu Upatisya sthavirayan sandaha kihu. Ovun visin tamange Vimukti margayehi ese2 kiyanaladi, ,” i.e., Ekacce has been said with reference to Upatissa Thera. He has stated in that manner in his Vimuttimagga,” (II, p. 264); “ Acariyanam adhippayo, Revatacaryadinge abhiprayayi.” That is the view held by the Teacher Revata and others. (VI, p. 149).
The numerous quotations found in the Visuddhimaraga – Sannaya of Parakramabahu II form the older Sanne now lost, will show the diverse nature of the views. Held by different Buddhist Schools on matters of doctrine. To enable the student to form an opinion of the language and style of the Older Sanne of the Visuddhimagga, a few quotations from it may be given :- Sanyayehi ‘kilesi–mutu sahavineni eki - sahavi atiyahayi kihu”” (II, p. 386); “Tam vacam apahaya, mahana goyuma anatirehi uturu – minisi dhami - neniti yana tepli topayayi yanu Sanyayi.” (IV, p. 350).
For those who are interested in making a more detailed study of the Older Sanne, the following references to it
1. “Keciti Uttaraviharavasike sandhayaha,” Visuddhimagga Tika. Ed. – Morontuduve Dhammananda Thera, 1928, I, p. 256.
2’ “Ekacce ‘ ti Upatissattheram sandhayaha. Tena hi Vimuttimagge tatha vuttam.” (ibid. p. 103).
INTRODUCTION 83
Made in the sanne of parakramabahu II will prove helpful : - Vol I (Ed. P. Vajiranana Thera, 1927) pp. 23, 26, 27, 105 (twice), 107, 132; Vol. II (Ed. K. Dhammaratna Thera, 1929) 226, 263, 271, 272, 279, 320, 338, 355, 359, 367, 381, 386, 390, 416, 422, 456, 465, 468, 474, 482, 492; Vol. II (Ed. M. Dharamratna, 1985) 721 (twice), 728, 751, 752, 758, (twice), 765, 766, 768 (twice), 769, 791, 797, (twice), 840, 841, 844, 918, 922, 924, 978, 981, 982, 983, 987, 1000, 1035, (twice), 1040, 1050, 1051, 1056; Vol. III (Ed. M. Dharmaratna, 1909) 13, 24, 35, 202, 205, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227 (twice), 228, 253, 254, 259, 283 (twice), 291, 292, 300 – 301, 304 (twice), 321, 322, 324, 325 (twice), 325 – 326, 347, 347 – 348, 350 (thrice); 351 (twice), 352 (twice), 372, 372 – 373, 373, 374 – 375, 378 (twice); Vol. V (Ed. M. Dharmaratna, 1917), 4, 5 (four times), 18 (twice), 19, 24, 39, 52 (twice), 55, 57, 60, 61 (thrice), 67, 70, 135, 137, 145, 150, 151, 154, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, (twice), 197 (twice), 198 (twice), 199, 200, 201 (thrice), 233 (thrice), 234 (thrice), 235, 238, 255, 258, 274, 276, 277, 293, 294 (twice), 298; Vol. VI (Ed. Galle Sumanasara Thera, 1926), 15 (thrice), 18 , 20, 21, 23, 25 – 26, 26, 26 – 27, 27, 28 (four times), 29 (thrice), 30 (twice), 31, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, (twice), 53, 112, 113, 115, 117, 119, 125 (twice), 128, 128 – 129, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 138 (four times), 139, 140 (twice), 143, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 156, 163 (twice), 166, 167, 172 (twice) , 174 (twice), 176, 281, 290, 291, 294, 300, 301, 303, 305, 309, 312; Vol. VII (Ed. Vabod Sangharatana Thera, 1946), 34 (Sanya tikavehi), 56, 65, 69, 213, 233 ; Vol. VIII (Ed. Vaboda, Sangharatna Thera, 1948), 13, 88, 113, 117, 129, 160, 162, 163, 204, 229.
The Visuddhimarga–Sanne of Parakramabahu II contains also quotations form various Sanskrt Buddhist works like the Abhidharama – Kosaya, Arya–Satyavataraya, Jneyasampatti–Tikava, and its Bhasya. Sometimes the author cites extracts form various works without mentioning either the names of those works or of their authors. Occasionally, quotations are given with the names of their authors like Jotipala Mahasvamin, Dighanagapada, Nagabodhi Sthavira and Rahulapada. The Visuddhi-
84 INTRODUCTION
Maraga–Sanne thus shows the large extent of the Buddhist literature in Sanskrit which was accessible to its author during the 13th century. The quotations made form various grammatical works also help us to ascertain the systems of pali and Sanskrit Grammar in vogue in Ceylon during that time.
The Vana – Vinisa–Sannaya, also ascribed to King Parakramabahu II, Seems to be older than his Visuddhi maraga–Sannaya. Towards the commencement of the Visuddhimarga–Sannaya 1 the author says: “Metekin samjnadyartha – pancakaya Sarikepayen vyakhyataya. Vistararthin visin Vanavinisata li Nissandeha nam Sanyaya bala datayulu,” i.e., “The five requirements expected of a book have thus been outlined. Those who are desirous of learning further details should read the Vana – Vinisa – Sanne called also Nissandeha.” Although that work has perished, books like Kudu – Sika – Sannaya 2 and Kankha vitarani – Pitapota 3 contain a number of quotations from it.
Kankhavitarani–Pitapota refers on page 97 to an Old Karikhavitarani – Sanyaya. It also gives a quotation on page 106 form that Sanne :- “Shihala – dipe pada – ganhanako, sihala – duipayehi pas – naliyak diya ganna alalaya ; pada nam Magadha – ratahi lasuyeni lahasu mat ganiyi’ yanu Kankhavitarani – Sannayi.” The work referred to as the “Sinhalese Kankhavitarani” in the Kankhavitarani Pitapota :- “Suci, panhindaya yanu Helu, Kankha vitarani – yi” (p. 107) may, in all probability, be the Kankha – Vitarani – Sanyaya itself. As this old Sanyaya had, in course of time, disappeared, a New Sanne for the Kankha – Vitarani, called Kanikha – Vitarani – Visituru – Sannaya or Sandehaghatim was written by a Thera called M. Dhammadhara.
The Sanna written for the Old Sinhalese works like Siyabas 0 Lakara sasa – da – vata, muvadevu – da vata, KavSilu – mina and the Grammar Sidat – Sangarava are also considered old Sanna. An account of the Sanna on
1. Ed.- p. Vajiranana thera, Vol. I, 1927, p. 3. 2. Verses: 41 (p. 18), 271, 245, (p. 95)’ 3. page 83, 131. 4. part I, printed at Marusamodaya Press, Ratmalana, 1912. INTRODUCTION 85
Jatakas, like the Ata–Da–Sannaya (p. 101), Vesatur – DA – Sannaya (p. 104) and Jataka – Gatha – Sannaya (p. 101) appears elsewhere in this Introduction. There are numerous Sanna of pali Suttas that go back to the Dambadeniya times (i.e., 13th century ) or there abouts. e.g. Aggikkhandhopama Sutra sanne,1 Angulimala sutra sanne,2 Acchariyabbhula Sutra Sanne,3 Atthipunja Sutra Sanne,4 Atanatiya Sutra Sanne,5 Alavaka Sutra Sanne,6 Kaladana Sutra sanne,7 Cakravarti – Sinhanda Sutra sanne,8 Cattarodaka – bhayupama - Sutra sanne,9 Cundovada Sutra sanne,10 Culapunnama Sutra sanne,11 Chachakka Sutra sanne,12 Dhajagga Sutra sanne,13 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutra sanne,14 Potaliya Sutra sanne,15 Brahmayu Sutra sanne,16 Mahanama Sutra sanne,17 Mahamangala Sutra sanne,18 Mahasamaya Sutra sanne,19 1. Albion press, kandy , 1900. 2. Saddharma – prakasa press, Alutgama, 1915 3. Jinalankara press, Colombo, 1897 4. Kandy, 1897 5. Vidya – darpana press, Randombe, 1922 6. Sudarsana press, Colombo, 1910 7. Vidyasagara press, 1895 8. Grantha – prakusa press, Colombo, 1895 9. Sanda kirana press, Colombo, 1911 10. Grantha – Prakusa press, Colombo , 1897 11. Granta prakasa press, 1893 12. Pubi. D. C. Edirisuriya, 1896 13. Subhadraloka Press, Colombo, 1899 14. Buddhist Press, Colombo, 1890 15. Lankabhivrddhidayaka press, Negombo, 1901 16. Published by D. P. Silva Appuhamy, Sastradhara press 17. Publish d by . J. Thomas, Allis, Jinalankara press, Colomb 2455 B. E. 18. Lnkabhinava, Visruta press, 1894 19. published by W. Siyaderis, 1891 86 INTRODUCTION Mahasudarsana Sutra Sanne,1 Ratthapala Sutra Sanne,2 Vammika Sutra Sanne,3 Venagapura Sutra Sanne,4 Veranja Sutra Sanne,5 Vyahrapadya Sutra Sanne,6 Saptasuryodgamana Sutra Sanne,7 Saptaryadhana Sutra Sanne,8 Sela Sutra Sanne,9 Hatthaloka Sutra Sanne,10
The Dhammapada – Purana – Sannaya and the Sutra – Nipata – Sannaya may be as old as the above Sanna. The Jinacarita – Sannaya may be still older. The Maha – Rupa - Siddhi – Sannaya 11 written by an unknown author, on the Pali Grammar Maha – Rupasiddhi of Coliya Buddhappiya thera, is also an important old Sanne, althouth its date cannot be determined precisely. Another, later, Sanne called Sandeha – Vighatini12 was also written for the Maha – Rupasiddhi, which however does not go beyond the Chapter on Karaka. The explanatory works written for the Pali Grammar Balavatara, which is very popular in Ceylin are :-
1. Gadaladeni – Sannaya13 written during the Gampola period, i.e., about the 14th century.
2. Okandapola – Sannaya 4 or Liyana – Sannaya or Padasiddhi – Sannaya written by a monk called Dhammajoti of Okandapola Vihara.
1. Jinalankara Press, Colombo, 1897 2. Ed. G. Dhammakkhandha. 1899 3. Samayavardhana press, 1923 4. Suearitodaya press, 1899 5. Vidyasagara Press, Brendiyawatte, 1893 6. Published by D. M. de Zoysa Appuhamy, 1900 7. Sevyasri Press, Maradana, 1922 8. Granthaprakasa Press, 1896 9. Vidyasagara press, 2439 B. E. 10. Vidyusagara Press, 1907 11. Ed. – Dehigaspe Pannasara Thera, Homagama , 1927 12. Ed. – Baddegama Kirti Sri Dhammaratana Thera, Weligama, 1936. 13. Ee. – Magallugoda Pannatissa Thera, Weligama, 1930. 14. Ed. – Baddegama Kirti Sri Dhammaratana Thera, Weligama, 1927. 87 INTRODUCTION
3. Balana – Sannaya1 explaining the Balavatara Verbatim.
4. Balavatara – Sutra – Sangrahava1 explaining in a simplified form the grammatical aphorisms of Balavatara and written by a monk called Sitinamaluve Dhammajoti, a pupil of Valivita Saranankara Sangharaja, and
5. Suganthisara2 written by an unknown author in order to facilitate the understanding of the more difficult problems of Balavatara.
The Pada – Sadhana – Sanyaya3 of thera Vanaratana Ananada, written as an aid to the study of the Pali Grammar Moggallana Vyakarana, is a Sanne of the Moggallayana Saddattha – Ratnakara or the Pada – Sandhana of Piyadassi Thera, an immediate pupil of Moggallana himself. Virita – Sannaya 4 is another important work explaining the vittis for the Sutras of Moggalana Vyakarana.
The Pali lexical work Abhidhanappadipika has an old Sanne for it Called the Abhidhanappadipika – Sannaya.5 The Sanskrit lexical work Amarakosa too has tow old Sannes, - one not yet published and going back to about the Polonnaruva times, and the other edited and published by pandit Batuvantuduve in 1880.
Sankrit works, like the Janaki – Herana, Kavyadars and Meghaduta also sanna written for them. The Sanna of Surya – Sataka, Anuruddha – Sataka and Bhakti Sataka too are several centuries old.
