|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
PART B opposed to the canonical texts. On the contrary the visit of Ajātasattu is depicted even in details exactly according to the Sāmaññaphalasutta (DN. I, 47 ff.). In the same way the representation of the visit of Sakka follows the text of the Sakkapañhasutta (DN., II, 263 ff.). Even the name of the cave in the label (Idasālaguha) is the same as in Pāli, while with the Sarvāstivādins it occurs as Indraśailaguhā. Moreover, the depictions of the non-canonical legends also show the greatest conformity with the Pāli version. This, for instance, holds good for the Erapatta-legend, treated below under B 36 and B 37. It is doubtful whether in the relief representing the donation of the Jetavana, a deviation from the later Pāli sources is to be seen. I am showing below[1] that the relief, in so far as it is also a depiction of the miracle of Śrāvastī, represents a version of the legend older than the one in the Pāli commentaries. Nevertheless the close relation with the tradition of the Theras comes to light, when we compare it with the version in the text of the Mūlasarvāstivādins, which differs to a greater extent. In these circumstances even the occurrence of persons as the devaputra Arahagutta (B 20), unknown to the Pāli commentary literature, in the Bhārhut reliefs does not prove that the artists followed a tradition different from that of the Theras.
There is, as far as I see, in Bhārhut only one deviation from the Pāli canon, viz. the representation of the Bodhi tree of Buddha Vipassin (treated under B 13). I am not able to give a satisfactory explanation. It is quite improbable that the text in the Mahāpadānasutta has been afterwards changed. It seems that here in fact the tradition of a different school comes to light which found its way into the pictorial art, for also in Sāñchī, the Aśoka appears as the Bodhi tree of Vipassin. The Kharoshṭhī letters used as marks of the sculptors on the eastern gate make it probable that also the artists from the North-West of India were at work at Bhārhut. Perhaps the Vipassin-medallion which differs[2] also stylistically from the type of, the representation of Bodhi trees common in Bhārhut is the work of some artist from the North-West. Be it as it may, I do not believe that this quite unique case can weaken the argument that the artists of Bhārhut in general followed in their work the tradition of the Theras as it was laid down in the canonical Pāli texts.
3. I cannot enter here into a full discussion on the second point raised by Foucher
against the use of the Pāli Jātaka collection, as the explanation of the linguistic deviations
in the labels from the Pāli would require a special treatise. I intend to give it on a different
occasion, and hope to be able to show that the text of the Pāli canon is translated from an
older canon laid down in the popular language of Eastern India.[3] When translating into
the Western language, which we are used to call Pāli, not only numerous faults occurred,
but at many places the Eastern forms have been retained. So for instance, in the Eastern
language the ksh of śaiksha and of bhikshu, bhikshuṇī became kkh, in the Western language,
however, it became chchh. But sekkha, bhikkhu, bhikkhunī were taken over without change
as technical expressions in the church language.[4] When the sculptors of Bhārhut or their
employers used the forms-sechha (B 45) and bhichhunī[5] which are in conformity with the
Western colloquial language, so naturally we cannot conclude therefrom that they followed
[1]See the treatment under B 32. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
