The Buddhastotra of the Petrovskii Collection

Abstract

The article is devoted to the publication of two leaves of a manuscript in Tocharian B from the Petrovskii collection, which is kept in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in St. Petersburg, known under the call numbers SI P/1b (SI 1903) and SI P/2b (SI 1904). These two leaves are consecutive and almost complete. The text is being published here for the first time in its entirety, with full transliteration, transcription and translation. It is part of a Buddhastotra, a poem of praise addressed to the Buddha, the stanzas of which are parallel to several stanzas of the Varṇārhavarastotra by Mātrceṭa.

Full Text

Georges-Jean Pinault The Buddhastotra of the Petrovskii Collection Abstract: The article is devoted to the publication of two leaves of a manuscript in Tocharian B from the Petrovskii collection, which is kept in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in St. Petersburg, known under the call numbers SI P/1b (SI 1903) and SI P/2b (SI 1904). These two leaves are consecutive and almost complete. The text is being published here for the first time in its entirety, with full transliteration, transcription and translation. It is part of a Buddhastotra, a poem of praise addressed to the Buddha, the stanzas of which are parallel to several stanzas of the Varṇārhavarastotra by Mātrceṭa. Key words: Tocharian, Sanskrit, poetry, Buddhist literature, Buddhastotra, Mātrceṭa § 1. The Tocharian manuscripts kept in St. Petersburg, in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, belong to a number of different collections which are named after the scholars, explorers and civil servants who found in the Tarim basin (in present-day Xinjiang, China) manuscripts in various languages, which were eventually sent to St. Petersburg for study by Sergei Oldenburg (1863-1934), and gathered together by the Russian Academy of Sciences.1 The manuscript which will be published in the following pages is both historically famous and nearly unknown. It consists of two consecutive leaves of large size, written in the classical Brāhmī script of the Northern Turkestan type. The exact location where they were found is unknown, but it can be surmised to have been one of the oases on the northern route, possibly in the region of Kucha. They were acquired by Nikolai Petrovskii (1837-1908), who was then Russian consul in Kashgar, near the western border of present-day Xinjiang. This discovery was reported by Oldenburg in a short article (1893), which is evidentely dated as © Georges-Jean Pinault, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris/Sorbonne 1 For a comprehensive survey, see VOROB’IOVA-DESIATOVSKAIA 1997, 207-210. from May 1892. That paper included in an appendix a large plate showing the recto and the verso of the first leaf (SI P/1b).[1] At that time, both the script and the language were unknown. Some time afterwards, the two leaves were passed on to Ernst Leumann (1859-1931) for examination. The display of the first leaf caused a sensation at the 9th International Congress of Orientalists held in London in September 1892. Leumann presented the second leaf at the 12th International Congress of Orientalists held in Rome in October 1899.[2] Immediately afterwards, in 1900, he published in St. Petersburg a transcription[3] and a first analysis of the content of the two leaves. Leumann was able to identify the metrical structure (see below § 3) of the text and several loans from Sanskrit that pointed to the Buddhist content of the poem. This publication comprised two plates: the first gives the metrical reconstruction of the lines of the first leaf (SI P/1b) and the second shows the recto and the verso of the second leaf (SI P/2b).[4] Leumann’s pioneering work was quite creditable, even though he was at a loss to interpret the special akùaras which were used to denote specific sounds of this unknown language. In the following years, his first endeavour was bolstered by the discovery in Serindia (called at that time “Ostturkestan”) of further manuscripts written in northern varieties of the Brāhmī script, belonging to the so-called Gupta type. A number of them were in Sanskrit, which aided the partial reading of those which were written in unknown languages while presumably containing Buddhist literature. In these materials, Leumann (1907) distinguished two groups according to the language affiliation, which he named “Sprache I” and “Sprache II”. The second language would later be identified as Middle Iranian, more precisely Khotanese Saka (which Leumann termed “Nordarisch”). The first was deciphered by Sieg and Siegling in 1908, and identified as a new Indo-European language, which they named “Tocharisch”. Furthermore, they identified two varieties of this language, A and B, and they correctly ascribed the St. Petersburg leaves published by Leumann in 1900 to Tocharian B. Sieg and Siegling had worked mostly on the manuscripts which had been found and brought back to Berlin by German expeditions in the Tarim basin, from 1902 onwards, but they duly mention (1908, 915-917) Leumann’s contribution. Therefore, it is fair to say that Leumann (1900) paved the way for the beginnings of Tocharian studies, and the two leaves of the Petrovskii collection have remained famous ever since as the first Tocharian manuscript ever published.