Among the Sanna produced during the Kandy period (i.e., about the 18th century) special mention may be made of :-
1. Bhesajja – Manjusa – sannaya written at the request of King Viraparakrama – Narendrasimha by Valivita Sarananakara Sangaraja, for the Pali Medical work Bhesajja – Manjusa,
1. See Introduction to Okandapola Sannnaya (p. ii) Kiriti Sri Dhammaratana Thera. 2. Ed. – Kahave Sri Ratnasara Thera, 1905. 3. Ed. – L. Sri Dhammananda, Thera, 1932. 4. Moggallana – Vyakarana – Virita – Sannaya, Ed. – L. Sri Dhamamnanda Thera, 1927. 5. Ed. – Totagamuve Pannamolitissa Thera, 1895. 88 INTRODUCTION
2. Madhuratha – Parakasim or the Maha – Bodhi – Vamsa – Sannaya written by Saranankara Sanagaraja himself for the Pali Maha – Bodhi – Vamsa.
3. Sarartha – Dipani or Satara – Banavara – Sannaya written by the same author , for Pali Catu – Bhanavara and the
4. Maha – Satipatthana – Sutra – Sannaya.
Among the Sinhalese works of an exegetical character, besides the Gatapada, pitapota and Sanna, The Dharmaparadipikava and Panchika pradipaya rank foremost in importance. Gurulugomi who was probably not satisfied with the light thrown on Pali Maha – Bodhi – Vamsa by its old Gatapadaya, wrote his Dharmapradepikava, giving detailed explanations for the difficult portions of the pali text. Dharma – Pradipikava, bears clear testimony to the wide acquaintance Gurulugomi had with the literature fo both pali and Sanskrit. Sri Rahula Sangharaja who lived during the Kotte period (15th century ) wrote, besides several literary works, the pancika – Pradipaya, and explanatory work on the Pancika for Moggallana’s Pali Grammar. It is a very learned work written in highly Sanskritized Sinhalese. form the numerous references to and quotations from the grammatical and other works in Sinahlese, Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil, found in the Pancika – Pradipaya, one can get a clear idea of the nature of the library a Sinhalese scholar must have had during the 15th century.
The exegetical works in Sinhalese, though primarily explanatory in character, are not devoid of literary merits. Their very nature demands that they, Particularly the Gatapada, should consist of disconnected phrases and sentences rather than continuous passages Hence one should look more for the value of the contents than for beauties of diction ro excellences of style in them.
The Sinhalese exegetical works, whilst explaining various difficulties, grammatical, doctrinal, etc., in Pali, Sanskrit and other works, have preserved for us a wealth of traditional interpretations of very great value. Although INTRODUCTION 89
some of those traditional explanations of terms are to be found in Tikas, etc., some of them, at least, would have been lost to us completely, had they not been preserved in the old Sinhalese exegetical works.
Thus, the Pali term sanku – patha has been explained in the Pali text Society’s Pali Dictionary as “ a path full of sticks.” Maung Tin too, in his “Path of Purity” (III, p. 351) translated sanku – patha as a “path rough with stakes.” But the author of the Visuddhi marga – Sannaya says :- Aja – patha nam eluvan visin ya – haki manga; sanku – patha nam detili mattehi avuluva ihi elba namga – yutu mangi,” i.e., “ An aja – patha is a path (broad enough) for a goat to pass along ; sanku – patha is a path along which one should climb, hanging on to hooks fixed (to objects) above.” This traditional meaning of sanku - patha is quite in accordance with the explanation found in the Visuddhi – magga – Tika2 :- “Sanku laggapelva be alambitva gamanamaggo”
Again, the compound sitthi – hayana has been explained in the Pali Text Society’s Dictionary as “ sixty years old (of elephants).” But Vesturu – Da – Sanne (Section 76) explains that term3 as: “satin hena – sulu – mada ati,” i.e., with vigour of body declining in the sixtieth year” or “remaining youthful up to the age of sixty.”
The term ariya – vasa (= pali ariya – vamsa) occurring in several inscriptions4 as well as literary works, had long been a subject of much discussion.5 Dr. S. Paranavitana, in attempting to explain the term, says :- “ Ariyavasa may be derived form Pali ariyavasa, ariyavamsa, or ariyavassa . The first of these means ‘holy dwelling’ and this meaning is scarcely suitable in the context in which it is used in the present record. The word ariyavamsa occurs in the 38th verse of the 36th chapter of the Mahavamsa :
1. Ed. – M. Dharmaratna , Vol. III, ch. IX. P. 34.
2. My thanks are due to prof. Helmer Simth for having provided me with this information. See also his notes in the Sadda – Niti.
3. Cf. Jatakatthavannana. Ed. – Fausboll, II, 343 – 20
4. Epigraphica Zeylanica III, 177 lines 4-5 , 250 line 3.
5. For a valuable discussion of this term, see “The Significance of Ariya vamsa, “by W. Rulua, University of Ceylon review , April , 19343, pp. 59- 68.
90 INTRODUCTION
Ariyavamsa – kathathane Lankadipe’khile pi ca Dana – vattam patthapesi saddhamme garvena so.
“For the occasions when the Ariyavamsa was read he decreed over the whole island a regular giving of alms, from reverence to the true doctrine.” Prof. Geiger thinks that the ariyavamsa mentioned in this stanza was book containing the life – histories of men eminent in Buddhist church. The Rasavahini also testifies to the fact that a sermon called the ariyavamsa was delivered once a year in some monasteries of Ceylon. In the third story of the second part of that book, we read: “Sihaladipe mahagame aneka bhikkhusatavaso Mahavapiviharo nama ahosi. Tasmin kale tattha anusamvaccharam ariyavamsa – dhammadesana pavattati. (In Mahagama in the island of Ceylon, there was a monastery, named Mahavapi, which was the dwelling place of many hundreds of monks. At that time, the religious discourse named the Ariyavamsa was delivered there every year.” ) According to this statement, the Ariyavamsa was publicly read once every year ; and our inscription also tells us that the ariyavasa ceremony was performed at the Yahisapavata monastery once every year during the rainy seson. The verb vatavi occurring after ariyavasa in line 4 is agreement with Pavattati used in this connection in the Rasavahini. But in line 16, the verb karana occurring after ariyavasa is inappropriate if the public recital of a sacred text is meant. Besides, it is mentioned in the same place that the ariyavasa ceremony was performed by the whole congregation, whereas the recital fo the sacred text would necessarily have been done by one single monk. We have now to consider the third proposed derivation for ariyavassa. In Pali, the word vassa means “rain,” and is very often used in a secondary sense connoting “the annula retreat of the monks during the rainy season. If vasa in ariyavasa is considered a derivative of Pali vassa used in this sense, the word would mean “ the holy vassa (retreat ).” It is probably in this sense that ariyavasa is used here, though the verb karana that follows it does not seem to be quite appropriate.” (Epigraphia Zeylanica III, pp. 182 -183).
The Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya, the Jataka – Atuva
INTRODUCTION 91
Gatapadaya and the Visuddhimaraga – Sannae have preserved the following explanations of the term ariyavasa which are more in agreement with the second explanation given by Dr. S. Paranavitana and which fully support the conclusions arrived at by Bhikkhu W. Rahula :- “Ariyavamsa patipadadihi va, arivas pilivuvayen ev – itaritara civaradi santosa hay bhavanaramata ariyavamsapitipada nam.” (Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya, p. 194 -3) ; Ariyavamsa katham, alpeccha pratipatti dipaka vu ariyavamsakatha.” (Jataka – Atuva Gatapadaya 165 -5) ; “Ariyavamsa patipadam,1 ‘cattaro’ me bhikkhave ariyavamsa. Kalame cattaro? Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu santuttho hoti itaritarena civarena itantarena pindapatena itantarena senasanena bhavanaramo hoti bhavanarato pahanaramo hoti pahanarato “yana me aryavamsapratipattiyi.” Ibid. 214 -30) . “Ariya vamsattaye, itaritara civara pindapata senasana – santutthi sankhayata Ariayamasatrayehi.” (Visuddhimarga – Sannaya Ed. P. Vajiranana Thera, Vol. I. 1927, p. 119). “ Pathma ariyavamse, palamu – vanaitantara ariyavashi.” (ibid. p. 128),
The Sinhalese word asvas corresponds to palia asivisa and Sanskrit asivisa or asirvisa. The Sanskrit words asirvisa and asivisa mean “ one having venom in itsfang,” and hence a “serpent.” In explaining the Pali word asivisa, the Pali Text Society’s Dictionary says: “ Derivation uncertain . The BSk. Asivisa is a Sanskritization of the Pali. To suppose this to come for ahi + visa (sanke’s poison) would give a wrong meaning, and leave unexplained the change from ahi to asi.” Thus the only explanation given, though disapprovingly, is asivisa > ahi + visa. The old exegetical works in Sinhalese have preserved another interpretation, however fanciful it be the Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya explains the word asivisa twice as Zvaha nagena visa atiyeyi,” (131 – 27) and “sakus nangena vis aatiyavuhu,” ( 199 – 22), i.e., “ the one whose poison increases or travels fast.” Thus asivisa seems to have been connected quite early with pali asu + visa or Sankrit asu + visa. Aggavamsa, the author of Saddaniti,2
1. See CPD e.vv. ariya vamsa and Ariyavera
2. Ed. – Helmer Smith , III 177, p. 636. I am thankful to Dr. Helmer
Simith for this information.
92 INTRODUCTION
too has mentioned asivisa as an istance hwere “u” before a vowel has changed to “ i.”
The Pali Text Society’s Pali Dictionary explains dana – samvibhaga as “ liberal spending of alms,” and does not seem to make any differentiation between dana and samvibhaga. The Visuddhimarga – Sanne says, quite in accordance with the commentarial tradition 1 : “Yamak parahata den pinisa sapaya taba, denu – labe – da he dana nama, Tama valandanu sapayuyen beda denu – labanuye samvubhaga nami.” (Visuddhimarga – Sanne, Ed. M. Dharmaratna, 1895, Vol. II, p. 830) , i.e., “Dana is giving away what has been (exlusively) set apart for that purpose for one’s earinings. Samvibhaga is sharing with another what has been earned (or kept) for one’s enjoyement.”
The Pali Dictionary stops with explaining both karandaka and cangotaka as “ box,” “ casket.” But the author of the Visuddhimarga – Sanne 2 says : “Depiyana sama vuye karandu nama; yata – piyana gamburu – va malu piyana ate cangotaka – ya yet, i. e., kaarandaka is a box having both the (upper and the lowe ) parats (or halves of it ) alike. When the lower part (fo the box) is deeper and has only the lid above it , it is called a cangotaka.”
Jati – unna, not explained in the Pali Dictionary, is described thus3 :- E – davas upan eluvage romaya jati – unna – yayi samaharu kiyati. Himavata – pradesayehi jatimat elaka – lomaya jati – unna – yayi samahau kiyati. Garbhaya pala – gat mendaka romaya jati – unna – yana – samaharu kiyati, i.e., “some say that the wool ( or the hair) of a goat just state that the wool of a goat of good breed in he Himalayas is jati – unna. Still others hold the view that the wool of a goat obtained by splitting open the womb of its mother is jati – uqnna.”
Why the gedi – ge at Anuradhapura had been called by that name had long remamed a problem. Besides the references.
1. Cf. Purana Tika on Digha – Nikaya . III, 145 -26 2. Ed. – K. Dhammaratna Thera, 1929. Vol. II. P. 443. 3. Visuddhimarga – Sanne. Ed. – M. Dharmaratna , Vol. VI, 294; Cf. also visudddhimagga Tika (on Visuddhimagga p. 552 – 22) : tadahujala – elakassa lomam jati – unnati keci ; Himavantapodese jatimanta – elakalomam jati – unnati apare; jati- unnati keci ; Himavantapadese jatimanta – elakalomam jati – unnati apare : gabbham phalera ghahita – elaka – lomam jati unnati anne INTRODUCTION 93
Made to gedi –ge in Sinhalese literary works,1 it has been given in the Maha –Rupasiddhi – Sannaya2 as the Sinhalese equivalent of Pali ginjakavasatha meaning a ‘brick – hall, house of bricks’ thereby throwing some light on the original significance3 of the term.
The traditional interpretations such as were metioned above,4 agreeing quite often with the commentarial explanations, have been preserved for posterity without leving room for any further changes. Thus the Sinahalese exegetical works have rendered a great service to us by having fossilized the meanings of various terms, although that kind of crystallization of meanin gmust have retarded considerably the semantic development of the language.
