The Sanskrit Fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka in ‘Proto-Śāradā’ Script from the Serindia Collection of IOM, RAS

Abstract

The article introduces the Sanskrit fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka kept in the Serindian Fund of the IOM, RAS. A brief review of the script ‘proto-śāradā’ (in which the jātaka’s text is written) is given. The author points out that this fragment is a part of a certain Jātakamālā manuscript ‘edition’. The article includes transliteration, translation and comments on the text of the fragment.

Full Text

Examples of almost all the forms of Brāhmī script attested in the Tarim oases are represented in the Serindian Collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of Russian Academy of Sciences (IOM, RAS). The Sanskrit manuscript fragments from the Serindia Fund written in other scripts descended from Brāhmī are of great value and circumstances of their discovering are interesting. Few fragments of Sanskrit manuscripts written in the so-called ‘proto-śāradā’ script (according to the classification of the well-known German paleographer Lore Sander — ‘Gilgit/Bamiyan, type II’ script¹) are rightly considered to be ‘rarities’. Already judging from their titles, we can assume that this script is transitional from the so-called ‘Gilgit/Bamiyan, type I’ to śāradā² script (according to L. Sander). Well-known ‘Bower manuscript’ (Pl. 1) is the most striking example of Gilgit/Bamiyan, type I and not less known ‘Bakhśālī manuscript’ (Pl. 2) dated approx. the 8th c. is considered to be the earliest sample of śāradā script.

Pl. 1. The Fragment of the ‘Bower Manuscript’

Pl. 2. The Fragment of the ‘Bakhśālī Manuscript’ kept in the Bodleian Library, Oxford Univ., UK (source: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/bakhshali-jambudvipa-and-indias-role-in-science/article19792057.ece date: 25.01.2021)

All the three abovementioned scripts, according to Ahmad Dani classification, belong to the group of the North India scripts (Mathura and the northwestern region).³ As Stefan Baums notes, in the late period of Brāhmī script development (4–6th cc.), when it is more appropriate to talk about different scripts descended from one root, rather than about ‘regional variations’ of one script. Gilgit/Bamiyan, type I, as well as the other Brāhmī scripts spread in Tarim oases, presumably emerged on the basis of ‘North-Western Gupta’ script.⁴ The ‘proto-śāradā’ script (called Gilgit/Bamian, type II) was developed in the 7–8th cc., and after that, in 8th c. śāradā script spread in the Kashmir region and was used for writing texts in Sanskrit and in local dialects.⁵

The Serindian Collection of the IOM, RAS contains 7 fragments of Sanskrit texts written in ‘proto-śāradā’ script. Four of them still have to be identified: SI 3695 (3 fragments of Nikolay Fyodorovich Petrovsky⁶ collection) and SI 5521 (1 fragment of Nikolay Nikolaevich Krotkov⁷ collection). Two items, SI 2041-5 and SI 3695, are fragments of Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā, Buddhist philosophical text attributed to Kumāralāta (3rd c.), founder of the Sautrāntika (Dārṣṭāntika) school. The first fragment belongs to the Nikolay Krotkov collection, the second one — to the Nikolay Petrovsky collection. Finally, the fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka of Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā (‘The Garland of Birth Stories’; another title: Bodhisattva-avadāna-mālā) (SI 2998, fragment No. 5) was brought by Mikhail Mikhailovich Berezovsky⁸ from the expedition to Kucha in 1906–1907 (Pl. 3).

Pl. 3a. The Fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka (SI 2998, Berezovsky subcollection, IOM, RAS), recto; Pl. 3b. The Fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka (SI 2998, Berezovsky subcollection, IOM, RAS), verso

