bodhicary-avatara ᠶᠢᠨ ᠬᠡᠰᠡᠭ - NICHOLAS POPPE

A FRAGMENT OF THE BODIIICARYAVATARA At the present time there is known to us a considerable number of fragments of various Mongolian manuscripts representative of the preclassical period of the history of Written Mongolian. As most of them have never been studied, little can be said about their linguistic palzographic or literary value. It is not even known what literary works most of these fragments represent. Therefore, their identification with well-known works of original Mongolian literature or with translations from other languages is important, because the number of different fragments of the same works might serve as important testimony to their popularity in the past. Thus, recently it was discovered that the fragment of the hP'ags-pa xylograph found by MANNERHEIMis a fragment of the well-known didactic work Subhiisita~atnanidhi.~This was the first fragment of a Mongolian book in hP'ags-pa script known to science and it gives evidence of the fact that the didactic work in question enjoyed so great a popularity in the Yuan period that it was chosen to be published in the new script introduced in 1469. Another important work of the Yuan period is the Buddhist G. J. RA~~STEDT,“ Ein Fragment mongolischer Quadratschrift,“ Journal de la Socie'te' Finno-Ougrienne XXVII:3 (191%); “ A Fragment of Mongolian ' Quadratic ' Script,“ reprinted from C. G. IAXNERHEI~\I,Across Asia from West to East in 1906-08, Helsinki, 1940. 'Pentti AALTO, “Altaistica I, The lLIa~lnerheim Fra-ment of cf. Louis LIGETI, Le Subhci~itarat- nanidhi mongol, tcn document dtc moyen mongol, Partie Ire, Le n~anliscrit tibe'to- moilgo1 en reproduction phototypique avec une introdziction, Budapest, 1948. 412 NICHOLAS POPPE philosophic work BodhicaryavatcFra of which several Mongolian editions are known.4 A number of fragments of h!longolian manuscripts discovered by the Japanese expedition in Olon Siime (“ Many Temples “) was published in the valuable article of Professor HATTORI Shir6.5 Professor HATTORI reproduced the original RIongolian texts by photographic means, romanized them, and gave a Japanese trans- lation. One of the fragments characterized by him as a fragment of a Buddhist text but left unidentified with any particular literary work proves to be a fragment of the Bodhicaryavatara. I present a transcription of this fragment after a photograph published in Professor HATTORI'S article. (See Plate I.) There is a Sanscrit text of the Bodhicaryivatcira published by MEi~ae~ain 3an~ic~~i Boc~oqHaro OT~%.T~H~R 06-MMnepaTopc~aro Pycc~aro Apxeonor~~qec~aro UecTBa, T. IV, CT~.I53 11 cn., and another one published by DE T ~ ~ ~LA T POUSSIS ~ ~ in Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta) 1901. Cf. Friedrich TELLER, “ Zum moilgolischen Ta~ljur,“ Berichte uber die Ve~handlungen der Sachsischen AX-ademie der IT7issen- schaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-histo~ische Klasse, Bd. 97, Heft 3 (1919), p. 3; cf. Friedrich ~~ELLER,~ber den Quellenbezug eines mongolischen Tanjurtextes,“ Ab-“ handltcngen der Sachsischen Akademie der IVissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch- histoiische Klasse, Bd. 45, Heft P (1960), p. 1, n. 2. The Tibetan text of the Bodhicarycivatrira has been published by WELLER as an appendix (“ Anhang “) to the work cited last. The Mongolian text is mentioned in 6. JIayc!