The exegetical works have oftern preserved valuble data throwing much light also on the customs and manners, and on the kind of life led, in Ceylon as well as India, during the early times, Thus the explanation: “Tana daha – gena sitiyavun nomaranu e – khathi sirit vana bavin tana daha sitiyo” (Dhampaiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya 111 -11 ) given for Pali “tinam dasitava atthamsu” refers to the practice of sparing the life of the defeated enemy who acknowledges his defeat by bending down and biting a blade of grass. This has been a canon of warfare in India during the Epic times,5 and the same custom seems to have been prevalent in Ceylon, as is shown by the referenaces to it made in the war – ballads like Paramgi – Hatana (163_ :-
“Yuda garu – kam pa rupu jati – bima ` vada gavayin se tana kati” - i.e.,
“The enemies who boasted of their skill at fighting, fell down on the ground like cattle and ate grass.”
1. Cf. savanna satiyehi Mucalindayata vada sat – davasak bandagena vasana vasssehi ridi uluyen bandi gedi – geyek hi vada hindina so muchalinda nuga – rajayoge darana – gaba vada – hinda . but – Sarana , Ed. – w. soruta thera, 1937, p. 227. 2. I am thankful to Dr . S. Paranavitarana for this information. 3. Cf. also gandulu ‘bricks” as opposed to pat – ulu “ tiles” – Kankha – Vitarani – Pita – Pota, p. 114 -3. 4. See also the differentiations in meaning fo allapa and sallapa (sec. 244) and of damsa and makasa (sec. 318). 5. See The heroic Age of India by N. K. Siddhanta. 94 INTRODUCTION
The author of the Jataka – Aturva – Gatapadaya. Come meting on the pali expression bheri – vadaka – kule, i.e., “ in a drummer’s family,” given the additional explanation : “ Geri mask at nam, bera gasat nam, u beravayoyi” (74 – 18), i.e., “Those who eat beef as well as those who beat drums are all bheri – vadakas” thereby showing that the contemporary society looked down upon beef – eating as something unbecoming.
The same author, while explaining the Pali word disa disava kakam as “sagara-madhyayehi disa-mudha vu kathi disava handunavanu pinisa vihidiya – yutu vu kavuducak’ hu, “ (Jataka – Atuva – Gatamapdaya 184 -11) i.e., “ a crown that should be released in order to ascertain the directions when one has lost them in mid – ocean,” referes to an ancient practice among the sailor before the compass was invented.
In like manner, much information of great ethnological interest can be gathered by a careful analysis of the exegetical literature in Sinhalese. The various political and social changes that took place in Ceylon, from time to time, are also mirrored in the Sinhalese exegetical works, which constitute the major portion of the earliest Sinhalese literature.
Works like the Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya show the enormous influence that Buddhism and Pali studies and exerted on Sinhalese during the Anuradhapura period. Even the vocabulary the are many Pali loan – wrpdx like : vemanika – petayo, kamma – pathana, de – jhanayan, avannayataa and pamattayanata, which are seldom found later, The Sanskrit learning that flourished during the Polonnaruva period changed completely the course of development of the language. Numerous Sanskrit borrowings were allowed to such an extent that the language became highly Sanskritic, and from about that time the so – called Misra - Simahala or “ mixed Snhalese” came into vogue, submerging very largely the Pali influences that
1. Cf. Visuddhimagga (P. T. S. Edition ) 657, 1- 8 ; and Visudddhi marga Sannaya,
Vol. VIII (1948), p. 68 A 22 ff.
INTRODUCTION 95
had so far been felt overwhelmingly. The Coliyan invasions and various other Dravidian influences, that had also been at work, paved the way for Dravidian borrowings and Dravidian constructions noticed besides those form Pali and Sanskrit.
The Abhidharmaratha – Sangraha – Sannaya is typical of the highly Sanskritized language which formed a special feture of the writings of the polonnaruva period. The Jataka – Atuva – Gatapdaya shows, besides Sanskrit and pali elements, a considerable amount fo Dravidian loan words and constructions. An example may be cited to illustrated how an original Pali and Sanskrit idiom has gradually been drowned by a Dravidian one. The idea of “ having worn the shoes” is expressed in Pali and Sanskrit as “ having mounted the shoes.” Thus padukayo aruyha which in pali means, literally, “having mounted the shoes” has, in Sinhalese , the same mode of expression : vahan nangi, which one comes across,1 occasionally as late as the Polonnaruava (12th century) or even the Dhambadeniya period (13th century) . But under the influence of Tamil, the original Pali and Sanskrit idiom was ousted by the Tami idiom of “ putting (on) the shoes,” and the expression vahan la – ngena (see 262 ) has come into vogue.
A noteworthy feature of several e x e g e t i c a l Works like the Dhampiya – Atuva- Gatapadaya and the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya is the existence in Them of several strata of language The Dhampiya – Atuva - Gatapadaya Contains passages like ; “kaye nanam otaretva; kahi, catudha – vavathan – nan eravay” ( 186 – 10) and “Meyin dharma – ratnayehi Buddha – bhava – hetutuva – laksana gunadakva pranamaraha se kiyu vet,” ( 3- 11) which can hardly be taken as representing the same phase of development of the language. Although the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya is written in a Sanskritized style, that, too , contains such passages as: “Rupaggapattam, e vara veses ruvak kavari
1. Dharama – pradipikava. Ed. – Sri Dharmarama Thera, 1915, p. 250;
Visuddhimaraga – Sannaya . Ed. – p. Vajiranuva Thera, 1927, Vol. I, p. 46
96 INTRODUCTION
Lanek hidu nati bavin ruvihi avasan pat” ( 16- 29) which definitely represents an older stratum of language.
Sometimes a Pai Phrase is explained, first in old Sinhalese in a way closely corresponding to the Pali expression, and again at greater langth, very often in alater from of language. Thus : “Buddha – visayam, budu – visu – Puluvuttak pana visajanu budu – visa nam, nohot mula mahat mula visaya nam, Buddha – litham, budu – lelaha – pana visajanehi hangi niyarak’hata yahana – bavu buddhavuya nam” (Dhampiya-Atuva-Gatapadaya 24-11 ff); “sakkadattiyam, sak-dati – sakaraya visin dena- laddavuya yanuyi.” (Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya 12- 30) ; “ antantena, atantinkelavara kelavara – ya yanuyi.” (ibid. 26 – 21) ; “ jataggim, da – gini hevat upan da patan raki gini – upan davas gena noniva naga tibu gini – ya yanuyi.” (ibid. 112 – 2).
Sometimes the oldest exegetical works contain words, which look very modern, but which are really quite old and have, through popular usage, found their way into and have been preserved in those exegetical. Works. Thus atuva (bran), atta (branch), alut (new), atili (cooking pans), apa (surety), indul (food left over), elipata (threshold), kakul (legs) , kalaya (pot), kakiri ( a kind of cucumber), kabaliti (potsherds), kivul (brackish), kunu (dirt), kumburu (fields), kulla (winnowing basket), goyam (paddy), pana (comb), pitisara ( pertaining to the country, country – side), mada (mud), and valamita (elbow) are found in the Dampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya, and attikaram (payamet in advance), kuliya (wage, hire), nanda (aunt), parala (rafters), paduru (mats), potta (bark), bada ( stomach), yakada (iron), lipa (fire – place), vatta (garden), vambatu (brinjal), valan (pans), vilumba (heel) and Linda (well) occur in the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapdaya.
The nature of the exegetical works makes it quite easy for interpolations to creep into a text. When a exegetical work was written for an original works, e.g., in Pali or Sanskrit, it was customary to adhere to the traditional mode of interpretation even if it be in an archaic from of language. Wherever such explanations were found inadequate for the understanding of the text the teachers who
INTRODUCTION 97
taught such works would naturally give their pupils further detailed explanations which would, in course of time, get incorporated into the text, Thus, the different strata of language found in a exegetical work like the Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya, need close and careful examination before one arrives at any particular conclusions regarding their time of composition.
The Sinhalese exegetical works have also preserved numerous extracts from various Pali works which are very useful in forming a critical estimate of the texts of those Pali works.
The Jatakas have wielded an enormous influence and have contributed a great deal towards the making of Sinhalese literature. The following statement Of Dr. E. W. Adikaram regarding the jataka – Bhanakas shows. the extent of popularity enjoyed by the jatakas in Ceylon from very ancient times :- “the Jataka collection seems, to have become very popular from quite an early date. There are, as we know, carvings depicting Jataka stories in the sculpture of the third century B. C.2. It must have been the love of the people for hearing and narrating stories that brought about this vogue.
The Papanca – sudani mentions a Jataka – Bhanaka bhikkhu who lived in the time of the Buddha . This evidence is from a fifth century book on an event that took place about ten centuries earlier. But, considering the fact that Buddhaghosa compiled the Papanaca – sudani basing his material on very much older material and also that from a very early date the jatakas were included in the nine – fold division of the teachings of the Buddha, it is possible that the recites of the Jatakas were one of the oldest groups of the Bhanakas.
In Ceylon too, preaching the jatakas become very populr. King Ilanaga (93 – 102 A. D.) heard, whilst he was
1. Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon bye E. W. Adikaram,
1946, pp. 30 – 31.
2. Rhys Davides : Buddhist India, P. 205.
98 INTRODUCTION
At Rohana, the Kapi Jataka from the Jataka – bhanaka There Maha – paduma who dwelt in the Tuladhara Vihara. The king, being greatly pleased, restored the Nagamaha vihara and gave it the extension of a hundred unbent bows in length, and the enlarged the thupa even to what it has been (since them.).
The Manorathapurani too, gives us an account of a preacher of the Jatakas. A young bhikkhu residing at the Tissamaha vihara in Mahagama heard that the Maha – jataka – bhanaka Thera at Dighavapi was to preach the Great Vessantara jataka which consisted of one thousand verses, and so great was his desire to hear the preaching that he went to dighavapi traveling in one day the long distance of nine yojanas. This account is interesting for more than one reason. The Vessantara jataka is said here to consist of one thousand verses and appears to have been entirely in verse, but the one that we have at present consists of both prose and verse, the latter amounting to only 774 stanzas. The word Mahajataka – Bhanaka Thera also is significant. It is not clear whether we are to take it as Maha + jatakabhanaka Thera (the great thera, reciter of the Jatakas) or as Maha – jataka + bhanaka Thera (the thera, reciter of the great jatakas). Thaking into account the nature of the jataka preached in this case, it is more probable that the word is to be taken to signify a reciter of the “ great jatakas.” If this interpretation is correct, then there were two divisions of the jataka bhanakas : (1) the reciters of the ordinary Jatakas, and (2) those of the maha – jatakas.”
The nural and other paintings of Ceylon besides the eveidence of Sinhalese literature, bear eloquent testimony to the importance attached to the Jaatakas. The maha – vamsa mentions that numerous Jatakas, and in particular the Vessantara Jataka in detail, were depicted within the relic – chamber of the Maha – Cetiya constructed by King Dutthagamini in the first century B. C. :
1. Ed. – Geiger, Ch. XXX, 87 -88. See also Thupa – Vamsaya. Ed.- D. E. Hettiaratchi, 1947 , pp. 112 – 119.
INTRODUCTION 99
“Dhatu – Vibhangam ca Donena pasada – janakania ca Yebhuyyena akaresi jatakani sujatima Vessantara – Jatakantu vittharena akariyai.”
The Chinese traveler Fa – hien1 records that he saw, during the course of his travels, paintings depicting 500 previous lives of the Buddha bein exhibited on certain days on the orders of the king.
From very early times the Sinhalese authors have drawn their material from the Canonical texts and the commentaries on them. Among Canonical works too, the jatakas seem to have held a special fascination for the Sinhalese authors. Most of the important literary works, like the muvadev – Da vata, Sasa – Da – Vata , Kav – Silumina, Sandakindur – Da – kava , Kav – sekaraya, Dahamsonda – Da – kava, Kusa – Jatakaya, Asadisa – Da – kava, Kavmini kondala and kavmini – Maldama, and also the popular ballads like the muve - jatakaya, Vessanara – Jatakaya, Sasa – Jatakaya and Padmanavaka – Jatakaya have Jataka stories as their themes.