[5] It is somewhat paradoxical, therefore, that in the following decades these leaves were never scientifically published in their entirety by the few scholars who could rely on the advances in Tocharian philology. This manuscript has long been cited with the press mark Pe (= Petersburg), especially by German scholars.[6] Some phrases and sentences from the text have been quoted in books and articles on Tocharian linguistics. The text was studied by Walter Couvreur (1914-1996), presumably after the revised transliteration provided by Emil Sieg (1866-1951), during Couvreur’s stay in Göttingen, sometime between 1938 and 1944. Couvreur 1948, 563 and 567 gave the transcription and translation of three short passages.[7] In the German handbook of Tocharian, there is a broad transcription of the first leaf, with several notes but no translation, in a selection of extracts from Buddhastotras, see TEB II, 58-59 (text No. XX.3).[8] This transcription is not based on an autopsy of the manuscript and it contains erroneous restorations which stemmed from misreadings. It has been in need of revision for a long time. I had the opportunity to personally study the original manuscript in St. Petersburg three times. In February 1998, I made a survey of the collections of Tocharian and Sanskrit manuscripts kept in the IOM, RAS.[9] I transliterated most of the Tocharian fragments, including the two leaves of the Buddhastotra in the Petrovskii collection. This transliteration was the basis of the transcription which I published later, with translation and commentary.[10] I realized that my interpretation of some of the damaged parts close to the lacunas in the manuscript was problematic, so that my restorations were at the least debatable, if not unsound. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to study the original leaves[11] again in April 2009 and May 2015, in order to check many details. The leaves are in relatively good condition, although the ink has been somewhat erased in places, especially at the surviving extremities. The paper has been pierced or torn in a few places. The upper and lower edges remain. There are 6 lines on each side. The space for the string hole interrupts lines 3 and 4. Size of the leaves: 38×9.1 cm; interval between the lines: around 1.3 cm. The paper has been torn off obliquely on the right, so that half of the lines are shorter by a few centimeters. The space for the string hole occupies about 5 cm. One can still see the ruling of the lines, and even traces of the vertical ruling on both sides of the spaces for the string hole. This testifies to the careful preparation of the leaves, which is borne out by the quite regular and beautiful calligraphy. The left and right edges have been lost. The width of the respective lacunas can be estimated by the number of missing syllables and the expected position of the string hole in a manuscript of such size, since the string hole is normally placed in the first third of the leaf. The meter helps us to assess the number of missing akùaras, which varies between 7 and 10 in total for SI P/1, between 5 and 9 for SI P/2. There are more akùaras missing on the left side (between three and six) than on the right (minimum one or two, maximum five). Therefore, the width of the original leaves can be estimated to have been about 48 cm, depending of the size of the left and right margins. § 2. Transliteration of the two leaves SI P/1 (SI 1903) and SI P/2 (SI 1904) The conventional symbols for the transliteration of Tocharian are used: - illegible akùara; · illegible or missing part of an akùara; /// for a lacuna in the manuscript; ○ for the string hole space; [ ] (square brackets) for an uncertain reading; ( ) for restorations; = for sandhi; \ for the virāma stroke. Note that the redundant marking of virāma, with an additional dot on the right, is found only twice in SI P/2 b1, after the same word. At the end of each stanza, I have given its number, without any other additional mark. Except for the last pāda of a stanza, the end of the pāda is normally marked by a single dot, not by the double dot which is found in most metrical passages of other Toch. manuscripts. This dot has been forgotten by the scribe at the end of the pādas 65a, 68c, 68d, 72a, 73b, 74b, 74d. SI P/1 Recto (рl. 1) a1 /// spantaitsñentaùùe eïku wājra