~ep, Oqep~ MOH- ro.nc~03 nmepaTypb1, nepeBon B. A. Kasa~e~~qa M c npenci-no cf. also Erich HAENISCH, “Sino-mongolische Dokurne~lte vom Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts,“ Abhandlungen der Deutschen dkademie der ll'issenschaften zu Berlin, Iilasse fur Spachen, Literatur ztnd Icunst, Jahrgang 1950, Nr. 4, Berlin, 1952, p. 55. For the Mogol nikin, cf. G. J. RARISTEDT, “ Mogholica, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Moghol- Sprache in Afghanistan,“ Journal de la Socie'te' Finno-Ougn'enne XXIII: 4 (1906), p. 34. The Dagur n{k'e also has k in i~ltervocalic position in this word. Cf. H.H.nonne, Aarypc~oe Hapesue, fle~~~rpaj, 1930, c~p.143. Therefore, the trarlscriptioll niken might be preferable for preclassical texts. text has nigekenVLADIAIIRTSOV'S (or nikeken) with diminutive suffix -ken. The diminutive forms of numerals have the meaning “o111y so and so many “, i. e., in this case “only one “ or “only once, only one time.“ 'This is a rare form of the nomen perfecti of the defective verb bii- “to be.“ It only occurs in a few texts. For the Secret History biigsen, cf. Paul PELLIOT, Histoire secrkte des illongols, Paris, 1949, a155, where it occurs in the following context: egeEi Cinu Eima-daEa sayin biigsen bii'esii eri'iiliiye “ if thine elder sister is more beautiful than thou, we shall let seek [her].“ It is to be noted that the same construction bugsen bo'esii occurs in this context as in the Bodhicarycivaikira fragment. The form bugsen is found in HAENISCH'Sdictionary. Cf. Erich HAENISCH,Worterbuch zu Alanghol un Niuca Tobca'an (Yuan-ch'ao Pi-shi), Geheime Geschichte der kin-iyen be olzsii ko'un- iyen be giireget-te talbiju ot ''I shall give my daughter and leave [thou] thy son as a son-in-law and go.' “ CLEAVEScorrectly transcribes this particle as be, e. g., kediin-te be “even many times.“ Cf. F. Jl'. CLEAVES,“The Sino-3fongolian Inscription of 1338 414 NICHOLAS POPPE [3] tulada. ayuyCi tere ken buyu. sidun iisiin kimu- [4] sun bi busu. yasun Cisun ber bi busu. nisun [5] nilbusun “ ber [bi] busu sir-a usiin I' ugesiin ber [bi] busu [6] bui. egukiid l3 ber kolosiin ber bi busu. eligen [7] ayuski ber bi busu. kesel toyoriqui ber l4 in hlemory of jigiintei,“ HJAS 14(1951).55. The very precise hP'ags-pa script renders this particle as be after front vocalic words. Cf. POPPE, op. cit., p. 84 et passim. This word is illegible. VLADIBIIRTSOV'S text has siliisiin “saliva,“ but this looks like nilbusun “ spittle.“ 12 Both in the fragment and in VLADIRIIRTSOV'S edition we find sir-a usiin, but this is an obvious mistake for sir-a usz~n, because sir-a iisiin means “yellow hair “ (i. e., the hair on the body), while sir-a usun is “yellow water,“ i. e., “sanies, lymph, pus.“ Cf. “pus sereux, pus, corrompn “ Dictionnuire mongol-russe-sang (J. E. KO\VALEWSKI, franpais, Vol. 11, Kasan, 1846, p. 1518). The latter meaning corresponds exactly to the Tibetan E'u ser “ serum.“ The corresponding lines in the Tibetan text read as follows: snubs min bad kan ma yin te, E'u ser daq ni rnag kyaq min “the mucus and the phlegm are not; the serum and the pus are not either.“ l3The form egiikiid, a plural of egiikiin “fat, grease,“ deserves attention. The usual Written Mongolian form is iigekiin. Cf. IChalkha zxliq, Ordos akX6n,Kalm. zkn, Aga and Khori Buriat xXoq id., but Alar Buriat has Gxeq “grease.“ Cf. H. H. nonne, Anapc~~ii q. I, fle~~~rpan, 57. The form GXeq orterbuch der westmongolischen Sprache, Do~~aneschingen,1853, p. 198. It occurs also in Buriat in the form of dic-Xorgoq, although it is not found in ~?ERENISOV's tio~lary. It occurs as a loanword in Yakut. Cf. Xorgun- Xorgum- xargi'n “ dissolved fat.“ Cf. Edouard PEKARSKIY, I doYakut dili sb.zlii cf. also Divanii Icgat-it-Turk dizini “Endeks,“ yazan: Besim ATALAT, Ankara, 1943, p. 9%;cf. also C. E. ma no^, na~- RTHMKM JI~~BH~TIOPKCKO~~ 1951, CTp.IIMCbMeHHOCTM, MOCKB~-~~HHH~~~JI, 371. The word bilge occurs in preclassical Mongolian texts together with bilk “ intellect,“ i, e., as bilge bilig, but in modern xylographs bilge is replaced by belge “mark, sign,“ i. e., we find there only belge bilig. In VLADI~IIRTSOV'S text bilge is replaced by bilig, the usual Written Mongolian word for “ intellect.