Even in works like the Ama – Vatura, But – Sarana, Daham – Sarana, and pujavaliya, not based directly on the jatakas, numerous jatakas are either referred to , or narrated in brief, to illustrate various teachings. Nearly all the Sinhalese poetical works, with the exception of the Sandesas, are nbeased on the Jatakas.
The author of the Kav – Silumina says at the commencement of his work:
“kavi- bav kivi – dume – kusum sapat ehi vipul Pele bosat – sara vanum – vigat muve pat veva.” -(Ed. W. Sorata Thera, 1946, ver. 4.)
i.e., Poesy is the flowering of the tree of poetry. Its (luscious) fruit is the description of the excellent life of a Bodhisattva. May that fruit reach the mouths of the learned.” Thus the Sinhalese authors seem to have considered it unworthy of their labours to spend their time
1. See “ Evolution of Sinhalese Painting.” By N. Wijesekara. University of Ceylon Review, Vol. III, No. 2, p. 46, B.C. law, “A History of Pali Literature,” Vol. II, p. 377. Travels of Fa – Hian, Oxford , 1886, p. 106. 100 INTRODUCTION
and energy over profane topics. They have always looked upon the description of a life – story of the Buddha as a sacred duty of theirs.
The Jatakas have served for recreation as well as for instruction and religious edification, They have also been largely responsible for the moulding of the national character. Even today there is hardly a villager who has not heard of King Vessantara, or of his queen Madri, or of their children, Jaliya and Krsnajina. The ugly and loathsome character of Jujaka is too Well – known. A long – winding, circuitous path is even today referred to as “ Vangagiriya.” The praises of Vessantara and Madri are sung even today on solemn occasions such as wedding ceremonies and funerals.
The book that popularised the jataka stories far more than all the works mentioned above, was tha pansiya – Panas – Jataka – Pota, written during the Kurunagala period. The Pansiya – Panas – Jataka pota is sinhalese version of the pali Jatakatthakatha, which in its turn, Seems to have been a pali translation1 of a original work in Sinhalese, which, however, disappeared in course of time. The Pali Jatakattha katha itself refers to an older commentary on the jatakas.
Mention was made earlier of Vessantara jataka consisting of a thousand verses, although the present commentary on it contains only 774 verses. The number of the jatakas is generally given as 550. The Sumangala Vilasini2 of Buddhaghosa states. :- “Apannaka – jatakadini pannasaddhikani panca – jataka – satani Jatakanti veditabbam,” i.e., “ The 550 Jataka stories beginning with the Apannaka jataka should be known as Jataka.” But the Cullaniddesa3 wich forms part of the Canon, mentions only 500 jatakas : “Bhagava panca – jataka – satani bhasanto attano ca paresam ca atitam adisati.” The Chinese traveler Fa – hien who visited Ceylon in the fifth century A. D. also speaks of having seen paintings depicting scenes from 500 Jatakas. Thus, there seem to have been discrepancies in the number of the Jatakas and also in the number of the
1. Rhys Davids : Buddhist India, 1903, p. 207. Cf. also Buddhist Birth stories by Rhys davids, p. lx, 2. P . T. S. Edition, Vol. I, 24. 3. P. T. S. Edition, p. 80. INTRODUCTION 101
Verses occurring in the old Vessantara Jataka. An attempt however, has been made by the late prof. B. M. Barua’ of Calcutta University to explain how the Jataka which were 500 in number earlier, increased to 550.
Among the different works meant to facilitate the understanding of the pali Jatakatthakatha, mention should be made of the Pali Tika, Linatthappakasini to which reference has been made later (p. 109) . Among the works in Sinhalese intended for that purpose, the foremost, is the jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya written towards the end of the Polonnaruva period. A little more than half of this work was edited and published by the late Sri .D. B. jayatlaka in 1943. A Sanne for the first 448 verses occurring in Pali jatakatthakatha, and called jataka - Gatha – Sannaya has been written somewhere about the dambadfeniay period by a Pandit called Rajamurari.
There are also collections2 of the more popular Jatakas, such as the Dasa – jataka, in Sinhalese, consisting of ten Jataka stories. Sometimes even a single jataka for which the people had a special fascination, has more thean one version in Sinhalese. Thus besides the Ummagga Jatakaya occurring in the Pansiya – Panas – Jataka – Pota, there is another Ummagga Jatakaya3 in sinhalese which can be considered older. The vessantara Jataka itself, besides the version of it found in the Sinhalese Pansiya – panas – Jataka – Pota, has been narrated at great length in the but – sarana, Dham – sarana, and pujavaliya.
Apart from the collection of the Ten Jatakas, (Dasajataka ) in Sinahalese mentioned above, there is a Sinhalese Sanne of Eight Pali Jatakas called Ata – Da – Sanne4 or Ata – jataka – Sannaya. The Ata – Jataka – Sannaya5 found in the Colombo Museum Library, enumerates the eight Jatakas as follows :- (1) Temiya, (2) Maha Janaka, (3)
1. “Multiplication of the Jatakas,” by B. M. Barua , Indian Historical Quarterly, 1926, Vol. II, pp. 623 – 625. 2. Cf. pannasa jatakam in Sima- Buddhist birth Stories by Rhys Davids, p. lxi. 3. Ummagga – Jatakaya – purana Pitapata : Ed.- D. C. Weerakkody, 1875. 4. Ed. – D. G. Abhayagunaratna, Weligama, part I, 1910. 5. No. q – 13 in the Catalogue of Manusoripsts of the Colombo museum.
102 INTRODUCTION
Sama, (4) Nimi, (5) Khandahala, (6) Bhuridatta (7) Narada – kassapa, and (8) Vidhura. But Mr. D. G. Abhaya gunaratna who edited the Temiya – jataka – Sanne which formed the firs part of his edition of Ata – Da – Sanne mentions as the eight jatakas :- (1) Temiya , (2) Nimi, (3) Sama, (4) Vidhura, (5) Khandahala, (6) Bhuridatta, (7) makhadeva, and (8) Maha – Janaka Thus in place of the Naradakassapa – Jatakaya in Museum Manuscript, Mr. Abhayagunaratna given Makhadeva – Jatakaya.
The fact that there existed several old explanatory works for the eight pali Jatakas is shown by the preliminary remarks made at th beginning of the Ata – Da – Sanne :- “ Me Ata – jatakayehi sesu granthipada ata – da he aniscaya aparipuranartha ati heyin niscaya kota sampurnartha parkasa karanu kamati – va mehi granthipada sahita – va gathapedehi artha ativistara kota kiyanu – labe.” i.e., “ Although there are other glossarial works for these eight Jatakas, as the explanations they give are not sufficiently convincing and also not comprehensive, (an attempt is being made ) here to explain the significance of the (Pali) verses, at great length, together with glosses, in the hope that the meanings may be settled beyond doubt, and be dealt with quite comprehensively.”
The existence of old Gatapada and Sanna for the pali jatakas, included among the Eight jatakas as well as outside them, is proved further by the quotations made from them in Sri Rahula’s Pancika – Pradipaya. One of those quotations seems to be form the Ata – Jataka – Sanne and the other from the jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya. The word samma occurring in the Pali verse1 :
Sammatalanca vinanca nacca – gitam suvaditam Turiya – talita – sanghutthm manimhi pass amimmitam
has been explained in the commentary as “Samma – talanti Khadiradi sammanceva kamsa talanca.” Regarding the same word the Pancika – Pradipaya says (p. 115) : “Vidhura jataka – Gatha – Sanyayehi ‘samma, sakandaya yi kihu,” and the quotation seems to tally with “Samma, sekanda,:”
1. Jatakatthakatha (hewawitaran Edition) , VII, p.249, Fausboll VI 277, 5-6.
INTRODUCTION 103
found in Sanne of the Vidhura – Jataka in the Atataka – Sannaya.1
The quotation “Saunaka – Jataka – Gatapadayehi tomara, kuttu – kohob nohot debala – katuya’yi kihu” from Pancika Pradipaya (p. 115) seems to tally with “ Tomara, kottukol nohot debala – katu” found in Sonaka Jataka, occurring in the unprinted portion of the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya.2
The quotation “Alambaro, alingu – bera da” in the Pancika – Pradipaya (p. 114) said to have been made from the Khandahala –Jataka – Gatapadaya has noting corresponding to it in, the Jataka – Atuava – Gatapadaya. Hence the quotation was, in all probability, from an idependent Glossary of the Khandahala Jataka.
The quotation “Kita ca, buvanuvo da – Bhuridatta – Jataka – Gatha – Sanyayehi kabal – pitu – panuvanayi kihu” in the Pancika – Paradipaya (p. 115) does not also agree with “Kita, panuvaha” found under the Bhuridatta – Jatakaya in the Ata – Jataka – Sannaya.4 Evidently, the quotation in the Pancika – Pradipaya is from an independent sane of that Jatakaya.
The following quotations found in the Pancika – pradipaya show that Sri Rahula Thera had befor him a Demala – Jataka – Gatapadaya or Glossarial work written in Tamil for the Pali Jatakakatthakatha : “Dendima ca, gata – pahatubera da nohot dikki da – Umam – Da – Gatapadayehi ikiliberayayi kihu. Demala – Jataka – Gatapadayei ‘Dendima, pataham’ yi kihu” (p. 114); “Noyeh simahala sanyagatapadavala ‘vena’ sadayata kulupottanayi kiya ma araha ki heyin da Demala – Jataka – Gatapadayehi vena nam poruntanayi ki yehin da ‘venati tachaka’ yana tika padaya noyedyi hange” (p. 115). No mention has been made anywhere, of this Tamil Glossary of the Jatakas, after the time Rahula.
1. No. Q – 13 the Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Colombo Museum – Ola leaf marked can , 2nd page, 1st line.
2. No. E.- 3 in the Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Colombo Museum Library – Ola leaf dhu, 1st page, 5th line.
3. F. VI, 208 – 27.
4. No. E – 13 in the catalogue of Manuscripts of the Colomb Museum Library – Ola lenf gham, 2nd page , 5th line.
104 INTRODUCTION
The first of the two quotations given above, proves also the existence of an Umam – Da – Gatapadaya or a Glossary of the Pali Ummagga – Jatakaya. Although the Ummagga Jatakaya should have been included in the Jataka – Atuva – Gatrapadaya, all the Munscripts of the Jataka – atuva Gatapadaya, all the Manuscripts of the jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya I have seen, end invariably with the Vidhura - Jatakaya. The Ummagga and the Vessantara Jatakas that should have come at the end are missing . The only explanation that can be given for the absence, in the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya, of the last two Jatakas, is either that all the manuscripsts of it I have seen, go back to one archetype in which the last portion had, for some reason, been lost, or that in view of the importance and the popularity of those two Jatakas there were earlier Gatapada, and therefore the author of the Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya left them out without writing any new glossaries for them.
The latter explanation seems to be the more likely, in view of the fact that an Umam – Da – Gatapadya has actually been quoted from. It is quite possible that there was also an old Vesatur – Da – Gatapadaya, which however disappeared in course of time. The late Sri D. B. Jaya tilaka always called the present work “Vesaturu – Da – Gatapadaya” although I have preferred to call it “Vesaturu – Da – Sanne” for reason already stated above (pp. 68 -69).
As was stated earlier, the Vesaturu – Da – sane attempats, Primarily, to explain verbatiom the Pali verses which are found in the Commentary on the jatakas, and Which constitute the Jataka proper
The author goes on explaining the verses in order, and whenever he comes across a series of verses which are full of repetitions and which are mere modifications of one single verse, he explains the main verse fully and then explains only the points of difference in the following ones of that series, e.g., 27, 40, 52, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80 -87, 94, 101, 111, 116, 117, 118, 128, 129, 131, 138, 139, 146, 173, 211, 237, 238, 256, 272, 273,277, 314, 329, 331, INTRODUCTION 105
335, 371, 402, 404, 405, 420, 431, 444, 467, 474, 477, 533, 534, 587, 654, 668.
The following verses in Fausboll’s Edition of the Jataka – Atthakatha, have been completely left out evidently, because there is hardly any thing new to explained in them :- 1712, 1713, 1730, 1731, 1737 -1739, 1761, 1763, 1765, 1767, 1795, 1842, 1850, 1885, 1886, (repeated), 1916 -1919 (repeated), 1934 (repeated) 1954, 1955, 1993 -1996, 2000, 2043, 2044,2054 -2059, 2108 – 2111, 2115, 2119 – 2122, 2124 -2126, 2168, 2192 -2196, 2198, 2231, 2246, 2267 – 2271, 2280,2282,2283, 2296 -2299, 2301 -2304, 2348, 2361, 2394, 2418, 2420, 2455, 2462 and 2463
Sometimes the author allows in his Sanne many Pali words form the Jataka text so that the sense may be made sufficiently clear, explaining only whatever needs explanation. See e.g., 175, 184, 227, 232, 240, 242, 392, 396, and 473.