akautacce • mahākaruüùe waipe peñyacce peùpiütu • taryā-ykne ymentse śmoñaùùe mā[ñ](··)1 kakām[au •]/// a2 ///lyp[o] yaitu stmau ùña-nwalñeùùepi sumerntse mrācne 64 poyśi[ñ]ñ(·)ùùe twe ylaiñäkte nest yalts=eśaintsa lkāùùeñc=ānaiśai [p](·) preścyaùùe [kr](·)/// a3 ///r(·)syaùùeü āstreü ña ○ ktentsa wawārpau • kleśanmaùùeü ceü lāütn asūreüts po näkùeñcai • palskoùùe cau wemacitreü ś[an]maùùeñcai y(·)ai/// a4 /// [śa]nmausa 65 ○ ñäkcyeü yetweütsa yaitu vājr eüïku ùarnene • ylaiñäktñe weùsa karpāsta wrocce telkine • kreüt pe[l](·)/// a5 /// [so]yùasta • wismai klyautkasta brāhmaññai wertsyai po śaiùùe • yātaùùeñcai ilaiñakteü2 po ylaiñäktents āùtsa praly[u]3 yparwe s(·)a4/// a6 ///[nma] pelaikneùùana wrotstsana • wärpormeü skwanma pälskoùùana5 toü snay6 āke • śaiùùentse wäntre ārskormeü yā(-) [st m]ai [·]ā(-)7/// Verso (pl. 2) b1 /// w(·)rś(·) rīne nervānùai • orasta ñiś\8 ywārc laklene tñak no pw āñmtsa yam śarāüne po śaulanma[sa] 67 āñmālāùlñe[ùù](·) uppā[l](·)/// b2 ///[kw]( )peùùe wastsy āstren ausu peñyacce • kwäntsaññe jañ\9 snai ykorñeùùa po kektseñe lalaüùk=astarya poyśiññeùù=aurtsa [la]ktsauña ùa/// b3 /// bhraïgār eïku śū ○ kes=āstreü īte maittarùùe 68 pūdñäkteùùe twe bramñäkte śpālmeü snai menāk\ • yainmu maktauñe /// b4 /// nermit yāmùe ○ ñcai wnolmen okt yaknes=astareü • nervānäùùai10 kentsa śaiùùe tarkaucai eüùketstse • tanmaùùeñcai pelaikn[e] /// b5 /// ssuwa koy[ntsa] auspa brāhmaõeü 69 emprenmaùùana (-)[d]anma11 śtwāra akùāsta • klainaüts\ śamaśkaüts\ karsatsi (-·)w n(·)rm ci aurt(·)e -/// b6 ///[ù]\ karute [ù]iryeü12 sāgari • gāï pelaikneùùai keütsa cärkāsta astaryai • po pi śaiùùe kalloy nāùtsi pelaik[n]eù(·)ai (-)ñaiś\13 [lau] -/// Рl. 1. SI P/1 (SI 1903), recto Рl. 2. SI P/1 (SI 1903), verso Рl. 3. SI P/2 (SI 1904), recto Рl. 4. SI P/2 (SI 1904), verso SI P/2 Recto (рl. 3) a1 /// h(·)tu mānaveüś kauñäktaññ=āstreü maõóālmeü • pākri takāsta bramñäktaññana ersnasa • yakne kektsents(·) [p]( ) [śārsa]stane an(·)/// a2 /// (·)su ka[l]pa taï cīne maiyyācce • ywārc wertsyaine plyews=iprerne ms(·)c14 ompostaü tsemtsa cīne wnolmeüts\ taï wrocce 71 waiptār [po wno]lmeüts\ kuśa/// a3 ///[ndri]nta palsko ○ ntaüts\ ymain po ysomo yāmornta kleśanma • ykenta preściyaü tsaḻpaùleùùana upāynta • ysomo ai/// a4 /// alāltte • ○ añmālaùke taïwaññeñca kratanīke twek nest auspa pontaüts ùañ śaumo 72 po pelaiknenta[ü]/// a5 ///[ùa]rm ekītatsñe okonta cmelaüts putkalñe pkantenm=opāynta waiptārtsaññenta ùetsñenta • yāmwa yām[ll]ona ùañ ùañ ī(·)[e]/// a6 ///[jhñ]e15 lykaśke trekte po karsauca po klautkentsa po trai prekenne 73 tū yknes=anaiśai po pelaiknenta śarsāsta • ùals(·)e/// Verso (рl. 4) b1 /// [s]p(·)rtotarc\· snai skeyeü ka twe po krentauna yneś yāmùeñca • rītalñe yarm ka [po]ne wätkāltsñe sportotarc\ • etaïkatte ka s(··)/// b2 /// nts[e] ra ymīye akāśne 74 olypotsts=enestai wäntre yneś ka tañ\ sportotra • śatkai ra lauke attsaik ispe tañ\ somotkñe • [ka]16/// b3 /// p[o] tañ ola ○ ï tu • snai keś ra tapre attsaik ette tañ masketra • karsanalyeü wäntarwane snai prayo[k k]a sporto[tr](·)17 /// b4 /// [o]rkmo ra wäntre ○ kauü ra tañ\ laktsetstse • skloksa yauùmauù ra ùek wätkāltsaññe tañ omte • snai ptsa katkre ra t[pa]rùkemeü [tpa]rùke /// b5 /// [ai]śmoüts\ ceüśtr aiśamñeùùe cämpamñe • om tañ satkau po karsa(- -) [ñ\]18 akāśe po saüsārne ùek etaïkatte 76 [tāk]=aurt[s]e19 [lkā]lñe pelai/// b6 ///[•] prutkoytr akāśe tañ\ krentaunasa yke postaü • ykāk tañ krentauna placyeü snai yärm keś saim wästa • mant\ snai [ka]ls(·)ā[lyñ]e [snai] yä[rm\] ke (··)[ai]/// Textual notes: 1. The paper is torn at the end of the line, but the reading of mā is safe. In any case, the remnants of the next akùara exclude the restoration (pekwe), as per TEB II, 58, n. 6. The reading kakāmo for the next word is not warranted. This form shows the expected final diphthong. After it, one can even see a trace of the expected dot at the end of the pāda. 2. Sic! The spelling ilai° instead of ylai° can be accounted for by the metrical constraint which requires a word of 4 syllables here in order to complete the first 8-syllable segment of the pāda. There is no trace of the double dot on the top of the aksara ña of ñakteṃ. Compare the correct writing of the genitive pl. of the same word shortly afterwards. 3. The reading pralya, as per TEB II, 58 is excluded; the reading pralyu was confirmed by Couvreur, (cf. TEB I, 103, n. 1). This is the expected form of the vocative sg. masc. of the gerundive pralye, (cf. TEB I, 103, § 123.1). 4. On the top of this akùara, the vocalization °au is excluded. The restoration s(tmaucai), as per TEB II, 58, n. 12 is impossible. 5. Sic! This word is not written with a Fremdzeichen for the first akṣara, as is usual. Compare further occurrences of pälsko in 1a3 and 2a3. 6. Sic! For snai, a sandhi form before the vowel which does not change the prosody. 