Historical Notes: The Text & the Translation · 莲华归心开放中文佛学资料库

- suttas - - evening talks - short morning talks - lectures - guided meditations - talk collections - other themes - chants - - - - à¹à¸à¸¢ - Franā§ais - Espaā±ol - - Portuguāªs - Ð ÑÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ - - - Ð£ÐºÑÐ°ÑÐ½ÑÑÐºÐ° Submit Search - Home - Suttas - KN - Dhp - Historical Notes to the Dhammapada ## Browse Suttas Go to Dhammapada index Dhp index ## Historical Notes: The Text & the Translation There are many versions of the Dhammapada now extant: several recensions of the Pali Dhammapada from Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; two incomplete manuscripts of a Gandhari Dharmapada found in central Asia; and a manuscript of a Buddhist Hybrid-Sanskrit Dharmapada found in a library in Tibet, called the Patna Dharmapada because photographs of this manuscript are now kept in Patna, India. There is also a Chinese translation of the Dharmapada made in the third century C.E. from a Prakrit original, now no longer extant, similar to–but not identical with–the Pali Dhammapada. Parts of a Dharmapada text are included in the Mahavastu, a text belonging to the Lokottaravadin Mahasanghika school. In addition, there are Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese versions of a text called the Udanavarga, which is known in at least four recensions, all of them containing many verses in common with the Dhammapada/Dharmapada (Dhp) texts. To further complicate matters, there are Jain anthologies that contain verses clearly related to some of those found in these Buddhist anthologies as well. Despite the many similarities among these texts, they contain enough discrepancies to have fueled a small scholarly industry. The different recensions of the Pali Dhp contain so many variant readings that there isnât yet–even after more than a century of Western scholarship on the topic–a single edition covering them all. The discrepancies among the Pali and non-Pali versions are even greater. They arrange verses in different orders, each contains verses not found in the others, and among the verses in different versions that are related, the similarity in terms of imagery or message is sometimes fairly tenuous. Fortunately for anyone looking to the Dhp for spiritual guidance, the differences among the various recensions–though many in number–range in importance from fairly minor to minor in the extreme. Allowing for a few obvious scribal errors, none of them fall outside the pale of what has long been accepted as standard early Buddhist doctrine as derived from the Pali discourses. For example, does the milk in verse 71 come out or does it curdle? Is the bond in verseÂ 346 subtle, slack, or elastic? Is the brahman in verseÂ 393 happy or is he pure? For all practical purposes, these questions hardly matter. They become important only when one is forced to take sides in choosing which version to translate, and even then the nature of the choice is like that of a conductor deciding which of the many versions of a Handel oratorio to perform. Unfortunately for the translator, though, the scholarly discussions that have grown around these issues have tended to blow them all out of proportion, to the point where they call into question the authenticity of the Dhp as a whole. Because the scholars who have devoted themselves to this topic have come up with such contradictory advice for the potential translator–including the suggestion that itâs a waste of time to translate some of the verses at all–we need to sort through the discussions to see what, if any, reliable guidance they give. Those who have worked on the issues raised by the variant versions of Dhp have, by and large, directed the discussion to figuring out which version is the oldest and most authentic, and which versions are later and more corrupt. Lacking any outside landmarks against which the versions can be sighted, scholars have attempted to reconstruct what must have been the earliest version by triangulating among the texts themselves. This textual trigonometry tends to rely on assumptions from among the following three types: 1) Assumptions concerning what is inherently an earlier or later form of a verse. These assumptions are the least reliable of the three, for they involve no truly objective criteria. If, for instance, two versions of a verse differ in that one is more internally consistent than the other, the consistent version will seem more genuine to one scholar, whereas another scholar will attribute the consistency to later efforts to "clean up" the verse. Similarly, if one version contains a rendition of a verse different from all other renditions of the same verse, one scholar will see that as a sign of deviance; another, as a sign of the authenticity that may have predated a later standardization among the texts. Thus the conclusions drawn by different scholars based on these assumptions tell us more about the scholarsâ presuppositions than they do about the texts themselves. 2) Assumptions concerning the meter of the verses in question. One of the great advances in recen