Epithets of an Arhat in the Divyaavadaana

·期刊原文

Epithets of an Arhat in the Divyaavadaana

Thomas,Edward J.

Indian Historical Quarterly

Vol.17 No.1 1941 P.104-107

P.104

Traidhaatukaviitaraaga.h samalo.s.takaa~ncana
aakaa'sapaa.nitalasamacitto vaa'siicandanakalpo vid-
yaavidaaritaa.n.dako'so vidyaabhij~na.h pratisa.mvi-
tpraapto.... This is part of a list of ephithets of
one who has just become an arhat(arhan sa.mv.rtta.h).
It occurs at least nine times, four times in the
Divyaavadaana and five times in the Avadaana'sataka.
In Divy. it is found twice in the singular
(180,282), once in the dual (55I), and once in the
plural (97). The above form is where it occurs for
the first time in the singular. Yet in spite of
these repetitions the editors have not made up their
minds as to what readings to adopt, and do not seem
to have decided on the meaning.
It will be necessary to show first how the editors
waver about the text.The spelling vaa'siicandanakalpo,
as given above (Divy. I80), is only a conjecture of
the editors. The Mss. have vaasi- and vaalii-. In
all the other instances the editors leave vaa'sii-
in the text, but in the index they give both
spellings, showing that they leave the meaning
undecided. Speyer is still worse. In Av. 'Sat. I.
96, 7 his Ms. reads vaasii-, but he emended it to
vaasi-. Then in his index he goes back to vaasii,
but does not say why, and in I. 104. 7 he prints
vaasii as a separate word. He ignores the conjecture
vaa'sii. Yet when the editors of Divy. suggested
vaa'sii- one would suppose that they thought it to
give a better meaning, and that when Speyer rejected
it he had a reason for going back to the Ms.
reading.
The index of Divy. gives a.n.dako'sa as `cocoon
of ignorance'with a query.One meaning of a.n.dako'sa,
however, is `egg=shell' (instances in Paali),and the
whole word is vidyaa-vidaaritaa.n.dako'so, `with
knowledge-broken egg-shell,' which might mean `whose
egg-shell is broken by knowledge.' But there is
nothing to show that a.n.dako'sa means ignorance,
except that this meaning seems to fit. However, in
Divy. 55I, I9 the reading is avidyaa-. This would be
a possibility in all the other passages, but then
they should be printed `vidyaa-, or there should be
some explanation of the solitary avidyaa- in 551,
19. It seems clear that the editors were not decided
about either the reading or the meaning.
Vidyaabhij~na.h. Here too they are not decided.
In Divy. 97, 26 they read vij~naa.h (plur.) with
vidyaa joined to the previous word. But a word
merely meaning knowing or intelligent is not a
significant epithet in a list

P.105

of an arhat's qualities. Still, the fact that it is
given once in the text shows how far the editors
were from making up their minds. Two possible
readings remain, one which makes vidyaabhij~naa.h a
separate word, and the other which combines it with
the next vidyaabhij~naa-pratisa.mvit-praapto. But
here are two different words. Abhij~na.h, occurring
in vidyaabhij~na.h, would mean `thoroughly
understanding (the knowledge),' but in the second
case we have not an adjective but the noun
abhij~naa, `higher knowledge,' of which there are
six possessed by an arhat. Here again the reading is
left undecided.
It may be said in favour of the editors that
whatever readings are chosen some of them yield no
intelligible sense. My suggestion is that the words
have been wrongly divided. In that case it will have
to be held that the scribes themselves did not
always know the meaning. This seems probable, as the
words are full of figures of speech, and may have
been taken from some stotra.
It will at least be a step forward if it can be
shown that intelligible meanings can be found, and
that little more is needed for this than a different
division of words. In vaasii-candana-kalpo there is
no reason for vaasii-, unless it can be shown that
vaasii-candana is a particular kind of sandal.
Candana-kalpa is `like, or behaving like, sandal.'
Sandal is well-known as a refrigerant, and is
mentioned as such in Divy. 508, 28, where in a verse
passage it is said to have the quality of coolness,
'saityagu.no hi candanaraso. However, it is not the
arhat himself who has cooling qualities. The
coolness is produced by the state of knowledge, when
the arhat becomes traidhaatukaviitaraaga, free from
passion for the three worlds. If vidyaa from the
next word is joined on we get an intelligible
epithet of an arhat, candanakalpavidyo, `whose
knowledge acts like sandal.' Vaasii can be disposed
of by adding it to the previous word,
aakaa'sapaa.nitalasamacitta. This, taken by itself,
means, `whose mind is the same towards space and the
palm of the hand,' and practically no difference
results from adding vaasii, for samacittavaasin is
`dwelling with an even mind.'
This leaves the next word without the initial
vidyaa-, and what remains is vidaaritaa.n.dako'so,
I80.20, or vidaaritaa.n.dako'saavidyaa (plur.)
97.26. The latter combination is only what struck
the fancy of the editors, but it may be a
preservation of the real division. In that case we
get for the singular vidaaritaa.n.dako'saavidyo, and
then the last element of the compound is avidyaa.
The