7. The paper is torn, so the reading remains tentative as well as the resto-ration. Nonetheless, my previous reading has to be revised. 8. Sic! Virāma stroke after the plain sign, not a Fremdzeichen. 9. Virāma sign, but the meter proves that this word should be read with two syllables, as jaṭä. 10. According to the meter, this word should be read with 3 syllables: nervānṣai. The /nä/ is written without a Fremdzeichen, which is not so remarkable. 11. For the second akùara of this word, the reading <ra> is excluded. The reading and restoration (ve)danma by Couvreur were correct, pace TEB II, 59, n. 5, see also THOMAS 1957, 173. 12. Despite the poor condition of the paper, the reading [ṣ]i is much preferable to [p]i for the first akùara of this word, pace TEB II, 59. 13. Virāma stroke after the plain sign, not the Fremdzeichen, see above n. 8. As for the beginning of the word, the damaged paper and the size of the break allow us to assume a large and complex ligature. 14. The hole in the paper allows the restoration ms(ā) for the preceding akùara. 15. The reading of the ligature right after the break has puzzled me for a long time. After repeated checks, it appears that some options are not warranted: [pr]e, [pñ]e, [ùn]e, [ùk]e. As the most likely reading one should retain [jhñ]e, which implies a loan from Skt. sarvajña- or dharmajña- with hypersanskritism and adaptation to the Tocharian morphology. This can be supported by the parallel Sanskrit text, which contains sarvadharmajñaḥ (VAV 3.15c). The Tocharian text paraphrases or translates several stanzas of the chapter 2 (Sarvajñatāsiddhi) of VAV, see below § 5. The restoration (sarva)jhñe (Skt. sarvajña-) can be reckoned redundant, because it would be translated later by po kärsauca. Therefore, I have tentatively preferred to restore (dharma)jhñe, provided that the first two akùaras were sufficiently close to the Sanskrit original. 16. Only the lower left part of a single sign, not a ligature, is visible before the break. My previous tentative reading is best forgotten. 17. The ligature entails the sandhi of °trä>°tr before the vowel or diphthong of the next word. 18. My previous reading and restoration karsa[l]ñ(e) have to be drastically revised, first of all because this gives the wrong meter. In addition the place of the akùara ña does not correspond to a ligature; it is actually marked by a virāma stroke, which is almost completely erased. The new reading allows a syntactical construction which is not very different from my former assumption, except that po karsatsi should be taken as the nominalization of the phrase po kärs- ‘to know everything’ (cf. po kärsauca in 73e), translating the Skt. sarvajñatā- ‘omniscience’. 19. This sequence ought to be interpreted as the sandhi of tākoy, optative 3rd sg. act. of the verb ‘to be’, with the initial diphthong of the following word. This optative is in parallel to the optative prutkoytär of the next sentence. § 3. Transcription and metrical restitution of the text The poem follows a relatively rare metrical pattern: each stanza has five pādas, the first four pādas having 13 syllables (rhythm 5/8) and the fifth pāda having 21 syllables (rhythm 8/8/5).[12] Accordingly, the text shows a number of metrical variants of the standard Tocharian B language, as well as many sandhi forms. Otherwise, the language belongs to the classical stage, according to Peyrot’s periodization.14 I would assume the first half of the 7th c. CE for the composition of the text, but it may have been copied in the second half of the same century. In the following I have tried to give a continuous text in most instances. Some of the restitutions given below are, of course, open to discussion. The manuscript covers verses 64b to 77d of the poem. There is still a long lacuna which I have not yet been able to fill plausibly: in the pāda 69b, where 8 syllables are missing. In the following, ordinary brackets correspond to the restorations, whereas square brackets denote additions that are required to make the text more readable. The expected dots that occur in lacunas have been restored, but missing dots have not been added in disregard of the manuscript. SI P/1a1 (5 syllables missing) späntaitsñentaùùe eïku wājrä akautacce • mahākaruüùe waipe peñyacce peùpiütu • täryā-ykne ymentse śmoñaùùe māñ(ye) kakāmau • (tä[a2]ryāka-wi yetweüts=o)lypo yaitu stmau ùña-nwalñeùùepi sumerntse mrācne 64 poyśiññ(e)ùùe twe ylaiñäkte nest yalts=eśaintsa lkāùùeñc=ānaiśai p(o)-preścyaùùe kr(eü)[a3](t pelaikne •) (śtwarā-we)r(t)syaùùeü āstreü ñaktentsa wawārpau • kleśanmaùùeü ceü lāütn asūreüts po näkùeñcai • pälskoùùe cau wemacitreü śanmäùùeñcai y(l)ai(ñä[a4]ktentse prākreü) śanmausa 65 ñäkcyeü yetweütsa yaitu vājr eüïku ùarnene • ylaiñäktñe weùsa karpāsta wrocce telkine • kreüt pel(aikneùùe [a5] śūkesa śāmna) soyùasta • wismai klyautkasta brāhmaññai wertsyai po śaiùùe • yātäùùeñcai