Citation

[L.S. Cousins]

As mentioned, /bhikkhave/ is normal for the vocative plural in Pali 
(possibly a survival of an eastern form). /Bhikṣave/ appears to be the 
only form found in Gāndhārī for the vocative plural. It also occurs 
sporadically in Buddhist Sanskrit texts (including the 
/Saṅghabhedavastu/ and the /Dīrghāgama/ manuscript). Probably in later 
times it would tend to be corrected to /bhikṣavo/ by scribes. So there 
is no way of knowing what Medhātithi intended and we can only follow the 
Mss.

Lance Cousins


On 16/12/2012 03:17, Hock, Hans Henrich wrote:
> Except that bhikkhave, the putative source for the Sanskrit word, is 
> normal in Pali texts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hans Henrich Hock
>
> On 15 Dec 2012, at 19:44, Arlo Griffiths wrote:
>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Your bhikṣave needs rather to be (emended to) bhikṣavo. Similar 
>> phrases occur at:
>>
>> Mahāvastu-Avadāna 3.448
>> ... paśyāmy ahaṃ bhikṣavaḥ divyena cakṣuṣā 
>> viśuddhenātikrāntamānuṣyakena satvāṃ cyavantāṃ upapadyantāṃ suvarṇāṃ 
>> durvavarṇāṃ sugatāṃ durgatāṃ hīnāṃ praṇītāṃ yathākarmopagāṃ satvāṃ 
>> prajānāmi na ca punaḥ ahaṃ evaṃ vadāmi ...
>>
>> Saṃghabhedavastu I 158 (in the Sermon of the Buddha on the unreality 
>> of the Self)
>> ... paśyāmy ahaṃ bhikṣavo divyena cakṣuṣā viśuddhenātikrāntamānuṣeṇa 
>> satvān; paśyāmi cyavamānān apy upapadyamānān api suvarṇān api, 
>> durvarṇān api, hīnān api, praṇītān api, sugatim api gacchato, 
>> durgatim api gacchataḥ; yathākarmopagān satvān yathābhūtān prajānāmi; 
>> amī bhavantaḥ satvāḥ kāyaduścaritena samanvāgatā vāṅmanoduścaritena 
>> samanvāgatā āryāṇām apavādakāḥ, mithyādṛṣṭayaḥ 
>> mithyādṛṣṭikarmadharmasamādānahetos taddhetutatpratyayaṃ kāyasya 
>> bhedāt paraṃ maraṇād apāyadurgativinipātaṃ narakeṣūpapadyante ...
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Arlo Griffiths
>>
>>
>> > Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:30:08 -0600
>> > From:jpo at UTS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU <mailto:jpo at UTS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
>> > Subject: [INDOLOGY] Citation
>> > To:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk <mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
>> >
>> > Friends:
>> >
>> > I have what appears to be a citation from a Buddhist work by 
>> Medhātithi, the great commentator of Manu. On Manu 2.6 (Jha's ed. p. 
>> 57) he cites: "paśyāmy ahaṃ bhikṣave divyena cakṣuṣā sugatiṃ durgatiṃ 
>> ca."
>> >
>> > Jha reads "bhikṣūṇāṃ", but this is probably an error. I have 
>> emended it following five manuscript readings given in the Gharpure 
>> edition.
>> >
>> > Thanks for any leads. Best,
>> >
>> > Patrick
>