P.106

result is an at least permissible description of an
arhat, `in whom ignorance is a broken egg-shell.'
We are thus freed in the next word from the weak
epithet vidyaabhij~na.h, and abhij~na.h, which is
left, is found only once (and in a corrupt form as
vij~na.h). It may be discarded for the much better
attested abbij~naapratisa.mvitpraapto. This is in
fact the only reading found in Av.'Sat. It gives a
clear, technical description of the arhat `who has
attained the (six) higher knowledges and the (four)
analytical knowledges.'
The highly figurative nature of some of these
terms gives them a poetical aspect, but it is
unlikely that the passage is intended to be wholly
metrical, as it occurs in the singular, dual, and
plural. Some of it almost fits into an aaryaa
scheme, and this may be due to dependence on phrases
from some stotra. It would not be surprising that
the scribes should have divided suffixes in the
wrong places.
In the first word traidhaatuka-looks like a
poetical adaptation of traidhaatuloka. The second,
samalo.s.takaa~ncana is almost paralleled by
samalo.s.taa-'smakaa~ncana of the Giitaa, VI, 18,
and samacitta is paralleled in the Giitaa by
samabuddhi, VI, 19 and samadar'sin, V, 18,
Vidaaritaa.n.dako'saavidyo is another figurative
expression, about the division of which the scribes
were uncertain, and without more knowledge of its
source it cannot be treated as final. The egg-simile
occurs several times in Paali (A.iv, 126 etc.),
where the hatching of chickens from eggs is made a
simile fo the disciple winning release. Just as the
hen thinks, `would that my chickens with claw or
beak may break through the egg-shell,' so the monk
intent on discipline thinks, `would that my mind
free from clinging may be released from the
aasavas.' Here the point of comparison is not the
egg-shell but the striving of the chickens. The
egg-shell simile also occurs in an Udaana (Divy.
203), where Buddha decides to live only three months
longer, and shakes off his aggregate of rebirth. `So
he broke it as the bird(the egg-creature)breaks its
shell,' abhinat ko'sam ivaa.n.dasa.mbhava.h. Here
there is no breaking of the shell of ignorance but
of the bhavasa.mskaara, which if it had not been
broken would have kept him in existence for the rest
of the kalpa. This Udaana occurs in the
Mahaaparinibhaana-sutta (D. ii. I07) and in several
other parts of the Paali Nikaayas, but there the
shell is replaced by a coat of mail(kavaca). Which
reading was the original does not concern us, as it
is practically certain that the form mentioning the
egg-shell was that known to the

P.107

authors of the Avadaanas. The Paali commentaries
always explain it without any reference to the
egg-simile, but it is curious that in the
Nettippakara.na under the category Pa~n~natti (p.6I)
the words abhida kavaca.m are explained as aversion
of mind, grasping at omniscience and breaking of the
egg-shells of ignorance, padaalanaa avijjaa.n.dako-
saana.m. These examples however show that
a.n.dako'sa without any qualification has no
doctrinal significance, and does not in itself refer
to ignorance. They thus favour the emendation of
vidyaavidaaritaa.n.dako'so (where a.n.dako'sa is
left undefined) into the form suggested above.