ilaiñakteü po ylaiñäktents āùtsa pralyu yparwe s(t)a(mäùlu) (66) [a6] (toü śtwār=empre)nma pelaikneùùana wrotstsana • wärpormeü skwanma pälskoùùana toü snay āke • śaiùùentse wäntre ārskormeü yā(tä)st mai(yy)ā(cceü •) (katknat [b1] śaulùana po) w(a)rś(aiü) rīne nervānùai • orasta ñiś ywārc laklene tñak no pw āñmtsa yam śarāüne po śaulanmasa 67 āñmālāùlñeùùe uppāl(ne ścmast=ara[b2]ñcäùùu • yase)-kw(i)peùùe wastsy āstren ausu peñyacce • kwäntsaññe jañ(ä) snai-ykorñeùùa po kektseñe lalaüùk=astarya poyśiññeùù=aurtsa läktsauña ùa(rsa ñäkcye) [b3] (karunäùùe) bhräïgār eïku śūkes=āstreü īte maittarù- ùe 68 pūdñäkteùùe twe bramñäkte śpālmeü snai menāk • yainmu mäktauñe - - - [b4] - - - - - (•) nermit yāmùeñcai wnolmen okt-yaknes=astareü • nervānäùùai kentsa śaiùùe tärkaucai eüùketstse • tanmäùùeñcai pelaikn(eùùe) [b5] (bramñäktentse) säsuwa koyntsa auspa brāhmaõeü 69 emprenmaùùana (ve)danma śtwāra akùāsta • klainaüts śamaśkaüts karsatsi (sak)w n(ā)rm ci aurt(s)e (•) (ceü [b6]wamer kälpo)ù karute-ùiryeü sāgari • gāï pelaikneùùai keütsa cärkāsta astaryai • po pi śaiùùe kalloy nāùtsi pelaikneù(ù)ai (wùeü)ñaiś lau(ke) [SI P/2a1] (astareü warne 70) h(e)tu mānaveüś kauñäktäññ=āstreü maõóālmeü • pākri takāsta bramñäktäññana ersnasa • yakne kektsents(e) p(o) śārsasta-ne an(aiśai) [a2] (•) (śaumo spelkkes)su kalpa taï cīne maiyyācce • ywārc wertsyaine plyews=iprerne ms(ā)-c ompostäü tsemtsa cīne wnolmeüts taï wrocce 71 waiptār po wnolmeüts kuśa(lamū[a3]länta i)ndrinta pälskontaüts ymain po ysomo yāmornta kleśanma • ykenta preściyaü tsalpäùleùùana upāynta • ysomo ai(śeñca) [a4] (snai olypo käùùi) alāltte • añmālaùke täïwaññeñca krätanīke twek nest auspa pontaüts ùañ śaumo 72 po pelaiknentaü (ts nesalñenta [a5] cämpalñenta •) ùarm ekītatsñe okonta cmelaüts putkalñe pkäntenm=opāynta waiptārtsäññenta ùetsñenta • yāmwa yāmllona ùañ ùañ ī(k)e(ne wänta[a6]rwa •) (twe dharma)jhñe lykaśke trekte po kärsauca po klautkentsa po trai prekenne 73 tū yknes=anaiśai po pelaiknenta śärsāsta • ùals(k)e(mane yarm i[b1]mesa ka po) sp(o)rtotär-c snai skeyeü ka twe po krentauna yneś yāmùeñca • rītalñe yarm ka pone wätkāltsñe sportotär-c etaïkätte ka s(nai āke tañ ka[b2]rsalñe yente)ntse ra ymīye akāśne 74 olypotsts=enestai wäntre yneś ka tañ sportoträ • śatkai ra lauke attsaik ispe tañ somotkñe • kä(tkre ra [b3] tparùke mäsketär) po tañ olaï tu • snai keś ra tapre attsaik ette tañ mäsketrä • kärsanalyeü wäntarwane snai prayok ka sportotr (aiśai yama[b4]lñe po ci) (75) (śatkai) orkmo ra wäntre kauü ra tañ läktsetstse • skloksa yauùmauù ra ùek wätkāltsäññe tañ omte • snai ptsa kätkre ra tpärùkemeü tparùke (mäske[b5]tär •) (ente po) aiśmoüts ceüśtr aiśamñeùùe cämpamñe • om tañ sätkau po karsa(tsi ùa)ñ akāśe po saüsārne ùek etaṅkätte 76 tāk=aurtse lkālñe pelai(knenta) [b6] (po śaiùùene) • prutkoytr akāśe tañ krentaunasa yke postäü • ykāk tañ krentauna placyeü snai yärm keś saim-wästa • mant snai-käls(n)ālyñe snai yärm ke(ś s)ai(m-wäste ka nest •) § 4. Translation of the text [b] …having seized the unsplittable thunderbolt [vajra-] of trustworthiness, [c] trusting in the splendid banner of great compassion [mahā-karuṇā-], [d] having taken on the serv(ant) of the establishment of the threefold consciousness,[13] [e] very well adorned (with the thirty-two ornaments), standing on the summit of the Sumeru characterized by self-roaring, /64/ [a] you, you are the god Indra of all-knowingness [sarvajñatā-], with a thousand eyes [b] looking attentively at the good Law [sad-dharma-] appropriate to every time, [c] [you are] surrounded by the pure gods belonging to the four companies,[14] [d] o you who destroy totally those Asura-kings [asurarāj-] of the passions [kleśa-], o you who tied up this Vemacitra of thinking[15] with the firm fetter of the god Indra! /65/ [a] Adorned with the divine ornaments, having seized the thunderbolt [vajra-] in both hands, [b] in the guise of god Indra, you descended to the great sacrifice, [c] you made (humans) satiated (with the nectar) of the good L(aw). [d] You have struck with amazement the company of brahmins [and] the whole world, [e] o you who have tamed the Indra-gods, o you who ought to be carried on the head of all Indra-gods, o you who have to be placed first! /66/ [a] (Those) great (four) truths belonging to the Law, [b] after having received [them], and those delights of thinking without end, [c] after having renounced the condition of the world [loka-dharma-], you tame[16] the powerful ones, [d] (you pass through all) the bushes (of life) towards the city of Nirvāõa [nirvāṇa-nagara-]. [e] You have abandoned me in the midst of suffering, but only in your protection [śaraṇa-] will I go with all my person through all the lives. /67/ [a] (You stood up) on the lotus of sympathy, (o you dear to the heart!). [b] Having put on the pure [and] splendid garment of (shame and) modesty, [c] the top-knot [jaṭā-]19 [is] firmness, the whole body [is] without negligence; [d] soft, pure, large [is] the brilliance of all-knowingness [sarvajñatā-]. [e] Having seized with the hand the (divine) pitcher [bhrṅgāra -]20 (of compassion), full of the nectar of friendship [maitrī-rasa], /68/ [a] you, (you are) the excellent, without comparison, Brahmā-god of Buddha, [b] having reached the destination, (…) [c] o you who fashion living beings according to the eightfold pure way, [d] o you who release forever the world on the ground of Nirvāõa [nirvāṇa-bhūmi-], [e] o you who generate verily brahmins through your mouth, sons of the Brahmā-god of the Law. /69/ [a] You have taught the four Vedas consisting in the [four] truths, [b] [it is] widely a delight [and] amusement that you are understood by women [and] children, [c] [you] (who have obtain)ed (that gem) of Sāgara having the cup in his hand [karoṭa-pāṇi-].21 [d] You released the pure Gaïgā [river] of the Law on the earth. [e] May the whole world manage to swim fa(r away) towards the domain of the Law, (in the pure water). /70/ [a] For humans in huge number,22 from the pure circle of the sun [sūryamaṇḍala-], [b] you became visible with your figure appropriate to a Brahmāgod. [c] You have understood wholly [and] accurately the way of the body. [d] The (zeal)ous (human being) has gained a powerful love for you. [e] In the midst of the company he has leapt into the sky [and] he has set off following you; he caused to grow the great love of living beings towards you. /71/ [a] Individually, the roots of virtue [kuśala-mūla-] of all living beings, the faculties of sense [indriya-], [b] the ways of the thoughts, entirely [and] alto- next sentence. For the latter, an alternative would be the preterit participle kätkau as predicate. Accordingly, the passage would be a vivid recital of the deeds of the Buddha. 19 This refers to the twisted hair on the top of the head of ascetics (cf. MW, 409a). 20 This refers to a luxurious pitcher or vase used to pour water, especially for kings (cf. MW, 765c). This is one of the vessels belonging to the insignia of royalty in ancient India (cf. WEZLER 1987). 21 This attribute is found with Nāgas and Yakùas. The cup in question is made of the skull or cranium: Skt. karoṭa- or karoṭi- (cf. MW, 255c; BHSD, 169b). Skt. Sāgara- is the name of a king of Nāgas (cf. BHSD, 589a), who possessed the cintāmaṇi gem, through which all wishes come true. 22 This is a special meaning of Skt. hetu- (cf. BHSD, 621b). gether, the acts, the passions, [c] the places, the moments, the means pertaining to salvation [d] [you] kno(w them) altogether, (an unrivalled teacher), indefatigable, [e] merciful, loving, grateful, you alone are certainly the ally of all [people]. /72/ [a] Of all the conditions of being [dharma-], (the existences, the abilities,) [b] [their] cause, [their] support, [their] fruits, [their] repartition among the births, [c] [their] obstacles [and their] means of success, [their] differentiations [and their] singularities, [d] the (things) that have been done [and] the (things) that have to be done, each one it its own place, [e] you as knower of the dharmas [dharma-jña-], [you are] who knows all, the fine [and] the great, under all turns [and] in all three times. /73/ [a] In that way you have understood accurately all the conditions of being [dharma-]. [b] Only by the idea being thrown off, (everything) just happens to you. [c] Just without efforts, you, [you] reveal all the virtues. [d] Only the requiring just turns to be for you the decisiveness in every matter. [e] (Your capacity for understanding) [is] just impossible to hinder, wi(thout end), like the course of the (wi)nd in an open space. /74/ [a] A very secret matter just turns out to be obvious for you, [b] even what is extremely distant [turns out to be] nearby [and] similar for you indeed. [c] (Even) the dee(p becomes shallow), all that [is] easy for you. [d] Even the high beyond counting becomes low indeed for you. [e] In the things which ought to be understood (the perception) happens (wholly for you), even without practicing [prayoga-]. /75/ [a] Even an (extremely) obscure thing [is] for you bright like the sun. [b] Even in front of the hesitation, your decisiveness [remains] always there. [c] Even the bottomless deep (becomes for you) the shallowest of the shallow. [d] (Where) the ability to wisdom of (all) the wise ones is stopped, [e] there has spread out the space [of] your (ow)n understan- ding of everything, always impossible to hinder in the whole Saüsā- ra. /76/ [a] The vision of all the condi(tions in the whole world) may be large, [b] the space may be filled up with your virtues step by step, [c] still your virtues would overflow[17] with neither number nor measure, o refuge [and] protection! [d] Thus (you are indeed) the absence of oppression, the