TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS
INSCRIPTIONS DESCRIBING THE SCULPTURAL
(a) THE SCULPTURAL REPRESENTATIONS AND THE TEXTUAL TRADITION.
The question, whether the artists of Bhārhut worked according to the Pāli Jātaka
collection or not, has been answered in the affirmative by Bühler and in the negative by
Minayeff and von Oldenburg. Foucher is of the opinion that although a literary source
akin to the Pāli collection was followed, this could not have been the Pāli collection itself.
His argument─which I am going to treat in detail─rests on three grounds: firstly, the
Jātakas in the labels and in the Pāli-texts have different titles; secondly, the lables are written
in a dialect differing from the Pāli; thirdly, several of the stories represented cannot be found
in the Pali collection.
1. I cannot give any value to the first of the above-mentioned reasons. The titles
in the Jātaka collection are late, which may be concluded from the fact that they sometimes
are based on a misunderstanding of the text. E.g. J. 341 bears the title Kaṇḍarijātaka.
The name Kaṇḍari, however, is based, as mentioned in our treatment of No. B 60, on the
false separation of the words in Gāthā 21 of J. 536, and in reality is the same as in the label
of the Bhārhut relief viz. Kaṇḍariki. The titles of the Jātakas often differ in the manuscripts of the Atthavaṇṇanā too. In Burmese, the Mūgapakkhaj. (538) is called
Temiyaj., and the Mahāummaggaj. (546) appears as Mahosadhaj. For Guṇaj. (157) at
least some Burmese manuscripts give Sīhaj., as well as Rājovādaj. for Mahākapij. (407)
and Chandakumāraj. for Khaṇḍahālaj. (542). In some Siṁhalese manuscripts Romakaj.
(277) is styled Pārāpataj. Also the commentator of the Jātaka himself, when alluding
to the Jātakas, often uses title, different from those standing in the text. Finally the
occurrence of smaller differences in the titles may be considered as shortenings or extensions of
them. E.g. the commentator mentions the Sammodamānaj. (33) as Vaṭṭakaj. in Vol. V, 414,
27, the Vānarindaj. (57) as Kumbhīlaj. in Vol. II, 206, 14, the Telapattaj. (96) as Takkasilaj.
in Vol. I, 469, 30 f., the Guṇaj. (157) as Sigālaj. in Vol. II, 314, 21, the Ādittaj. (424) as
Sovīraj. in Vol. IV, 360, 24; 401, 12, the Kosambīj. (428) as Saṁghabhedaj. in Vol. III,
211, 10 f., the Chakkavākaj. (434) as Kākaj. in Vol. I, 241, 28 f., Vol. II, 318, 23 f., the
Samuggaj. (436) as Karaṇḍakaj. in Vol. V, 455, 2, the Chatudvāraj. (439) as Mahāmittavindakaj. in Vol. I, 363, 7 f., Vol. III, 206, 14 f., the Mahākapij. (516) as Vevaṭiyakapij. in Vol. III, 178, 7 f., the Vidhurapaṇḍitaj. (545) as Puṇṇakaj. in Vol. IV, 14, 24 f.; 182, 19.
On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet, p. 16 f.
Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, p. 152.
JAOS. XVIII, p. 185 f.
Mém. conc. I’ Asie Orient., Vol. III, p. 9.
In the same way already Rhys Davids, Buddh. Birth Stories, p. LXI has expressed his opinion.
Suchirajātaka (Ck), Vidūrajātaka (B[d]) in Vol. IV, 360, 24, Sivirajātaka (B[d]) in Vol. IV, 401,
12 are distortions by the writers, cf. Andersen, J., Vol. VII, p. XIV.
In the Siṁhalese manuscripts.