Indian Linguistics

    Let us begin with the Mahāvastu .Because my thesis is probably not accessible to scholars outside of Germany, I quote here once more all the verses in which the forms ending in -matha are found:

    1. Primary Forms:

    I. 69.8: vayam apy adya vijahāmatha dehaṃ‖

    II. 204.15: vayam ojaṃ gātreṣu tuhyaṃ upasaṃhariṣyāmatha‖

    III.5.9: asāṃprataṃ na ikṣvāku yaṃ varaṃ no labhāmatha‖

    III.9.16-19: idaṃ rājakulaṃ sphītaṃ anantaratanākaraṃ｜

    atha divā vā rātriṃ vā pradīpaṃ na labhāmatha‖
    naiva rātriṃ vā divā vā paśyāmo itaretaraṃ｜
    anyam anyaṃ na paśyantā āsāmatha rahogatā‖ 〔4〕

    III.11.15: etasya anubhāvena vayaṃ sarve jīvāmatha‖

    III.112.7: drakṣyāmatha dvādaśavarṣe anantaprajñāṃ‖

    III.192.7: vayaṃ ca etāye gāthāye arthaṃ na vijānāmatha｜

    1. Secondary Forms:

    I. 29.11-12: dhig jīvitaṃ ājīviṣu yam antasmiṃ nadāmatha｜

    vidyamāneṣu bhogeṣu pradīpaṃ na karotha va‖

    III.11.16-17: sukhamitro ca me sahāyo priyo prāṇasamo ca me｜

    etasya me vinābhāve ubhaye pi na bhavematha‖

    III.23.2: kīdṛśo so kuśo kasmād anupaśyematha vayaṃ‖

    1. Imperative:

    III.6.2: sunivastra bhavitvāna ehi bhadre ramāmatha｜

    III.215.13-14: saced asti ūnaṃ kāmehi vayan te pūrayāmatha｜

    ko vā bhavantaṃ heṭheti vayan te dhārayāmatha‖

    In my article: Die Umwandlung der Endung -aṃ in -o und -u im Mittelindischen 〔5〕 I have tried to show that the Mahāvastu is probably not related to Northwestern India, because the change of the ending -aṃ to -o and -u which is characteristic of the Northwestern dialect is not found in it.In another article, 〔6〕 on the other hand, I have shown it to be probable that the original text of the Mahāvastu was written in an eastern dialect called“Alt-Ardhamāgadhī”by H. Lüders, 〔7〕 because we find in it the following forms characteristic of the Eastern dialect:

    1. voc.pl.ending in -āho 〔8〕

    2. eva＞ yeva after long vowels 〔9〕

    3. 1st pers.sg.pres.opt.par.ending in -ehaṃ 〔10〕

    4. y＞ v 〔11〕

    5. hoti as 3rd pers.sg.pres.ind.par.of √bhū 〔12〕

    6. nom.pl.of the masc.a -stems ending in -ā 〔13〕

    7. acc.pl.of the masc.a -stems ending in -āni 〔13〕

    Since the original text of the Mahāvastu was written in“Alt-Ardhamāgadhī”, it follows that the forms ending in -matha which are only found in the older part must also belong to the eastern dialect.

    This hypothesis has in my opinion been confirmed by the fact that similar forms ending in -matha are also found in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra of which the original text was written in an eastern dialect.Now two revisions of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra have come down to us, the Kashgar and the Nepalese revision.Although the Kashgar revision is grammatically older than the Nepalese revision, yet the former cannot be the source of the latter.In other words they probably go back to the same original text.In discussing some manuscript fragments of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra from Kashgar Heinrich Lüders says:“I am even inclined to believe that the original was written in a pure Prākrit dialect which was afterwards gradually put into Sanskrit” 〔14〕 and“In 260biv we found a vocative plural kulaputrāho.Vocatives in -āho from bases in -a are found only in Māgadhī. We may therefore assert that the original text of Saddharmapuṇḍarīka was written, if not in pure Māgadhī, in a‘mixed Sanskrit’which was based on that dialect.” 〔15〕 In addition to the vocative in -āho pointed out by Heinrich Lüders, I have found some more Eastern forms such as:

    1. nom.pl.of the masculine a -stems ending in -ā

    2. acc.pl.of the masculine a -stems ending in -āni

    Together with these eastern forms we find the forms in -matha .The obvious conclusion is that they also belong to the Eastern dialect.