It is necessary to describe one paleographic feature of the Sanskrit fragments in ‘proto-śāradā’ script from the Serindia Collection of the IOM, RAS. Sometimes the vowel (mātrā) -e is more consistent with -e in ‘Gilgit/Bamian, type I’ script (if we keep in view the ‘scripts lineage’) and also corresponds to -e in varieties of South Turkestan Brāhmī (concerning the region of discovery) (Pl. 4). It should be borne in mind that most of the fragments were, apparently, found in the northern oases of the Tarim basin (fragments of Nikolay Krotkov, Mikhail Berezovsky collections). We believe that in this case we are not dealing with the export of Buddhist texts from Kashmir, but directly with the local, Serindian, Sanskrit texts written in ‘proto-śāradā’ script. Because in case of the Kashmirian manuscripts birch bark was the mostly used material, while all the Serindian Sanskrit fragments are written on paper. A similar fragment of Sanskrit jātaka from Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā (namely, fragment of Yajña-jātaka; ‘The Jataka on Sacrifice’) is stored at the Berlin Ethnological Museum. According to common information, this fragment from Tuyoq is written in ‘proto-śāradā’ script and dated approximately by the 8–9th cc. We suppose that Berlin fragment of Yajña-jātaka and St. Petersburg fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka are two fragments of one manuscript of Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā⁹.

Pl. 4a. The writings of –e typical for ‘proto-śāradā’ script; Pl. 4b. The writings of –e in ‘proto-śāradā’ script of SI 5521; Pl. 4c. The writings of –e in South Turkestan Brāhmī

The existence of ‘proto-śāradā’ in the Serindian north oases is an interesting fact itself, because since the 5–6th cc. (almost simultaneously with the formation of ‘Gilgit/Bamian, type I’ script) we can observe a clear tendency: absolutely separate South and North branches of the Turkestan Brāhmī script are formed in the Serindia oases.¹⁰ Until the 7–9th cc., the period of existence of ‘proto-śāradā’ as well as śāradā itself, Buddhist written tradition in Serindia had its own formed types of the Brāhmī script — the South Turkestan Brāhmī and the North Turkestan Brāhmī. The existence of ‘proto-śāradā’ as the formal script of Buddhist written tradition in the Serindia oases along with local writing types is, undoubtedly, the subject of a separate serious investigation that will expand our understanding of the history of the spread of Buddhism in Central Asia. It is possible that a study of the contents of the Serindian Buddhist Sanskrit texts written in ‘proto-śāradā’ script will help us in solving this problem.

The authorship of Jākatāmālā is attributed to the Buddhist poet Āryaśūra. However, there is still no consensus among researchers whether there was a real poet named Āryaśūra, or it is a pseudonym of another famous Buddhist thinker — Aśvaghoṣa, Mātṛceta, or some other person.¹¹ We can speak with a certain degree of certainty that Jātakamāla was compiled no later than the 6th c. because some praṇidhis (textual explanations for wall paintings) of the Ajanta frescoes directly indicate that depicted scenes were taken from Jātakamālā.¹²

‘The Garland of Birth Stories’ consists of 34 narratives of Buddha’s former births. Some Jātakamālā stories don’t have Pāḷi ‘equivalents’. Thus, there is no Pāḷi version of the abovementioned Yajña-jātaka. According to Oktiabrina F. Volkova,¹³ the main difference between the Jātakas Collection compiled by Āryaśūra with the Pāḷi version is an emphasis on Mahāyāna religious ideal, a compassionate image of a bodhisattva who acts for the sake of happiness of all sentient beings, in contrast to a strictly didactic tone of Pāḷi jātakas instructing in righteous behavior.¹⁴

The item SI 2998, besides the Sanskrit fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka presented in this article, contains 8 more fragments in the Tokharian, Khotanese languages and Sanskrit. The fragment written in ‘proto-śāradā’ script has a relatively small size ~ 10.0×7.5 cm; the text is written on both sides, 6 lines on each. Apparently, the right edge of the folio has been preserved because the right margin of the folio, partially intact, proves it. The close text concurrence between the Sanskrit fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka of SI 2998 and the relevant passage of Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā edited by H. Kern¹⁵ suggests that initially the line of the manuscript contained approximately 30 (± 2) glyphs (akṣaras). And this fact, in turn, gives reason to consider that initially the folio size was approx. 20.0×7.5 cm.¹⁶