“ *'The form medegdekiii is a nomen futuri of the passive verb medegde- “to be kno\vn.“ This form means “that to be known, that which will be known,“ i. e., “the object of lmo~vledge “ or “ the object of perception,“ and corresponds to Tibetan Res bya “what ought to be known.“ The sentence is not finished here. The whole verse in Tibetan is Bes bya med na Ei rig na and corresponds to the Sanscrit jizeyam vine tu kim vetti. Cf. WELLER, ~ber den Quellenhezug eines mongolischen Tanjurtextes,“ p. 19. 20 VLADIJIIRTSOV,op. cit., pp 139-1410, The form boldaqu is a nomen fzcturi of the passive verb bolda- (from bol- “ to become “). This passive form, together with the preceding ayuqu, should be trans- lated as “ should be exposed to fear.“ While the corresponding line of the fragment means “if only I had existed, I would be afraid of everyone,“ this is to be translated “if I were alone, I would be exposed to fear of everyone.“ 416 KICHOLAS POPPE bi kemekii nigeken be ugei-yin tulada, ayuy6i tere ken buyu. 57 sidun iisiin kimusun bi busu, yasun i:isun ber bi busu, nisun silusun ber bi busu, sir-a iisun iigesiin ber bi busu bui. 58 qorayun kolosun ber bi busu, eligen ayuiliin ber bi busu, busud kesel ber bi busu, burtay sigesiin ber bi busu. 59 miq-a arasun ber bi busu bui, qalayun kei ber bi busu, nuked ber bi busu, [I401 teyigen buged jiryui/an bilig ber bi busu. 60 kerbe dayun-u hilig mongke ele bugesu, nasu Cay-tur dayun sonosqu bolqu, medegdekui iigei biigesu yayun-i medekiii kemebesii, alin-iyar bilig kemen ugiilemii. I translate the text of the Olon Sume fragment in the following manner: [Translation] [Folium] One Hundred Three. [l] If only [I] had existed, 1 would be afraid of everyone. {o]. [61 The grease and the perspiration are not the ego. The liver [7] and the lungs are not the ego. The bowels [8] are not the ego. The excrements and the urine are not the ego. [9] The flesh l2 and the skin are not the ego. The heat “Mongolian miqan stands for “ flesh “ and “ muscles “ and corresponds to Tibetan ia “flesh, meat, surface of the body, muscle,“ while the French translation of the Sanskrit text has “ ni la chair, ni les muscles.“ A FRAGMENT OF THE BODHICAR YATJATARA 417 [lo] is not the ego. The orifices are not the ego. Thus, [lP] the six senses are not the ego. If [12] the audition were eternal, the sound [13] would always be heard. [As] there is no object of per- ception, . . . This fragment belongs to the ninth chapter of the Bodhicarya- vatara, dealing with the perfect knowledge. The corresponding passage in the Sanscrit text was translated by DE LA VALLEE POUSSINin the following manner: '3 56) [Vous dites que 1'idCe de vacuitC fait peur, et, de la sorte, fait obstacle B la dklivrance: cela est peut- mais la vacuitC apaise la douleur: comment pourrait-elle effrayer? 55) Qu'on ait peur de ce qui est effrayani, et mCme de ce qui ne l'est pas, c'est naturel aussi longtemps qu'on croit h la rCalitC du moi: mais quand [on 23 Bodhicaryhvatdra, Introduction il la pratique des futurs bouddhas. PoAme de Cdntideva, traduit du sanscrit et annoti. par Louis DE I.A VALL~EPOUSSIN,Extrait de la Revue d'histoire et de litthrature religieuse, t. X, XI, et XII, 1905, 1906, 1907, Paris, Librairie Bloud et Cie. 1907, pp. 123-124. The E~lgiish version published by L. D. BARXETT.uhd. So. 11. Part 2 (July, 1940) PLATE I1 Bodhlcurycii crturu. Ch'ipter IX. $3 56-60 B/bltothecc~Bnirldhrcci 9,YI'Ill. ~JJ.139-140