re(fuge [and] protection) with neither nu(mber nor measure). (…) /77/ § 5. Parallel texts in Sanskrit The style of this poem indicates at first glance that it belongs to the Buddhastotra genre. The Buddha is often addressed in the vocative and he is the object of lavish praise. In addition, the text shows the author’s acquaintance with classical Sanskrit poetics and Indian erudition. It is obvious that many phrases and sentences are translated from or modeled on Sanskrit. This assertion can be very precisely substantiated through comparison with the best known stotra composed by the poet Mātrce ña (2nd c. CE), the so-called Varṇārhavarṇastotra. This is no surprise because there is evidence for the wide circulation of Mātrce ña’s poems in Serindia, which can be judged by the large number of manuscripts in Sanskrit, as well by their translations.[18] On the Tocharian side, some fragments of bilingual (Sanskrit-Tocharian A/B) manuscripts have been identified and edited by COUVREUR 1966. A manuscript in Tocharian A in the Berlin collection, comprising eight leaves (A243-250 = THT 876-883)[19] contains a metrical translation of stanzas of the chapter 2 (Mūrdhābhiṣeka “Top consecrating”) of the VAV.[20] A new publication and translation of this Tocharian A text is still a desideratum.[21] In the following I will quote extracts from the Sanskrit text[22] of the VAV which correspond, at least in part, to several stanzas of the Tocharian B Buddhastotra in St. Petersburg. Stanza 64, cf. VAV 8.25 mahākaruṇayā krtsnam āliṅgyeva jagat sthitaḥ / ahaṃ va ity anāthānāṃ sānāthyam avaghoṣayan // Stanza 67, cf. VAV 8.16 pithitāḥ kāpathāḥ sarve [v]iparyāsāsamañjasaḥ / amrtaikāyanaḥ śrīmān r jur [vi]vr ta āñjasaḥ // Stanza 69, cf. VAV 7.12 brāhmaõā brahmaṇaḥ putrā aurasā mukhajā iti / prasrto lokavādo ’yaṃ tvayi sāphalyam āgataḥ // Stanza 70ab, cf. VAV 8.3 mahānāgair iva svairam api kṣuṇṇaḥ kumārakaiḥ / strījanenāpi yad asau dvyaïgulābalabuddhinā // VAV 8.4 aprameyaprabhāvasya sā buddhāveṇikasya te / deśanāprātihāryasya vyuṣṭir vyuṣṭimatāṃ vara // Stanza 70e, cf. VAV 8.18 uddhrtyamedhyajāmbālāt saṃkleśakrimisaṃkulāt / akliṣṭāṣṭāṅgasaṃpanne plāvitā vimale ‘mbhasi // Stanza 72abc, cf. VAV 8.24 sarvadharmapadābhijña(ḥ) sarvārthapadakovidaḥ / sarvabhāṣāvibhāgajñaḥ sarvādrkpratibhānavān // Stanza 72e, cf. VAV 8.26 mahākāruṇikaḥ śāstā dayāvān anukampakaḥ / tatparaś cākilāsī ca kas tvayāsti samo ’paraḥ // VAV 8.27 nāthas tvaṃ sarvasatvānāṃ sāmānyo bhadrabāndhavaḥ / nopaiti nāthavattāṃ tu janas tenāvasīdati // Stanza 73e, cf. VAV 3.10 sa(rvadāvagatā dha)rmāḥ sarvākārākarās tava / talāmalakavad buddha buddher āyānti gocaram // Stanza 73abd, cf. VAV 3.15 sadhātubhedanānātvāḥ sāpāyopāyavistarāḥ / tvaṃ sarvāḥ sarvadharmajña sarvathāvaiṣi nāpara(ḥ) // Stanza 74abe, cf. VAV 3.11 prthag ekatvanānātve dharmāṇāṃ sākṣarakṣare / na te vyā(hanyate) b(uddhi)r vāyo(r gati)r ivāmbare // Stanza 74cd, cf. VAV 3.13 na te prāyogikaṃ kiṃ cit kuśalaṃ kuśalāntaga / icchāmātrāvabaddhā te yatrakāmāvasāyitā // Stanza 75, cf. VAV 3.16 sutiraskrtam apy āviḥ sudūram api te ’ntike / sugahvaram api (p)r(a)hvaṃ sūdviddham api vāmanam // Stanza 76, cf. VAV 3.17 sudhvāntam api sālokaṃ sudvaidham api niścitam / sugambhīram api jñeyam uttānottānam eva te // This is not the place to comment on all correspondences between the Tocharian and the Sanskrit texts.[23] I would rather point out some major facts. First, the Tocharian B Buddhastotra is not divided into chapters, and has its own numbering. We are unable to figure out the length of the original Tocharian poem, but it comprised maybe one hundred stanzas or so. Second, the Tocharian stanzas are translations or paraphrases of Sanskrit stanzas which belong to different chapters of the VAV, to wit chapters 3 (Sarvajñatāsiddhi “Accomplishment of omniscience”), 7 (Brahmānuvāda “Explanation according to the Brahman”) and 8 (Upakārastava “Praise of the services”) in the present state of my investigation.[24] Third, although the correspondences with Sanskrit are more numerous for the chapter 3, the Tocharian text does not follow the order or the extent of the original Sanskrit text. The redactor of the Tocharian poem therefore selected some stanzas from the VAV, which he found representative for a given theme. On occasion a single Tocharian stanza summarizes two or three Sanskrit stanzas of similar content. One has also to consider the fact that the author of the Tocharian poem had to fill up lengthy stanzas, longer than any Sanskrit stanzas, which are mostly of the anuṣṭubh-type (4×8 = 32 syllables).