The summary of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka is as follows. The ascetic, who thanks to his religious activities is called Kṣāntivādin¹⁷ (‘One who teaches patience’), settled in a picturesque forest. One day a local ruler,¹⁸ accompanied by his harem, was walking in this forest. When the ruler was tired and dozed off, his wives went for a walk through the woods and stumbled upon the ascetic’s hut. They were imbued with his wisdom and humility and sat around him, wishing to hear his preaching. Meanwhile the king woke up, saw that his faithful wives had left him and went to look for them in the forest. And he found them, sitting near the ascetic and listening attentively to him. Because all royal wives willingly listened to every word of Kṣāntivādin, the king was enraged because nobody else, except for him, could be the object of his wives’ interest. Drawing his sword, the king approached the ascetic, threatening Kṣāntivādin to kill him. However, the king’s threats didn’t have any effect on the ascetic who was completely free from fear. Then, the king cut off the hand of Kṣāntivādin, but the latter remained calm, free from the pain feeling and fear of death. The king sequentially cut off the ascetic’s hands, ears, nose and legs. But Kṣāntivādin remained calm and unshakable, feeling only compassion for the sinful king who had departed from the righteous path. Having committed such atrocities, the king fell through the earth into hell; and the ascetic, instructing the king’s subjects in the need to follow a righteous path, died of his wounds.

The Sanskrit fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka of the Serindian Collection of the IOM, RAS contains a culmination of the narrative: when an angry ruler inflicts fatal blows to the ascetic by his sword. As mentioned above, the main emphasis is on the fact that the ascetic, not paying attention to inflicted wounds, is sincerely compassionate to the ruler departed from the Discipline. Due to extreme affectation of consciousness, the king is compared with a deadly sick person. Such nuance characterizes this Kṣāntivādi-jātaka fragment; undoubtedly, as a Mahāyāna text with the ideal of a Bodhisattva.

The plot of Pāḷi Khantivādi-jātaka differs from the similar text from Jātakamālā in presenting a sequential ‘algorithm’ of the rejection of organs of sense and actions that ‘generate karma’: at first, the king orders the executioner to flog cruelly the ascetic, then he proceeds to cut off the limbs. After each execution the ascetic asks his tormentor: “Do you think that patience is in the skin/arms and legs/nose/ears?”¹⁹ The detailed description of the sequence of chopped off body parts refers us to the Abhidharma mātṛkā (terminological lists) matrix lists and to certain fragments of Prajnāpāramitā texts.

Thus, five senses (pañcendriyāni) that, according to Buddhist doctrine, determine the attachment of an ‘individual’ to all mundane phenomena are vision (cakṣu), hearing (śrotra), smelling (ghrāna), taste (jihvā), and touch (kāya). These five senses, as well as the arms and feet,²⁰ are responsible for bodily actions, belong to the ‘group of matter’ (rūpa-skandha).²¹ The sequential rejection of five senses and two ‘organs of [physical] action’, even in rather extreme form, can relate us to yogic practice²² leading to the attainment of the ‘Perfection of patience’ (kṣānti-pāramitā). Therefore, the flogging of ascetic’s skin may mean the rejection of the tactile sense. The absence of arms and feet, perhaps, marks the suppression of action generating karma. Cutting off nose (sense of smell, ghrāna) and ears (aural sense, śrotra)²³ also narrows down the influence of mundane temptations.²⁴

In this article the transliteration (comparing with H. Kern edition of Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā) and the translation of Sanskrit fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka (SI 2998) of Serindian Collection of IOM, RAS are given.

Symbols used in the transliteration

( )         — restored glyph(s)

[ ]         — glyph(s) whose reading(s) is(are) uncertain

{ }       — superfluous glyph(s)

« »       — interlinear insertion

..          — one illegible glyph

.           — illegible part of a glyph

///         — beginning or end of a fragment when damaged

||           — double daṇḍa – punctuation mark

Transliteration of the fragments

Recto

1. /// (na) tāpasacchadma bibhartti cedbhav(ā) ///
2. /// smān abhayaṃ prayācase || bodhisattva u .. ///
3. /// .. (ta)mavadhīd brāhmaṇāṃ nṛpa iti te matkṛ- ///
4. /// .. .(i)ti me ya bhayaṃ tasmātsva
5. /// .. śreyodhigamanakṣamāṃ || gu-
6. /// (m a)[haṃ] || atha sa rājā sūnṛtā-

Verso

1. /// .. (i)dānīṃ te kṣāntyanurāgam i-
2. /// n(e)r {d}dakṣiṇaṃ pāṇiṃ niśite-
3. /// duḥkhaṃ tathā kṣantidṛḍhavra-
4. /// [a]tha bodhisatvaḥ kaṣṭamatikkrānto
5. /// .. turamivairaṃ samanuśocaṃ-s-tūṣṇīṃ babhū[va]
6. /// .. ṣyati te tanu | muñca dumbhavrataṃ (c)e(d)aṃ ///

