[Buddha-l] Sanskrit speaking Buddha

[libris]

Dear James,

My name is Piya Tan, teaching Sutta studies and meditation at the Brahm Education Centre (the training facility of the Buddhist Fellowship here). My special interest is a comparative study of the Pali Nikayas and Sanskrit texts and the Chinese Agamas. This interest has been spurred on by Ajahn Sujato of the Santi Forest Monastery near Sydney, Australia.

Lately I am fortunate to have received some Sanskrit texts of Pali Sutta parallels, that is, those edited by Sander, by Tripathi, by Hosoda, and others. Comparing these Sanskrit texts with their Pali counterparts is such exciting study. 

These personal studies are published in the Sutta Discovery series which I use for the weekly classes at the National University of Singapore Buddhist Society and the Buddhist Fellowship.

I would like to thank you for giving the link to Matsuda's article, which is very helpful in my area of interest.

Ajahn Sujato and I are currently looking for the Sanskrit text of the all-important Catusparisad Sutra. We would be very grateful if anyone could hold up a lamp for us here.

Sadhu

Piya Tan


--- James Ward <jamesward at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hi Lance and Stephen,
> 
> I haven't been able to see the published Schøyen Bamiyan texts yet,
> but 
> I did note the following from Matsuda Kazunobu:
> 
> "Next, Dr. Sander and Professor Braarvig found some 40 folio
> fragments 
> of the A.s.tasaahasrikaapraj~naapaaramitaa among palm-leaf
> manuscripts 
> in Ku.saa.na script. Dr. Sander infers that these fragments date
> back 
> to the second century. The language in the text is a kind of
> Buddhist 
> Sanskrit, a dialect similar to that of the Mahaavastu. For example,
> 
> "eva.m vutte" represents "evam ukte." The second century is not far
> 
> from the date when the text of Praj~naapaaramitaa suutras has been 
> established, and now actual evidence has appeared. It proves the
> fact 
> that the earliest Praj~naapaaramitaa was not completed as a genuine
> 
> Sanskrit text from the beginning, but that fairly vulgar Prakrit 
> versions of the suutra existed in India preceding the Sanscritized 
> texts. To say the least, these are the earliest Mahaayaana texts
> which 
> are extant today and written in the beautiful Ku.saa.na script."
> 
> http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOS/jos94088.htm
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> James Ward
> 
> 
> On Nov 19, 2005, at 12:04 AM, L.S. Cousins wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> Are you then assuming that very early Mahayana texts (or 
> >> proto-Mahayana) such as the Lotus Sutra or the earliest PP sutras
> 
> >> (generally believed for a number of reasons to have pre-dated
> c2nd 
> >> CE)  were written / compiled in some form of MIA prior to their 
> >> Sanskrit, albeit a hybrid form, versions ?
> >
> > Either that or they might originally have been spoken/chanted
> works, 
> > later written down in Sanskrit or some kind of Sanskritized
> Prakrit. 
> > This seems quite possible in the case of the PP works, perhaps
> less so 
> > in the case of the Lotus.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>