    I shall now quote all the verses in which forms ending in -matha are found and discuss them in detail:

    sādhu gaveṣāmatha etamarthaṃ ko devaputro upapannu adya (164, 13) 〔16〕

    For gaveṣāmatha the editors give no other readings.

    nimittaṃ darśenti ha kimpi loke sādhu gaveṣāma tametamartham (17, 12)

    Instead of gaveṣāma tametam, Ms.O. (Kashgar version) reads gaveṣāmatha etad.

    asmākamanukampārthaṃ paribhuñja.vināyaka｜

    vayaṃ ca sarvasattvāśca agrīṃ bondhiṃ spṛśemahi‖ (177, 14-15)

    Instead of spṛśemahi Mss.A, W.read spṛśeṣata, Mss.B, K.read spṛsemahi, Ms. Cb reads spṛhemahi and Ms.O.reads spṛśematha.In the above two cases the Kashgar version retains the ending -matha for the 1st pers.pl.Ātm, while the Nepalese version changes it to -āma and -mahi , which seems to me quite natural because the Kashgar version is older and has therefore many more Eastern forms than the Nepalese version.

    But there are a few verses in which just the opposite is found:

    adyo vayaṃ śrāvakabhūta nātha saṃśrāvayiṣyāmatha cāgrabodhim (118, 13)

    Instead of saṃśrāvayiṣyāmatha Ms.O.reads saṃśrāvayiṣyāma.

    ime buddhā bhaviṣyanti kṣamiṣyāmatha sarvaśaḥ (273, 6)

    Ms.O.reads budhhā ti vakṣyanti adhivāsiṣyāma.

    vicikitsa asmāka na kācidasti śṛṇomathā saṃmukham lokanātha (314, 2)

    There are many different readings: śṛṇvānathā A, śṛṇomathā B, śṛṇoma yaṃ O, śṛṇāmathā Cb, śṛṇvānamarthā K, ściśvānathā W.In the above three cases the younger Nepalese version retains the ending -matha , while in the Kashgar version the ending is replaced by other endings.It shows in my opinion that the ending -matha is unfamiliar even to the Kashgar version.It may be concluded, then.that the ending -matha belongs to the original text to which both the Kashgar version and the Nepalese version go back. 〔17〕

    Anmerkungen

    〔1〕 Formerly called Gāthā dialect by scholars.

    〔2〕 Le Mahāvastu, ed.by E.Senart I, 69, 8 note.

    〔3〕 Saddharmapuṇḍarīka , ed., by Prof.H.Kern and Prof.Bunyiu Nanjio, Bibliotheca Buddhica X, St.-Pétersbourg 1912, p.177, 15.

    〔4〕 Cf .III.9.6-9:

    idam rājakulam sphītam anantaratanākaram /

    atha divā vā rātrau vā pradīpam na labhāmahe‖

    naiva rātrim vā divam vā paśyāma itaretaram /

    anyam anyam apaśyantā āsāmahe rahogatā‖

    〔5〕 Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch Historische Klasse, 1944, nr.6, p.121 ff.

    〔6〕 Zu den mittelindischen Aoristen, not yet published.

    〔7〕 Lüders, Bruchstücke buddhistischer Dramen , p.41.

    〔8〕 Pischel, Grammatik der Prākritsprachen. § 372.

    〔9〕 Pischel, ibid. § 336: Lüders, ibid. p.39.

    〔10〕 R.Otto Franke, Pāli und Sanskrit , Strassburg 1902, p.114; Michelson, Linguistic Notes on the Shāhbāzgarhi and Mansehra Redactions of Asoka's Fourteen-Edicts, The American Journal of Philology. XXX, 1909, p.285.

    〔11〕 cf .Asoka-Inscription VII.A.

    〔12〕 Michelson, ibid .p.287.

    〔13〕 Lüders, Philologia Indica , p.280ff.

    〔14〕 A.F.Rudolf Hoernle, Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature found in Eastern Turkestan , p.161.

    〔15〕 Lüders, ibid .p.162.

    〔16〕 Saddharmapuṇḍarīka , ed.by Prof.H.Kern and Prof.Bunyiu Nanjio.

    〔17〕 Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 163, 2:

    Yathā vayam pi imamagrabodhim anuprāpnuyāmo 'tha ime ca sattvāḥ.Instead of anuprāpnuyāmo 'tha ime Ms.O.reads 0 puneyāma ime.The original reading was probably anupāpnuyāmatha.