« | la .. » ///

Transliteration from The Jataka-mala. Stories of Buddha’s Former Incarnations otherwise entitled Bodhisattva-avadāna-mālā by Ārya-Çūra. Ed. By H. Kern (pp. 189–190) (the texts of the IOM fragments are given in bold letters):

<…> ityanunīyamāno 'pi sa rājā tena munivareṇānārjavopahatamatistamanyathaivā-bhiśaṅkamānaḥ punaruvāca |

na tāpasacchadma bibharti cedbhavān sthito 'si vā sve niyamavrate yadi | kṣamopadeśavyapadeśasaṃgataṃ kimarthamasmādabhayaṃ prayācase || 48 ||

bodhisattva uvāca | śrūyatāṃ mahārāja yadartho 'yaṃ mama prayatnaḥ |

anāgasaṃ pravrajitamavadhīdbrāhmaṇaṃ nṛpaḥ |

iti te matkṛte mā bhūdyaśo vācyavijarjaram || 49 ||

martavyamiti bhūtānāmayaṃ naiyamiko vidhiḥ |

iti me na bhayaṃ tasmātsvaṃ vṛttaṃ canupaśyataḥ || 50 ||

sukhodarkasya dharmasya pīḍā mā bhūttavaiva tu |

kṣamāmityavadaṃ tubhyaṃ śreyo’bhigamanakṣamām || 51 ||

guṇānāmākaratvācca doṣāṇāṃ ca nivāraṇāt |

prābhṛtātiśayaprītyā kathayāmi kṣamāmaham || 52 ||

atha sa rājā sūnṛtānyapi tānyanādṛtya tasya munervacanakusumāni sāsūyaṃ tamṛṣivaramuvāca | drakṣyāma idānīṃ te kṣāntyanurāgamityuktvā nivāraṇārthamīṣadabhiprasāritamabhyucchritapratanudīrghāṅguliṃ tasya munerdakṣiṇaṃ pāṇiṃ niśitenāsinā kamalamiva nāladeśādvyayojayat | chinne ’grahaste ’pi tu tasya nāsīdduḥkhaṃ tathā kṣāntidṛḍhavratasya | sukhocitasyāpratikāraghoraṃ chetturyathāgāmi samīkṣya duḥkham || 53 ||

atha bodhisattvaḥ kaṣṭamatikrānto ’yaṃ svahitamaryādāmapātrībhūto ’nunayasyeti vaidyapratyākhyātamāturamivainaṃ samanuśocaṃstūṣṇīṃ babhūva | athainaṃ sa rājā saṃtarjayanpunaruvāca |

evaṃ cācchidyamānasya nāśameṣyati te tanuḥ |

muñca dambhavrataṃ cedaṃ khalabuddhipralambhanam || 54 ||

Translation

But, [despite of] the all-possible respect shown in this manner by the best of the sages, this ruler, having rooted himself in bad behavior and sick²⁵ thoughts, tormented by erroneous suspicions said again: ‘If the Venerable One doesn’t pretend to be an ascetic, observing [the rules] of abstinence, as well as proclaiming teaching in patience why are you begging me for patience?²⁶’ The Bodhisattva said: ‘May the great king hear what purpose my diligence pursues:

‘The king killed sinless ascetic-brahman!’

[But] in what I done, let there be no condemnation to you and damage to your glory!

The inevitability of death for living beings is an immutable law.

So, looking back at my life,²⁷ I have no fear of it.

But just to prevent the violation of the Doctrine, which brings happiness in the future,

I have been preaching you the patience promoted the obtaining of highest bliss.²⁸

Because patience is called an assembly of virtues and an obstacle of obscurity,

I will gladly praise [this] excellent gift!’