The pali verses are generally put into prose order before they are explained in the Sanne. See e.g., 93, 97, 99, 100, 106, 108, 109, 112, 122, 214, 222, 239, 279, 454, 470.
Besides the Pali verses, the author occasionally explains words or expressions culled from the prose commentary. Thus Section 1, at the very commencement of the book, consists solely of portions selected from the prose commentary. Extracts from the prose commentary have been explained also in : 16, 58, 99, 188, 192, 193, 287, 327, 439.
Not infrequently the author introduces words like correlatives, phrases, sometimes even whole sentences, to connect what has been stated earlier with what follows. Some of these extraneous portions have nothing to correspond to them in the jataka verses, though, sometimes, there are words or passages corresponding to them in the Pali commentary ; sometimes, they are the author’s own additions, made in order to make the sense clearer, e.g., “ tasma, e kaurnen nonerami,” Section 39 ; “tathapi, e – tekudu vuvat ; brihamana ettha aro’pi atthi, bamuna e vena – lahaba vilekude ata,” 333. Other similar portions varying in length, are found in : 52, 54, 55, 57, 61, 115,
106 INTRODUCTION
119, 121, 130, 132, 145, 147, 148, 152, 200, 207, 211, 218, 221, 225, 230, 233, 242, 245, 246, 248, 251, 253, 255, 264, 266, 276, 278, 282, 300, 302, 305, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 318, 320, 323, 326, 327, 332, 337, 341, 360, 379, 382, 408, 416, 427, 601, 621.
The Sandhis in the Pali verses are generally separated when they are explained in the Sanne, e.g., “lhomalodumbaranica” of the Pali text – “khomakani ca udumbarani ca” 108; kathajja = kaham + ajja 109 ; yacitaganchim = yacitum + agachim 384. See also 165, 203, 205, 226, 278, 290.
The compounds too are often broken up and explained separately. E.g., acchariyabbhutacitta ahesum has been explained as “acchariya, visma vi ; abbhutga, apurva vu ; citta jata ahesum, sitatiyahu vuhu.” 1
Certain Pali words or expressions occurring in the Jatakatthakatha, which one would expect to be explained in the Sanne, have for some reasons been left out, e.g., kuliraka and kattha - in Fausboll’s Edition of the Jataka atthakatha (F) 2104 (p. 539) are missing in Section 372. see also 124, 125, 170, 217, 223, 269, 347, 374, 594, 612’
Sometimes an old or obscure Pali term in a Jataka verse is replaced in the Sanne by a commoner and easier form conveying the same idea. E.g., apassanti 116 for apassati of F 1809; hasitampi 244 for jagghitampi of F 1961; aharissam 248 for ahissam of F 1965; upatthahissam 251 for upatthissam of F 1968; pivissati 279 for passati of F 2002;titthanti 299 for thanti of F 2023 ; anayantim 463 for anayatim of F 2216 ; jacakanam 566 for yacatam of F 2339.
Not infrequently the author gives the meaning of the pali term or expression, and the explains it again in a more simplified form , e.g., ma me kujjhi, mata nahamak kipeudhas novayi seyi 49; See also 43, 57, 87, 89, 90, 121, 122, 149, 150, 152, 153, 155, 162, 163, 172, 186, 190, 191, 193, 195,200, 216, 217, 221, 225, 226, 232, 266, 283, 284, 315, 357, 388, 389, 402, 409, 413, 550’ In writing the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne , the author seems to have followed the pali commentary on the jatakas very INTRODUCTION 107
closely. This is clearly borne out by the marked similarity that exists between the explanations given in the Sinhalese Sanne and those found in the Jataka – Atthakatha. It will, however, be noted that, although the Sanne; for the most part, agrees with the commentarial explanations, it sometimes expands or summarises the meanings or explanations given in the Pali Commentary. Some extracts are cited below to show how clearly the Sanne corresponds to the Jataka – Atthakatha. Cf. sat – ruvanin visituru dvara kavatayan visisn pasangaturu rav bandu rav vihidunavu 12, and citraggleru – ghusite’ti pancangikaturiyasaddasadisam manoramam ravam ravantehi sattaratanacittehi dvara kavatehi ugghosite Commentary on F 1695 (p. 483); pirivaru pansiyayak atkulan atmada – atgovvan ha samanga 35 and sahattipan ti paricarakanam pancannam kulasatanam hatthimenda – hatthi gopakanam ca vasena sahatthipam, Commentary on F 1719 (p. 490); Tam – abravi, e Vesaturu – rajahata kivu : ‘Ma – himi Vesatura visin metek kal dhana nidhana kota tabavayi nokiyanaladaviriya. Dan mese kiyayi’ Kohi nidhi katayutu – do ho ovhu – ma pilivisa danmi’ yi sita ............ pilivisvu 61 and Tam – abravit mayhem samina Vesantarena ettakam kalam dhanam nidhehiti na vuttapubbam. Idanevam vadati. Kuhinnukho nidhe tabbam pucchissami namti cintetva tamabravi, Commentary on F 1749 (p. 494) Vesantaro raja, vesaturu – maharaja udaya – ma naha sav abaranin sadi miyuru rasa – bojun valanda mahajana visin pirivarana – ladde; danam datum upagami, sata – satu mahadan dennata dangeta giye 123 And Vessanaro raja pato’va nahatava sabbalankara patimandito sadhurasabhojanam bhunjitva mahajanaparicuto sattasatakamahadanam datum danaggam upagami, Commentary on F 1820 (p. 503) ; Sondanam varunim detha, sondanala raha deva. Madyadanaya phala nati – bav Danni. Ese da vuva rasondhahu danaga pamina veaturuge danga raha noladdamhayi kiyanu nolabetvayi devi 124, and Varuninti majjadanam nama nipphalanti janati, evem sante pi surasonda danaggam patava Vessantarassa danagge suram na labhimhati vattum ma labhantuti dapesi, Commentary on F 1821 (p. 503); Me thana, mage payodhara yugalayo; nappapateyyum, nohetvayi – put piyum mangana
108 INTRODUCTION
ran hasun seyin muva – piyum mangamin udu – bala sitivayi yanu abhipravayi 10 and Nappapateyyun ti patitva lamba na – bhaveyyum Commentary on F 483 (p. 483) ; varadam, his adi kota ilvu utum vastu denu vu 8, and Varadanti alankata – sisa – akkhyugala – hadayamamsa – setacchatta – daresu yacita – yacitassa vara - bhandassa dayakam , Commentary on F 1691’
The following sections too contain portions very. Similar to the corresponding extracts in the Pali commentary ‘ 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 30, 31, 35, 43, 48, 50, 62, 65, 69, 96, 106, 111, 122, 137, 141, 147, 155, 162, 164, 166, 171, 172, 177, 186, 188, 194, 212, 227, 231, 244, 246, 261, 263, 267, 270, 282, 288, 291, 302, 303, 307, 351, 380, 383, 384, 385, 389, 390, 391, 413, 423, 449, 457 - 459, 464, 465, 491, 503, 550, 621.
Despite the fact that the author of the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne shows great indebtedness to the Pali commentary on the Jatakas, he explains many verses which have not at all been commented upon in the Vessantara – Jatak Atthakatha, e.g., 1701- 1703, 1720, 1728, 1732, 1746, 1874, 1883, 1887, 1889, 1891, 1896, 1898, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 - 1909, 1937, 1968, 1999, 2004, 2143 – 2146 of F.
In certain places the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne gives useful explanations for terms not made sufficiently clear in the jataka – Attakatha, e.g., opupphani padmani ca, vagula peti ati piyumudu – yatimniya – va siti peti ati piyumdayi seyia’, 90; Cf. opupphaniti F Commentary 1782 (p. 498); opupphaniti F commentary 1782 (p. 498); opupphamiti patita – pupphani, J p. 436; uggatthanam, tanapata – da – ranhi kasu kota tanpaa banditlu; girigamaka, ran – morasu – pahayinudu – handana pahayinaka yet me. Section 662; Cf. uggatthanam girigamakan ti etani pi dve abharanani, F Commentary 2447 (p. 590).
In explaining certain Pali terms, the author seems to attempt to throw some light on their history ; but there appears to be little justification for the explanations he has given. Thus: kunjaram, asuvavun biya ganvannavu mahat nada ati, 24; matangam kurjaram, mahat ariga ati at – rajahu, 76 ; matango, mahat anga atiyavu, 134; matanga, mahat anga ati 602; Cf. matango, mahat sarir ati, Jataka-
1. Opupphuniti galita pupphuni. L .90.
INTRODUCTION 109
Gata – Sannaya, p. 346 ver. 1082 ). Saggam gamissasi, suvayen agra heyin svargaya yana – lada devu – to yannehi, 392
After I had completed the present edition of the text, my attention was drawn to the Pali Tika on the Jataka – Atthakatha, not published so far. This was during an unforgettable visit I Paid to prof. Helmer Smith at his country residence in Sweden in May, 1948. There, Prof. Smith showed me among various unpublished manuscripts, a Tika on the Jataka – atthakatha obtained from Burma. I realised at once that my edition of the vesturu – Da - Sanne would be incomplete unless I consulted the Pali Tika as well, and I requsted Professor and Mrs. Smith to obtain me a Photostat copy of it. They both very kindly consented and hardly a month had passed before I received by post a carefully hand – written copy of the Vessantara – Jataka – Tika, with copious notes made by Prof. Smith. I am deeply indebted to Prof. Helmer Smith . I am deeply indebted to Prof. Helmer Smith for this esteemed favour.
For the benefit of those who may like to pursue various problems arising in the Vesatur – Da – Sanne, the Pali text of the Vessantara – Jataka – Tka has been given here as an Appendix. Various ideas that struck me while examining the Pali Tika in comparison, with the jataka Commentary and the Sinhalese Sanne, are give below.
That the Pali Tika formed part of the Linatthappakasini is clear from the Colophon : “ Vessantar a- Jatakam ‘ dasajataka – vannana mitthita ; ui jatakatthakathaya linatthappakasini samatta.”
Most of the Pali Tikas werer written during the polonnaruva period of thereabouts, and they, like the Atthakathas, are largely a recast or recompilation in scholastic Pali,. of earlier material in Sinhalese. The present Tika does not seem to be the work of a great scholar as there are numerous flaws in its language as well as in the explanations. The following extracts from the Tika, if compared with the corresponding explanations in the Jataka Commentary and in the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne,
110 INTRODUCTION
Will show that the author of the Tika has either not grasped the real significance of the respective portions of the Pali text, or that he as at least failed to explain the text satisfactorily, e.g., khujja – celapakakinne’ti khujjehi ceva celamakehi ca akinne ; suda – maghata – vannite’ti sudehi ca aghatakehi ca vannite, L 11, nandiyo’ti tuttha – citto L 380; kena vaca ca peyyenati kena karanena amhe vacaya vacanena Br 565 ; mukhaphullancati mukhavasa phullanca L 661.
Sometimes the Tika more or less repeats what occurs in the Jataka Commentary, and does not explain any further. e.g.,Citraggaleruhusite L 12; sathabbanam L 35 ; ma nam dandena satthena L 42 ; dakkhinassava L 192; nacassz upahato mano L 193; amapaya L 233.
At times the Tika does not explain even as much as does the Commentary, e.g. ajjhayakam L 93 ; nelapatim vacam L 475 ; kharmukhani L 611.
The names of numerous plants, birds, animals, etc., mentioned in the description of the forest, and which have all been explained in the Sinhalese Sanne, have been completely left out in the Pali Tika. Under Verse 290 (F 2013), the Tika says dhavati ete rukkhagana.