[25] As for the stanzas for which there are no obvious parallels in the VAV, one should consider if they were not extracted from other stotras by Mātrce ña or from other collections of stanzas belonging to the same genre. One is led to conclude, at least provisionally, that the Tocharian text was a “new” Buddhastotra produced by the compilation and adaptation of stanzas from previous Buddhastotras in Sanskrit, mostly works by Mātrce ña. This manuscript adds significant evidence for understanding the local process, in the Tocharian-speaking milieu, of the composition of literary works belonging to the Buddhist tradition. Abbreviations BHSD: EDGERTON 1953. MW: MONIER-WILLIAMS 1899. TEB: KRAUSE-THOMAS 1960-1964. THT: Tocharische Texte aus den Turfanfunden. VAV: Varṇārhavarṇastotra by Mātrce ña, quoted after HARTMANN 1987. ZVORAO: Zapiski Vostochnogo Otdeleniia Rossiiskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obschestva [Proceedings of the Oriental Branch of the (Imperial) Russian Archaeological Society]. References BALBIR, Nalini 1998: “Vorwort” to Ernst Leumann, Kleine Schriften (Glasenapp-Stiftung, Bd. 37). Ed. by Nalini Balbir. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, ix-xxviii. COUVREUR, Walter 1948: “Tochaars. Overzicht van de Tochaarse letterkunde”. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap. Ex Oriente Lux 10 (1945-1948), 561-571. COUVREUR, Walter 1966: “Sanskrit-Tochaarse Mātrce ñafragmenten”. Orientalia Gandensia 3, 159-185. EDGERTON, Franklin 1953: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, vol. II: Dictionary. New Haven (Conn.): Yale University Press. HARTMANN, Jens-Uwe 1987: Das Varṇārhavarṇastotra des Mātrceṭa . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht (Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden XII). HOERNLE, Augustus Frederic Rudolf 1893: “The Weber Manuscripts, another collection of ancient manuscripts from Central Asia”. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 62, 1-40. KIRFEL, Willibald 1959: Symbolik des Buddhismus. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann (Symbolik der Religionen V). KRAUSE, Wolfgang 1952: Westtocharische Grammatik I: Das Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. KRAUSE, Wolfgang 1955: Tocharisch (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Bd. IV, 3. Abschnitt). Leiden-Köln: Brill. KRAUSE, Wolfgang and THOMAS, Werner 1960-1964: Tocharisches Elementarbuch, 2 vol. Grammatik I. Texte und Glossar II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. LEUMANN, Ernst 1900: “Über eine von den unbekannten Literatursprachen Mittelasiens”. Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIIe série, t. IV, No. 8, 1-28, two pl. LEUMANN, Ernst 1907: “Über die einheimischen Sprachen von Ostturkestan im frühern Mittelalter”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 61, 648-658. MONIER-WILLIAMS, Sir Monier 1899: A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OLDENBURG S.F. 1892: “Kashgarskaia rukopis’ N.F. Petrovskago” [Kashgar manuscript by Nikolai F. Petrovskii]. ZVORAO 7 (1892-1893), 81-82, one pl. PEYROT, Michaël 2008: Variation and change in Tocharian B. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi. PEYROT, Michaël 2013: The Tocharian Subjunctive. A Study in Syntax and Verbal Stem Formation. Leiden-Boston: Brill (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages and Linguistics, vol. 8). PINAULT, Georges-Jean 2008: Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. LeuvenParis: Peeters. SCHMIDT, Klaus Totila 1983: “Zum Verhältnis von Sanskritvorlage und Tocharischer Übersetzung. Untersucht am Beispiel osttocharischer Stotratexte”. Sprachen des Buddhismus in Zentralasien. Vorträge des Hamburger Symposions vom 2. Juli bis 5. Juli 1981. Ed. by Klaus Röhrborn and Wolfgang Veenker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 125-131. SCHMIDT, Klaus Totila 1987: “Zu einer metrischen Übersetzung von Mātrceṭas Buddhastotra Varõārhavarõa in tocharischer Sprache”. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 1, 152- 168. SIEG, Emil 2014: Tocharologica. Selected Writings on Tocharian. Ed. by Georges-Jean Pinault and Michäel Peyrot. Bremen: Hempen Verlag. SIEG, Emil and SIEGLING, Wilhelm 1908: “Tocharisch, die Sprache der Indoskythen. Vorläufige Bemerkungen über eine bisher unbekannte indogermanische Literatursprache”. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. No. XXXIX, 915-934, one pl. (Tafel X) = SIEG 2014, 1-23. SIEG, Emil and SIEGLING, Wilhelm 1921: Tocharische Sprachreste, vol. I: Die Texte. A. Transcription. Berlin-Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter and Co. STUMPF, Peter 1971: Der Gebrauch der Demonstrativ-Pronomina im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. THOMAS, Werner 1957: Der Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. VOROBYOVA-DESIATOVSKAIA M.I. 1997: “The Ancient Manuscripts of Eastern Turkestan in the St. Petersburg Collection: Some results of recent research”. Tocharian and IndoEuropean Studies 7, 205-212. WEZLER, Albrecht 1987: Bhrṅgāra in Sanskrit literature . Aligarh: Viveka Publications (Aligarh Oriental Series 8).