Then the king, despising even so friendly and truthful, like the kusuma²⁹ flowers, words of the ascetic, angrily said to the best among sages: ‘Now we’ll see your devotion to patience!’ Having said that, [the king] chopped off, like a lotus flower from the stem, by sharp sword the ascetic’s right hand with long graceful fingers³⁰ that was raised forward slightly to keep [the king from the evil deed]. But for ‘The Established in patience’ there was no such pain even in the cut hand, as [he felt to the king], foreseeing³¹ the imminent inevitable terrible suffering of ‘[crowned] cutter’ who was accustomed to pleasure. Then the Bodhisattva, feeling pity to the ruler like to a patient whom doctors refused,³² exclaimed with sorrow: ‘Breaking the boundaries of righteous behavior [and as a result] of his own welfare,³³ he by this manner fell away from Discipline³⁴’; [having said it the ascetic] fell silent. Then, the king, threatening, again said:

‘In the same way [your] face will be cut off³⁵ and your body will die.

Leave the ostentatious piety and this malicious deceit!’

Thus, the Serindia Collection of the IOM, RAS contains an unique for the Serindia region fragment of the Buddhist Sanskrit manuscript written in ‘Proto-Śāradā’ script. The similar fragment, perhaps, of the same Jātakamālā manuscript is stored at the Berlin Ethnological Museum. The observed Sanskrit fragment of Kṣāntivādi-jātaka from the Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā has a significant similarity with the relevant text of Paḷi Tipiṭaka and clearly demonstrates the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism in North Western India and in the oases of the Tarim Basin.

[1] Sander 1968: 138–160.

² Notably, Śāradā is one of the names of goddess Sarasvatī, the protector of Knowledge and Arts.

³ Dani 1963: 108–111.

⁴ Baums 2016: 791–792.

⁵ J. Braarvig and F. Liland follow the same dates, basing on Lore Sander data also (Braarvig & Liland 2010: xxi–xxii).

⁶ Petrovsky Nikolay Fyodorovich (1837–1908) — Russian consul in Kashgar (1882–1903), archaeologist, historian, orientalist and researcher of Central Asia, the collector of Central Asian manuscripts.

⁷ Krotkov Nikolay Nikolaevich (1869–1919) — Russian diplomat, secretary in Kuldja and consul in Ürümchi, sinologist, manchuologistrian, manuscript collector.

⁸ Berezovsky Mikhail Mikhailovich (1848–1912) — Russian ornithologist, archaeologist, ethnographer, explorer of Asian regions.

 [9] Jataka-mala 1943: 181–192.

¹⁰ Sander 2005: 133–144.

¹¹ Volkova 2000: 10–15.

¹² Spink 2009; Spink 2007.

¹³ Volkova Oktiabrina Fiodorovna (1926–1988) — Soviet indologist and buddhologist.

¹⁴ Volkova 2000: 15–17.

¹⁵ Kern 1943.

¹⁶ Thus, the size of the folio as well as the number of akṣaras in each line almost coincides with the similar characteristics of the Sanskrit fragment of Yajña-jātaka of the Berlin Ethnological Museum. We think that it can be considered an additional argument in favor of the assumption that both fragments (Yajña-jātaka and Kṣāntivādi-jātaka) used to belong to one manuscript of Jātaka-mālā.

¹⁷ Kṣānti is (lit.) ‘patience, forbearance, endurance, indulgence’; the state of mental abstraction, acceptance [of all phenomenon as they are in reality]’.

¹⁸ The Pāḷi version of this jātaka contains the name of the king Kalābu as well as the name of his kingdom Kāsi (Sanskr. Kāśi) and the capital Benares (Varaṇāsī).

¹⁹ Fausbøll 1883: 40–42; Cowell 1897: 27–28.

²⁰ ‘The Teaching on Faculties’ (Indriya-nirdeśa), the second part of ‘the Encyclopedia of Abhidharma’ (Abhidharmakośa) by Vasubandhu, characterizes hands and feet as organs of ‘holding [of objects] and movement’ (Ostrovskaia & Rudoi 1998: 434). But we can read in the text of Pāḷi Khantivādi-jātaka that the king kicked (i.e. performed certain — evil — act) the ascetic in the heart area: <…> ’ti Bodhisattaṁ hadaye pādena paharitvā <…> (Jātaka 1883: 41).

²¹ Kategorii 2000: 17–18.

²²Thus, in Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra it is pointed that bodhisavttva-mahāsattva to comprehend the emptiness of matter must comprehend, step by step, the emptiness of vision, hearing, smell sense, taste and touch (Dutt 1934: 44).