The Sinhalese Sanne agrees, on the whole, far more with the Jataka Commentary than with the Pali Tika, e.g., carupubbangiti vara – lakkhanena samannagate F 1685 ; caru – pubbangi, utum lakunu atiyavu VesSn 2 ; carupubbangi, manunnena pubbangena samannagate L 2 ; hasulati mihita – pubbangama katha F 1839 ; hasula, sinaperadari tepul atiyavu VesSn 137; hasulati manda – sita L 137 ; asammodiyanti asmaggiyam F 1932 ; asammodiyam, no – samagi – bave VesSan 220 ; asammodiyant appiyabhavo L 220 ; anumodeyyati sampaticheyya na kujjheyya F 2323 ; anumodeyya, sapinisivayi – mata nokipevayi VesSn 50 ; anumodeyyati tusseyya L 550 ; ramma – rupanti ananjitam amanditam F 2406 ; ramma- rupan, andun-telin nosaunavu VesSn 627; rammarupanti anjitamanditam L 627.
It is very seldom that Sinhalese Sanne differs from the Jataka Commentary as well as the Pali Tika, e.g., khoma – kodumbarani cati khoma – ratthe kodumbara – ratthe ca INTRODUCTION 111
Uppannani J and F 1801 ; kodumbaraniti kodumbara namake ratthe vitani vatthani L 108 ; Cf. khomakani ca udumbarani ca, komu – rata pili ha udumara rala pili da VesSan 108
The explanations given in several places in the Sinhalese. Sanne, agree far more closely with the corresponding explanations in the Pali Tika, than with those of the jataka Commentary. Whether such parallelisms are due to the influence either the Sanne or the Tika has had on the other, or whether both have drawn upon a common source needs investigation, e.g., uruthavam L 23 ; opvuyham L 24 ; punna – pattam L 286 ; abbam ganhanti vamato L 289
Certain explanations found in the Pali Tika seem to have Been couched in language having a strong Sinhalese flavour, e.g., Vissametarani. Magga – kilama – sankhatam dukkham vupasamakaram Br 274; tanu – majjhimati puthula – jaghana – padesa tanu – majjhima – padesa – vanta Br 147.
Not in frequently the Sinahalese Sanne given more detailed. Explanations than the Pali Tika, e.g., Kurari 118 ; nijjhatta 284 ; upanijjhaya 663 The pali Tika lends support, in several instances, to the variant readings given in Fausboll’s edition of the Jataka Commentary, e.g., jiva – sokinam L F 2123 ; inda – hattha L F 2464.
Thus although it is difficult to determine exactly the place that the pali Tika occupies in relation to the Sinahlese Sanne, the Tika throws certain side – light which should prove useful in solving various problems connected with the Vesaturu –Da – Sanne.
In umerous instances he Pli extracts cited by the Author of the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne From the Jataka – Attakatha he Has had before him, differ consider- Ably from the text. Of Fausboll’s Edition of the Jataka Commentary. The Pali readings adopted in the Sanne. Are often confirmed by the 112 INTRODUCTION
Explanation given in Sinhalese It Will be noticed that, at least in certain cases, the Pali test cited in the Sanne yield much better sense in those context than does the text as settled by Fausboll. There are also instances where Fausboll seems to have confused the reading on account of the similarity of the Sinhalese. Characters හි hi or න na and ත ta, or ඡි chi ahd ජි ji, in the Manuscripts. In view of the importance of the variant readings of the Pali text in forming a critical estimate of the pali text of the vessanara Jataka, they are given below so that they may be of use in settling the Pali text.
It must be pointed out that in certain instances, although the pali readings in the Vesaturu – Da sane and the Jataka Commentary are seemingly different, the readings in the vesaturu – Da – Sanne are only commoner and more simplified forms of theose in the Commentary. The pali readings as found in the Edition of the Jataka – Atthakatha in Sinhalese character (Simon Hewavitarana Bequest, Vol. XLI, Ed. Widurapol Piyatissa thera, 1939) have also been cited as they too differ occasionally from the readings in the Vesaturu – DA – Sanne and from the Fausboll’s text.
F J Ves Sn
Khujjatecalakkhakakinne khujjacelapakakinne See Vesen and L 11;
Sudu – maghata – vannite 1694 sutamagadha – vannite khujja – velamakakinne or khujja-velamikakinne may be better
Rago 1693 rajo rajo 10 Vicintayim 1701 vicentayim cintayim 19 Akampi tattha pathavi 1703 akampi tattha pathavi pathavi akampittha 21 Udake so 1733 udakeso uda – keso 47
113 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
ma me kujjhi 1735 ma me kujjhi ma me kujjha 49 adakkhinama 1743 dakkinam dakkihnam 54 sabbanga – sobhanam 1747 wsabbanga – osbhanam sabbanga – sobhinim 59 nijjalayitvana 1757 ujjalayitvana 69
(ujjalayitvana v.l.)
rattankura 0 rakkham (ratta- ratta – karavaka – rukkham Sinh . : rat – karavu 89
Kuruvakam v.l. )F Comy. (p. 436)
(p. 498) 1781
lomapadmakam (lodda- 1781 lomapadmakam loddapadakam 89
Paddakam v.l. )
(Here the Sinh. Meaning lot suggests that P. lodda = Sk. Lodhra.)
devihitam 1787 devihitam devahitam 95
(Devihitgam “ dear to the queen” may be a better reading.)
nikhinapatto va 1789 nikkhinapatto va nikkhinamatto va 97 yassu Ikdassa gottassa 1807 ya Ikda – sagottassa 114
(Cf. F V p. 411 – 19)
apassati 1809 apassati apassanti 116 sabba antepure bahu 1818 sabba antepure bahu aqntepure saddo ahu 121 hettayittha 1822 hethayittha (p. 440) alarapamukha 1839 alarapakhuma alarapamha 137 (Cf. alarapainha L) tikkhagga tippaharino 1861 tikkhaggani paharino tikkhagga tippaharino 157 pumagge suplavangame 1863 dumaggesu plavangame deumaggesu plavangame159
114 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
uttasayi (uttasate v.l.) 1864 nttasase uttasasi 160 senate va 1865 sanateva (p. 445) sanati iv 161 munjapabbajam 1867 munjababbajam munjababbajam 163 urasa padahessami 1867 nrasa panudahessami urasa pandudahessami 163 daliddi samana dukkha 1876 daliddi samana dukkaba (= daliddi samana – dukkha) 171 F. Comy. (p. 509 – 18)
Regarding iche in pathavyapi abhejjantaya n icche (F 1877), Cowell and Rouse, the translator of the jataka, say (Vol VI p. 263): Icche occurs for the first time here; it comes from is ‘to rule’ (school issara hoti).” But the explanation in the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne (172) does not support that view.
nivase 1887 nivae (p. 448) nivate 180 pallankesu sayitvan 1888 pallankesusayitvana 181 bhiyyo (v. I. hiyyo) bhiyo (p. 449) Sinh. : tye vani da ( - p.
(F. Comy. P. 511 – 6) hiyyo or hiyo)
enti 1904 enti santi 197 vankata – pabbato 1904 vankatapabbato vanaka – pabbato 197 vipul dumma 1907 vipula dumma (p. 451) vipphala dumma 200 bahumamsasurodanam 1911 bahumamsa – surodanam bahumammsasurodakam 203 punjitva (F Comy. 514 – 17) punchitva parikirimsu 1912 parikarimsu (p. 451) parikarimsu 204 yava ceta gamissanti 1924 yava ceta gamissanti yava ceta agamissanti 212 rajje hi seca yum 1931 rajjebhisecayum (p. 454) rajjebhisecayum 219 bhandanancipi 1932 bhandanancapi bhandanam vapi 220
115 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
himseyyum bahuke jane 1933 himseyyum bahuke bahuko jano himseyya 221 Jane tam 1937 tam nam 224 girividugganam 1946 girividugganam girividuggani 232 abhissasi 1959 abhisapi abhisapi 242 daddham 1960 dattam (p. 459) dattam 243 jagghitam 1961 jagghitam hasitam 244 (Simpler form given here) agantva (agantva V. I.) 1972 agantva atantva 255 utupubbesu 1974 utupabbesu utupubbesu 257 katva (vatva v.l.) 1979 vatava (p. 461) vatva 262 patha 1986 pantha pantha 268 supipim 1991 sucimam (p. 463) supipam 273 situdakam (sitacchayam v.l) 1991 situdakam (p. 463) sitacchayam 273 pavitthassa 1997 pavitthassa vinatthassa 275 pavitthassa 1998 pavitthassa panatthassa 276 dummedho 2001 dummedho dummedha 278 sampavedhenti 2013 sampavedhanti sampa vedhanti 290 padarani 2017 badarani badarani 293 ath’eva 2022 ateva ateva 298 uddhalaka 2025 uddalaka (p. 466) uddalaka 301
116 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
Paggharitapupphalakhala- paggharitapuppha- See VesSn 302
Sadis (F Comy. P. 531 -) punjapalalakhala-
Sadisa (p. 467
(The omission the above extract may be a printing error.)
nunjubhanika 2028 manjubhanika (p. 466) manjubhani 304 bhassani 2029 bhassanti bhassanta 305 kinjakkharato (F Comy. 531 – 10) kinjakkhato (p. 467) See VesSn 305 vyavidha 2030 vyaviddha vyaviddha 306 madhum bhimesehi 2030 madhum bhainsehi madhum bhisehi 306 piya ca no 2033 piya ca no piya ca te 309 sugandhika 2034 sugandhika suganthita 310 ito hi 2036 itopi (p. 468) itopi 312 mama 2045 mama me 319 tindukani 2047 tindukani tindukani 321 madhuke kasumariyo 2047 madhuke kasumariyo madhukeka sukumariyo 321 veluriya vannasannibhima 2062 veluriya vannupanibham veluriyavannupanibbham 330 vicitram nilan’ ekani vicitra – nitanekani See VesSn 332 seta lohitakani ca 2064 setalohitakani ca setasogandhigehi 2065 setasogandhikehi setasogandhiyehi 333 setavarisa 2070 setaparisa setaparisa 338 seahanama 2071 kahavera (p. 472) kanavera 339 sampupphitagga 2072 sampupphitagga supupphitagga 340 kadaliyo 2073 kadaliyo kandaliyo 341
117 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
uddha pavattam 2077 uddapavantam uddapavantam 345 nilapupphisekadhari 2080 nilapupphisetavari nilapupphi. . sekadhari 348 katerukkhehi 2080 katerukehi katerukehi 348 kakkarujatani 2082 kakkarujatani kakkarujatani 350 korandaka 2085 korandaka (p. 473) korandaka 353 kotthusuna 2094 kottusuna kotthu suna 362 kokkata 2095 kokkata konnaka 363 roma (v.l. mora) 2097 mora (p. 474) mora 365 koncavadika 2098 kunjavadika konca vadika 366 vyaghinasa 2099 vyagghinasa vyagghinasa 367 cetakedu (celaketu v.l.) 2099 cetakedu celakedu 367 nikujjitam 2100 nikujjitam nikujitam 368 manjussara sita 2102 manjussara sita manjussara. . ista 370 bhadrakkha 2102 bhadrakkha (p. 475) bhaddakkha 370 salik 2104 salika saliya 372 lohita 2105 lohita rohita 373 parepata 2107 parevata parevata 375 nivaro 2113 nivaro nivaro 377 akatthapako va 2113 akatthapako ca akatthapako ca 377 ucchu 2113 ucchu uncho 377 patittha 2117 patittha (p. 478) patitittha 380 devavanninm 2123 devavanninam devavannitam 382 jino 2139 jino jino 395
118 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
Jalim Kanhajinam ubho 2147 Jalim Kanhajinancubho Jali – Kanhajina ubho 403 Pitu pad’abhivandati 2154 pitupadabhivandati pitu – padani vandati 410 atha 2157 atho atho 413 braha kharo 2159 brahakharo braha – karo 415 pothena (F. Comy. 551 – 3) pothana (p. 486) See VesSn 419 sata – gunena (F Comy. 551 -3) sata – gunena Sinh. Sat–gunayen = P. satta- 419 gunena rucchiti 2165 rucchati rucchati 421 avasucchati 2169 avasucchati avasussati 423 santasunehi padehi 2183 santa sunehi padehi santa sunehi padehi 435 okandamasi 2202 okandamasi okandamase 449 ah’ ajja (Cf. at’ajja L) 2208 ahajja aho + ajja 455 asito 2209 asito asino 456 suta 2209 suna suna 456 khirapaka (F Comy. 558 -10) khirapaka (p. 493) See VesSn 464 bahukarunnasamhitam 228 bahum karunnasam- bahum karuna – samyutam 475 Hitam pattha 2228 pantha pantha 475 chakaliva migi chapa 2237 chakalimiva migim chakalimva migim chapa 483 Chapa paviloketi 2237 pavilokent vilokenti 483 vicinanti 2240 vicinanti vicinati 486 irine 2247 irine irine 492
117 INTRODUCTION
119 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
n ‘ ev’ assa 2249 nevasam (p. 495) nevesam 494 vyadhita 2256 byathita vyathita 500 vanamulaphalabhariya 2260 vanamulaphalahariya vanamulapalaharino 504 sivi putta ti 2263 Siviputtani Siviputtani 507 abhisasim 2266 abhisapim abhisapim 510 cittapekkhana 2274 citrapekkhuna citrapekkhuna 513 mandalakehi 2276 mandalakehi maddalakehi 515 nihita (v.l. nibata) 2280 nihata nihita 518 patita 2285 patita papati 52 dukkham na katum 2287 dukkham na katum dukkham akkhatum 523 yassaham 2312 yassaham assaham 540A vipaccatu 2318 vipaccatu vipaccatam 545 sajata 2321 sujata sujata 548 yo 2327 so so 554 jine 2327 jine vijine 554 dandena 2352 dandena danbbena 578 yathabhutam me 2353 yatha bhutam me yathabhutameva 579 bhande 2357 bhandena bhandena 583 ahatva 2364 ahacca ahatva (ahecca Br.) 588 amina va 2366 ammava amma ca 590 nilavannadhara 2375 nilayatthadhara 599 gandharo 2376 gandhadhaaro gandhadharo 600
120 INTRODUCTION
F J VesSn
suvannacitapakkhare 2382 suvannacitapakkhare suvanna – citta – pokkhare 605 natanattakagayana 2388 natanattaka gayaka nata naccakagayaka 610 mandaka (maddaka (v.l.) 2388 mandaka manddaka (Cf. mandiya L) 610 dhamantu 2389 dhammantu (p. 514) dhamentu 611 magganayena 2391 magganayena maggadesena 613 bahudijam 2395 mahodakam (p. 515) bahudijam 616 (Footnote : bahudakam) dhajaggani ca dissare 2399 dhajaggani ca dissare dhajaggani padissare 620 vinivattayitva 2404 nivattayitvana vinivattayitvana 625 votthapetvana 2404 votthapetvana vavatthapetvana 625 unchacariyena 2411 unchacariyaya unchacariyaya 630 pattiya 2421 pattika (p. 519) pattika 638 samanadimsu 2426 samanadimsu samma nadimsu 642 samapajjatha 2427 samagacchatha samagacchatha 643 bherva vane 2428 bherve vane bherva vane 644 adusakam 2431 adusakam adosakam 646 nahanakale (p. 588 – 5) nahanakalo nahanakalo 647 khomakodumbarani ca 2443 khomakodumbarin ca khomakotumbarani ca 658 pahesi 2443 pahesi pesesi 658A Pahesi 658BC
INTRODUCTION 121
The explanations given in Sinhalese in the description of the Flora and the Fauna of vanka – pabbata may be of more than passing interest to a student who wishes to make a detailed study of the plants and animals in ancient India.
The present Sanne throws much light on numerous obscure names of trees, animals, etc., the identification of which has presented great difficulty even to the translator of the Jataka – Atthakatha. Cf. 306 with the Jataka Translation (Cowell and Rouse) Vol. VI, p. 276 lines 1-3. Cf. also the explanation of sevalakam and simsakam in 344 (F 2076), with that of the Translation. The Pali Text Society’s Dictionary says that simsaka is the “Name of a water – plant” and that the commentarial explanation (sevaralsimsakan ti ime pi gaccha yeva – F. Comy. 536 – 17) is not correct. But the Sinhalese Sanne not only defends the Pali Commentary, but also identifies each of those two plants and mentions their Sinhalese names.
The fact that the identification of all the trees and animals, etc., mentioned in the jataka text (F 2056 ff.) was no easy task can be seen from the alternative explanations, the author of the present Sanne himself has given in several instances, e.g., the explanation of kacikara in 337. In this connection some valuable help is provided by the identical list of trees, etc., found with certain modifications in the Sinhalese classic Pujavaliya.1
The Vesaturu – Da – Sanne is not without interest from the standpoint of language as well.
the old Nominative Plural ending
-aha found in works like the Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya and the Ama – Vatura, is noticed sometimes in the vesaturu – Da – Sanne, e.g., man piyavi atiyaha “those who are proud by nature” (=P. manajatiya) 1; maduruvaha “mosquitoes” 153 ; karanuvaha “the doers” 178.
The Nominative plural ending - hu coming at the end of stems in – i, is generally changed to - hi, and that - hi 1. Seen my Edition of Pujavaliya, Part I, 1936, pp. 85 – 87.
122 INTRODUCTION
together with the preceding – I of the stem developes into an – I, In the present work both those forms occur, besides the useal for - hu, e.g., sivihi “ the people of sivi,” 44 ;sivi 31 ; ahudi “the wicked, those who are not good or virtuous” 543
In ra – masnen ( = P. sura – mamsehi) 12, one notices the Instrumental Singular ending - ena of Old and Middle Indian, extended in Sinhalese to the plural as well, the first n of – nen is on the analogy of forms where n forms part of the stem.
The Locative postposition la is seen occurring quite frequently, e.g., Kohi – la “where” 459, peratahi – la “in the presence of, in front of” 437.
The words aviya “(the woman) who has come” 204, siribariya “ the fortunate one” 459, and miliviya “ the dead (woman)” 496, used as feminine forms, cannot fail to be interest.
In a series of nouns, loosely joined together, the last one is sometimes inflected, as if all those nouns had been compounded. This phenomenon noticed in several Sinhalese classics, occurs in this work too, e.g., venamalu – vana pelen 233. Cf. atgoduru – vatugodurehi, amisapuja – pratipattipujavata, culavamsa – mahavamsayehi in Pujavaliya.
Uses like mama ohu kisuvak iluvanu pinisa no – ami “ I did not come to ask him for some thing” remind one of verbs in Pali and Sanskrist that govern two objects, and also show to what extent Sinhalese syntax had been influenced by Pali and Sanskrit during early times. It may also be interesting to note here that the modern use of this expression is not “to ask him for something, “ but “to ask for some thing from him ( = ohugen).”
As in other Sinhalese classics, there too the finite verb that aggress with a subject which is a feminine noun in the Singular number, stands in the Plural, e.g., devi.. ck – vu 15 ; radu – tomo . pilivisvu 61 ; madi – biso . . pavatuva 201 ; mav. . vulapti 421. Traces of the Atamanepada forms in the verbal conjugation, which almost disappeared in later
INTRODUCTION 123
times are still noticeable in forms like no – labeyi “ does not receive or find” 378. The Third Person Singular forms of the verb in the Present Tense like Danni “ knows” 124; pavatti “ continues, lasts, exists” 330; and ganni “ takes,” 430, are found here too, as in other works belonging to the Polonnaruva times.
The excessive use of auxiliary verbs which reached a great height and which formed a regular feature of the language of later times, appears to be on the increase during the time of our author. See e.g., kota – la “having done,” 213 ; sita – la, “ having stood (up)” 380; dalva – la, “having kindled,” 69.
The author of the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne, like Gurulugomi and other writers belonging to the Polonnaruva period, uses as correlatives the negative particles: no – da .. no – da, “ neither . . nor” (= P. no – ca. . no – ca), e.g., mavunge vargayen a namek no –da vivya; . . piyange vargayen a name no – da viya (18).
Several words found in the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne seem to owe their origin a Analogy, e.g., his “ Poles of a carriage,” 23 = P. isa, Vedic isa ; (Cf. P. sisa, Sk, sirasa > sis> his>is) ; handun – divi – sam “ the leopard skin ,” 288 = P. ajina + dipi – camma. (Cf. P. Sk. Candana > sandun > handun > andun); hanubandi “follws,” 172 = P. anubandhati; he “comes,” 313 for e, eyi = P. Sk. Eti; hikma (471) from hikmeyi = ikmayi “goes beyond, transgresses” = P. atikkamati, Sk. Atikramati, atikramate, Cf. Sk. asta, P. attha > at> hat “setting of the sun” ; Sk. P. asana> asun> hasun “seat” P. atuhati = arayi > harayi “ mounts.” The Sk. Word ghosa “cry, sound” which is a masculine noun is Sanskrit has been modelled on the feminine nouns ending in a and has been borrowed into Sinhalese as ghosava (82, 121). Cf. also karanava “reason, thing” = P. Sk. Karanam’ patra – (dhatuva) “ bowl (as a relic)” = Sk. Patram
When a pali or Sanskrit Word, borrowed into Sinhalese, in inflected, a y or v is generally introduced between the end of the Pali or Sanskrit stem and the vowel at the beginning of the case ending. Thus kala + ehi = kalayehi
124 INTRODUCTION
“at the time”; vimana + a = vimanaya “ the abode” sala + a = saliva “ the hall.” Even when the stem of the Pali or Sanskrit word ends in – ya, it undergoes the same change in being adapted into Sinhalese. But as two y sound will then occur consecutively in such cases, one of the ys is. generally dropped for the facility of pronunciation. Thus samaya + ehi > samayayehi> samayehi “at the time,” 231 Sometimes the final y which forms part of a stem is dropped on the analogy. of words in which y does not form an integral part of the stem. Thus papaya “sin” : papa :: vadaya “controversy” : vada : vismaya “surprise, wonder” : visma (1). Cf. also himala – vanayehi “ in the belonging to the temples,” ect., where the final ya of the stem is dropped through analogy.
The two words radu “ princess, queen” (61, 91, 385) and devele or devule (643, 680)” rain – cloud” seem to owe their origin to Haplology. Raja – du (= Sk. Raja – duhitr, p. raja duhitu -) > rada – du or radu – du< radu; devu + vele (- p. deva + valahaka with the Nominative Singular ending -e of Magadhi added in Sinhalese) > devele, devule, delve, see “ devo, dev – lo” Dhampiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya 14 – 4 ; deve vassante, devula vasana kathi,” “ while it was raining,” (ibid, 128 – 24) Cf. also budu – das “Name of a king or Ceylon” ( = p. buddhadasa)> budas > bujas.
Ha – sahu (506 meaning “together, along with” is interesting in that the same word is repearted twice – once as an inherited from, and once as a lon – word. This kind of repetition, either of from or of sense, is not uncommon in Sinhalese, e.g., pehera – karru “ weava” = pehera (Sk. Pesakara, p. pesakara) + karu (Sk. P. kara – ka) ‘ maha – ma vata high –way” = maha + ma – vata (maha – pantha -) ; sadat daha – tala – vila “lake chaddanta” = sadat. (p. chaddanta) + tala (P. talaka, Sk.tataka) + vila, here the idea of “ lake” is repeated thrice. Kulara – ge “gabled house” = kulara (P. Sk. Kutagara) + ge (P. loha pasada) + mahapaya (P. maha – pasada) ; kiri – vana; gala, “quartz” - kiri – vana (P. khira + pasana “milk – colourd stone” ) + gala “stone.”
INTRODUCTION 125
A sprinkling of Tamil borrowings like maligava “ palace,” mudali in mala – mudalivaru ( = P. balata) 215, mutappa “grand – father” 571, and of Dravidian construction like: vahan liya “put on the shoes” 262 ; bosat’hu kara bala palahai “ escaped towards (or ran up to ) the Bodhisatva” 409, found in the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne , reminds one of the Dravidian influences that were at work during the Polonnaruva period.
Aksohini “ a large numeral, a huge army” (613) is an interesting Sanskritization of Pali akkhohimi = Sk. Aksauhimi Cf. also mudrika “ vine, grapes,” which is a wrong Sanskritization of P. muddika = Sk. Mrdvika, Sihalese, midi The analogy seems, to have been: mudda : mudra:: muddika : mudrika Sanskrit sapta – parana corresponding to Pali satta – panna, Prakrit satta – vann, which has given rise to sat – vana> hat – vana> attana “ Name of a tree,” has been wrongly rendered into Pali as hattha – vana, and that has. Been Sanskritized as hata – vana on the analogy of Sk. Hasta = P. hattha > hat> at “hand” As early as the Dambadeniya period. (13th century), the pali word, aditta – pariyaya which is the name of a Buddhist Sutta, and which corresponds to Sk. Adipta – paryaya has been found Sanskritized to aditya – paryaya.