²³ It can mean that ascetic is characterized as arhat who ‘no longer needs religious teaching’ (aśaikṣa), i.e. he does not need listening to the Dharma (Teaching).

²⁴ There is no indication of touch reject in Sanskrit Kṣāntivādi-jātaka but the other sense organs (vision, hearing, smell sense and taste) are indicated, apparently, by one word — ‘face’ (āna).

²⁵ Anārjava — (lit.) ‘disease; moral or physical crookedness; dishonest conduct’. The mind affectiveness is regarded in Buddhism as a disease. In Buddhist canonical texts Buddha is characterized as a Skillful Healer (Bhaiṣajyaguru) and the Teaching (Dharma) as a medicament from disease.

²⁶ Abhayaṃ — ‘fearlessness, peace’.

²⁷ Vṛttam — (lit.) ‘circle’.

²⁸ Śreyo’bhigamanakṣamām.

²⁹ According to Indian traditional beliefs, all prayers made during the time when kusuma flowers blossom will be realized. So, perhaps, words told by the ascetic like kusuma flowers [during its ‘blooming’ i.e. sermon utterance] give all hearers fulfillment of all desires and lead to Highest Bliss.

³⁰ Pratanudīrghāṅguliṃ. ‘Long fingers’ (Skt. dīrghāṅguliṃ; Pāḷ. dīgh’ aṅguli) is one of 32 major signs (dvātriṃśanmahāpuruṣalakṣaṇāni) of Great Person (Mahāpuruṣa) mentioned in Mahāpadāna-sutta, Lakkhaṇa-sutta, Brahmāyu-sutta and etc. ‘Slender fingers’ (Skt. anupūrvāṅguli; pratanu- — synonim anupūrva-) is one (fifth) of 80 minor signs (aśītyanuvyañjanāni) of Mahāpuruṣa (Mahāvyutpatti 1973: 25). Thus, Kṣāntivādin is presented in the jātaka text as the ascetic who should become a Great Person in a future: he has, at least, one of iconographic sings of Mahāpuruṣa.

³¹ Samīkṣya — ‘to be well considered or investigated or ascertained’. Samīkṣa is (lit.) ‘complete investigation’. The comprehension of the functioning of the 12 links (Skt. dvādaśanidānāni) of the causal wheel of Dependent Origination (Skt. pratītyasamutpāda) gives an opportunity to see clearly future results of accomplished actions. In this case samīkṣa can be compared with vyākaraṇa as ‘fore-seeing’, pro-gnosis (‘fore-knowledge’) (Sho­makhma­dov 2019: 24–36).

³² Vaidyapratyākhyātamāturam. As one of the five deadly sins the killing of arhat means ‘the lack of Discipline (asaṃvara) when the offender turns away from the Doctrine-‘medicament’ and doesn’t accept the Buddha, as well as minor teachers as his healers.

³³ Svahitamaryādām. According to Buddhist ideas on karma svahita (‘one’s own welfare’) is obtained because of former merits. So, the high status of the king born in Kṣatriya family undoubtedly was obtained because of his many merits in former lives.

The one of the meanings of maryādām is ‘the bounds or limits of morality’. So, the king’s anger forced him to break his righteous rules (rājadharma – code of rules for governor) cancels his former merits depriving ‘the crowned criminal’ the perspective of obtaining of Final Liberation and the right to occupy the current social status: a ruler violated his dharma could be overthrown legally (Shomakhmadov 2007: 18, 73).

³⁴°apātrībhūto ’nunasyeti is (verbatim) ‘to become unfit for [the obedience] of Discipline’, i.e. Vinaya rules. Anunaya has some meanings: (1) ‘conciliation’; (2) ‘discipline’; (3) ‘honoring’.
As mentioned above, the king killed the arhat is characterized as asaṃvarika (‘the one who established in the absence of Discipline’) and unable to accept Buddhist Teaching. So, ‘conciliations’ of Dharma preachers are meaningless in this case. And the king being, according to Vinaya rules, an ‘ordinary laity’ (upasāka) broken away Vinaya rules becomes unworthy of king honors.

³⁵ Cācchidyam-ānasya ‘to cut the face’ (i.e. eyes, nose, mouth, ears), meaning to cut organs of sensibility from their objects.