There are numerous other forms of great linguistic value in the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne, Although I prepared a complete Index of words of this work in the hope of discussing the etymologies of them all, considerations of time and space have prevented me from undertaking that work, and I have had to be satisfied, with merely giving the Index of words with a few occasional side - lights in the case of the more important words.
I am reserving a discussion of the grammar of the vesaturu – Da – Sanne for a critical edition fo the Dhampaiya – Atuva – Gatapadaya which is far more important linguisti cally than the present work, and which must necessarily be accompanied by an Etymological Index and a discussion of grammar. I shall have achieved my purpose in preparing this Edition and also in writing this essary, if I have given the reader some idea of the exegetical literature
126 INTRODUCTION
in Sinhalese of which so little is known, and if I have stimulated the interests of the linguist working in New Indian and also drawn the attention of the workers in Pali towards the treasures that lie hidden in the exegetical works which constitute the major portion of the oldest Sinhalese literature.
D. E. HETTIARATCHI.
CONTENTS PAGE_ 1. Preface (Sinhalese) … … v-vii 2. Introduction (Sinhalese) … … 1-65 3. Introduction (English) … … 67-126. 4. Contents (Sinhalese & English) … … 127 5. List of Abbreviations (Sinhalese) … … 129-131 6. List of Abbreviations (English) … … 133-136 7. Text of the Vesaturu-Da-Sanne … … 1-134 8. Linatthappakasini (Vessantara-Jataka-Tika) … … 135-150 9. Index of Words … … 151-226
සූචි පත්රoය
1. සිංහල සංඥාපනය ... ... v-viii 2. සිංහල ප්ර ස්තාවනාව ... ... 1-65 3. ඉංග්රීපසි ප්රාස්තාවනාව ... ... 67-126 4. සූචි පත්ර ය ... ... 127 5. සිංහල සංකෙත සූචිය ... ... 129-131 6. ඉංග්රීංසි සංකෙත සූචිය ... ... 133-136 7. වෙසතුරුදා සන්න පෙළ ... ... 1-134 8. ලීනන්ථුප්පකාසිනී (වෙස්සන්තර ජාතක ටිකා) ... 135-150 9. වචන සූචිය 151-226
127
සංකෙත සූචිය
a., adj = විශෙෂණය A = වෙසතුරු දා සන්නයේ A 1 නමැති පුස්කොළ පිටපතෙන් ලියා ගන්නාලද කොපිය A1 = ඩී. බී. ජයතිලක ශ්රීොමතුන් වෙතින් ලබාගත් වෙසතුරු දා සන්නයේ පළමුවන පුස්කොළ පිටපත acc. = කර්මප විශෙෂණය adv. = ක්රිපයා විශෙෂණය AMg. = අර්ධපමාගධී Ap. = අපභ්රංමශ AtJSn = අර්ථර ජාතක සන්නෙ B = ඩී. බී. ජයතිලක ශ්රීශමතුන් වෙතින් ලබාගත් වෙසතුරු දා සන්නයේ දෙවන පුස්කොළ පිටපත Br = බර්නාඩ් නිදහස් පුස්තකාලයට අයත් ලීනත්ථරප්පකාසිනී පුස්කොළ පොතෙන් කර ගන්නා ලද පිටපත C. = කොළඹ කෞතුකාගාරයට අයත් වෙසතුරු දා සන්න පුස්කොළ පිටපත (A. M. 13) caus. = ප්රතයොජ්යව ක්රිනයාව Comy. = අටුවාව, ව්යෙඛ්යා නය Cf., cf. = සසදනු Ch. = පරිච්ඡෙදය CPD = හෙල්මර් ස්මිත් පඬිතුමන්ගේ සම්පාදකත්වායෙන් කෝපන්හාගන් නගරයෙන් නිකුත් කරනු ලබන පාලි මහා අකාරාදිය D, DhpAGp = ධම්පියා අටුවා ගැටපදය- ඩී. බී. ජයතිලක සංස්කරණය, 1932 DISir = දළදා සිරිත, ඊ. ඇස්. රාජශෙඛර සංස්කරණය 1920 Ed. = සංස්කරණය, සකස් කරන ලද EpZ = ලංකා ශිලාලිපි සංග්ර හය F = ජාතකත්ථාවණ්ණනා (හෙවත් ජාතක අට්ඨකථා,) V. Fausboll සංස්කරණය, vi කාණ්ඩය, 1896 fem. = ස්ත්රීl ලිඟු G = ගයිහර් පඬිතුමන්ගේ සිංහල නිරුක්ති මාලාව, 1941 gen. = සම්බන්ධු විභක්තිය 129 130 සංකෙත සූචිය
ib., ibid = එහිම d. = එම Imp., imp. = විධික්රි යාව Instr. = කරණ විභක්තිය J = ජාතකට්ඨ කථා, විදුරපොල පියතිස්ස සංස්කරණය, 1939 (හෙවාවිතාරණ ග්රාන්ථමාලා) JAGp = ජාතක අටුවා ගැටපදය, ඩී. බී. ජයතිලක සංස්කරණය 1943 KSil = කව්සිළුමිණ, මඩුගල්ලේ සිද්ධත්ථ් සංස්කරණය, 1926 KudSk = සන්න සහිත කුසික, හරුමල්ගොඩ ශ්රීක සුමංගල සංස්කරණය, 1928 L = ලීතත්ථ්ප්පකාසිනී (ජාතක ටිකා - මෙම සංස්කරණය) Loc. Loc. = ආධාර විභක්තිය lw. = තත්සම ශබ්දය M = මයුරපාද පරිවෙණාධිපතින් වහන්සේගේ පූජාවලිය, ප්ර.ථමභාගය, ඩී. ඊ. හෙට්ටිආරච්චි ඩී. සී. දිසානායක සංස්කරණය, 1936 masc. = පුල්ලිඟු MRup = මහා රූපසිද්ධි සන්නෙ, බද්දේගම කීර්ත ති ශ්රී ධම්මරතන සංස්කරණය, 1926 MS. = පුස්කොළ පිටපත n. = විස්තරය, අධොලිපිය N. = නම, සංඥානාමය nep. = නේපාලි no. = ප්රාථමා විභක්තිය N. Pr. = සංඥානාමය obl. = ප්රාථමාවෙන් අන්යප වූ විභක්ති P = පාලි P. = පන්සිය පනස් ජාතක පොත, මුණසිංහ සංස්කරණය, vi වන භාගය 1929 p. = පිට Pk. = ප්ර9කෘත pl. = බහු වචනය p. p. = අතීත කෘදන්තය pr. p. = වතර්මාතන කෘදන්තය publ. = ප්රතකාශිත
සංකෙත සූචිය 131
R = ශ්රී රාහුල මාහිමියන්ගේ පඤ්චිකා ප්රරදීපය, ශ්රීම ධර්මා රාම සංස්කරණය, 1896 S = බුත්සරණ, වැලිවිටියේ සොරත සංස්කරණය, 1931 s. = නාමපදය Sas = සසදා විවරණය, මුනිදාස කුමාරතුංග සංස්කරණය, බුද්වර්ෂ 2183 Sing., sing. = එකවචනය Sk. = සංස්කෘත St. f. = ශබ්ද ප්ර කෘතිය s. v. = වචනය යට T = ආර් ඇල්. ටර්නර් පඬිතුමන්ගේ නිරුක්ති සහිත නේපාලි අකාරාදිය, 1931 V = වෙස්සන්තර ජාතක කථා වස්තුව, 1916 vb. = ක්රිරයාව, ආඛ්යා තය ved. = වෛදික VesSn = වෙසතුරුදා සන්නෙ (මෙම සංස්කරණය) VismSn = විශුද්ධිමාර්ගක සන්නෙ v. l. = පාඨාන්තරය voc. = ආලපන විභක්තිය Vol. = කාණ්ඩය, කලාපය, භාගය o = පෙළෙහි පාඨාන්තර අතරෙහි oAB ආදි වශයෙන් පුස්කොළ පිටපත් නාමයන්ට මුලින් යොදා ඇති බින්දුවෙන් ඒ සඳහන් පුස්කොළ පිටපත්හි එම පාඨය නොමැති බැව් කියැවේ. [] = පාඨාන්තර අතරෙහි එන මෙම ලකුණෙන් පෙළෙහි ඒ වරහන්වලට මැදිවී තිබෙන මුළු ඛණ්ඩයම ගැනේ.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
a., adj. = adjective A = Copy of the Manuscript A 1 of Vesturu – Da – Sanne, made on paper. Al = Palm – leaf Manuscript of the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne lent to me by the late Sir D. B. Jayatialaka. acc. = accusative adv. = adverb A Mg. = Ardha – magadhi Ap. = Apabhramsa At Jsu = Ata – Jataka – Sanne B = Palm – leaf Manuscript of the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne, also lent to me by Sir D. B. jayatilaka. Br. = Copy made by Maung Kyin Khina, of the Palm – leaf Manuscript of Linatthappakasini found in the Bernard Free Library C = Palm – leaf Manuscript of the Vesaturu – Da – Sanne belonging to the Colombo Museum Library ( No. A. M> 13 in the Catalogue) Caus = causative Comy. = commentary Cf – cf. = Confer, compare Ch. = chapter CPD = A Critical Pali Dictionary, begun by V. Trenckner, revised continued and edited by Dines Andersen and Helmer smith, Copenhagen. D, DhapAGp = Dhampiaya- Atuva – Gatapadaya, edited by Sir D. B. jayatilaka, 1932
133
134 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
DISir = Dalada – Sirita, Ed. E. S. Rajasekara, 1920 Ed. = Edition, edited by EdZ = Epiraphia Zeylanica F = Jatakatthavannana (The Jataka together with its commentary ) edited by V. Fausboll, Volume, VI, 1896 fem. = ferminine fr. = from G = Geiger W – An Etymological Glossary of the Sinhalese Language, 1941 gen. = genitive ib., ibid = ibidem, in the same place or work id. = idem, same Imp., imp, = Imperative Instr. = instrumental J = Jatakatthakatha (in Sinhalese character ) Part VII, edited by Widurapola Piyatissa Maha Nayaka Thera, 1939 (Simon Hewavitarane Bequest Series, Volume XLI) JAGp = Jataka – Atuva – Gatapadaya, edited by Sir D. B. Jayatilaka, 1943 KSil = Kav-Silumina, Ed. M. Siddhattha Thera 1926 KudSk = Sanna sahita Kudu – Sika, edited by Harumalgoda Sri Sumangala Thera, 1928’ L = Linatthappakasini, Tika on the Jataka Commentary (the present edition) Loc.,loc = locative Lw = loan – word M = Pujavaliya of Mayurapada Thera, Part I, Ed. D. E. Hettiaratchi and D. C. Dissanayaka, 1936’ masc. = masculine
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 135
MRup. = Maha – Rupasiddhai – Sanne, Ed. Baddegama Kirti Sri Dhammaratana, 1926 MS = Manuscript n, = note N, = Name nep. = nepali nom. = nominative N.Pr. = Name proper Obl. = oblique P. = pali (in linguistic discussions) P. = Pansiya – panas – jataka – Pota, published by G. F. Munasinghe Appuhamy, Part Vl, 1929 (in the foot – notes of the text) p. = page Pk. = Prakrit Pl. = plural p.p. = past participle (passive) pr.p = present participle publ. = publisbed by R. = Pancika – Pradipaya by Sri RAhula, Ed. Sri Dharmarama. 1896 S = But – Sarana, Ed. W. Sorata Thera, 1931 s. = substantive Sas = Sasa – Da – Vivaranaya, Ed. M. Kumaranathunga, 2483 B. E. Sing., sing. = Singular (Number) Sk. = Sanskrit st. f. = stem form s. v. = sub verbo, under the word T = R. L. Turner – A Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of the Nepali Language, 1931 V = Vessantahra – Jataka – Katha – vastuva, publ. J. D. Fernando , 1916
136 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
vb. = verb Ved. = Vedic VesSn = Vesaturu – Da – Sanne VismSn = Visuddhi – Maraga Sanne v.l. = varia lectio, Variant reading voc. = vocative Vol = Volume o = o among the foot – notes of the text (e.g., o AB) indicates that that particular reading is missing in the Manuscripts mentioned. [] = [] among the foot notes of the Text refers to that portion of the Text which comes within those brackets.