Sanskrit Fragments Of Kasyapaparivarta

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269275/1

Page #1
SANSKRIT FRAGMENTS OF THE KASYAPAPARIVARTA by J. W. DE JONG, Canberra In 1938 Kuno Horyu edited two fragments of a manuscript of the Kasyapaparivarta'. They had been sent to Hoernle by P. J. Miles in 1903. According to Hoernle the fragments had been found in Khadalik. The two fragments (Hoernle No. 143 S.B. 38 and No. 143 S.B. 39) are at present in the India Office Library to which institution I am obliged for having put at my disposal excellent photocopies. Kuno had no difficulty in showing that they belong to one and the same leaf. The text corresponds to sections 128-136 of the edition of the Kasyapaparivarta published by A. von StaelHolstein (Shanghai, 1926). In von Stael-Holstein's edition each of the sections 128-133 consists of a prose part and a verse part, but in the fragments the verses are missing. However, the fragments do contain the first words of section 136: atha khalu bhagavam tasya[m] vela(y)[am imam gatham abhasata). Kuno pointed out that of the four Chinese versions the two versions dating from the periods of the Chin and Ch'in dynasties, correspond more closely to the Sanskrit text of the fragments. He concluded that this text must have been in existence in the 3rd-5th centuries A.D. Comparing the fragments with the corresponding prose parts in von Stael-Holstein's edition, Kuno tried to reconstruct the missing parts of the entire leaf. His readings of the manuscript are not always correct and his reconstruction does not take into account the exact extent of the missing portions. Even more important is the fact that Kuno was not aware of the fact that a fragment of the same leaf was edited twenty years before by J. N. Reutero. The fragments, published by Reuter, were brought back from his expedition to Central Asia and North China in 1906-1908 by Colonel Baron Gustav Mannerheim. The third fragment contains a passage of the Kasyapaparivarta corresponding to sections 130-135. It exactly fills one gap in the leaf, edited by Kuno, between lines 3 to 8 of the recto and lines i to 6 of the verso. The following edition of the three fragments of this leaf is based upon a photocopy of the two fragments in the India Office Library and a photocopy of the Manner 1 Saiiki shutsudo bukkyo bonpon to sono seiten shiron-jo chii (jo). Daihoshakkyo to Zoagonkyo no genten, I. Uten shutsudo Daihoshakkyo bonpon to sono kachi', Bukkyo kenkyu, II,3 (1938), pp. 71-110. 2 J. N. REUTER, 'Some Buddhist Fragments from Chinese Turkestan in Sanskrit and "Khotanese", Journal de la societe finno-ougrienne, 30 (1913-1918), pp. 1-37 (Reprinted in: C. G. Mannerheim, Across Asia from West to East in 1906-1908, vol. II, Helsinki, 1940).

Page #2
248 J. W. DE JONG heim fragment which Professor Pentti Aalto has been so kind as to send me at my request. (M) indicates the beginning and end of the Mannerheim fragment. Missing syllables are indicated with and missing letters with.. As in von Stael-Holstein's edition a single oblique stroke represents a dot, a pair of oblique strokes two upright strokes. Moreover, a colon stands for a colon in the manuscript, a punctuation mark which was not recognized as such by von Stael-Holstein3. Aksaras which can only be read partially are put between round brackets and restored aksaras between square brackets. O is used to indicate the circle round the hole in the right half of the leaf. RECTO I. m eva kasyapaikatya sramanabrahmana bahumn darmam paryapya na rag.m(o) hatrsna vinodayamti /tte dharmarnavanohya manne klaisa (tr)snaya ka(la) - 2. tigamino bhavamti // tadyatha kasyapa vaidya ausa|da|bhrasta grhi(t)---utpadyeta / na ca tam vyadhi / saknuya cikitsittu/evam eva kasyapa bahusrutasya- 3. drastavyah yahs tena srutenna na knoty atmanam klaisavyadhim citsiirarthakam (tasya) tam sruttam bhavatt(i) (M) // tadyatha kasyapa) glanapu[ru]s[o] r (M) ajarham bhaisajyamm upayujyattasamvatsarena kalam - - 4 evam eva kaiyapa bahusrutasya klaisavyadhi drasta yabs tenasamvatsarena ka (M) lam karotti // tadyatha kasyapa man[i] (M) ratnam ucare patita akaryopagam bhavaty evam elva) -- 5. pa bahusrutasya labhasatkaro(carapa) - Ostavyah niskimcana devaman(u)..e (M). yasu // tadyatha kasyapa mrtasya mala (M) / evam eva kasyapa dusilasya kas(alyandra) - innakesana 6. vyah // tadyatha kasyapa susnatasya suvili- (sya) khasyavada(ta) [M] vastrapravrtasya pravaracandananuliptasya sre (M) stiputrasya sirse canpakamala evam eva kasya --- 7. lavato (balhusrutasya kasaya(dha)ra----// catvarah ime [M] kasyapa dusila silavapratirupakah kata (M) m[e] catvara iha kasya-katyo bhiksu -- 8. mok(sa) sam ---- rto bhavati / aca - vadyesu bhayadarsi samadaya (silksa (M) ti siksapa(de) - an (M) tresv api (isuddha) 3 F. WELLER, Zum Kasyapaparivarta. Heft 2. Verdeutschung des sanskrit-tibetischen Textes (Berlin, 1965), p. 63, n. 3.

Page #3
Sanskrit Fragments of the Kasyapaparivarta 249 VERSO .I. ---- ga(t)o (v)iharati pa(ri)su ------------(M) yam kasyapa prathamo dusila silavapratirupakah // (M) (p)unar apa(ra)m kaolya) - (i)haikatyo bhiksu vvina(ya) -- 2. - vati pravita - nayo v(i)naya - pto---- (ya)drstim casy(a nuca (M) litam bhavati : ayam kasyapa dvitiyo dusila sila (M) vaprattirupakah // puna param kasyapa (i)haikat - - 3. ksu maitravihari bhavati / satvarambana ------manvagatto bhavati / (a) (M) jatim ca sarvvasanskaranam srutva : utrasati sam (M) trasati samtrasam apadyate / ayam kasyapa trti -- 4. silah silavapratirupakah // pu(na)r apara(m) O kasyapa ihaikatyo bhiksuh dv (M) adasa dhuttagunan sama - ya varttatte / (M) upalambha drstikas ca bhavati / ahamkaramamamkara --- 5. ayam kasyapa caturtho dusilah silavapra O tirupakah // ime kasyapa ca (M) tvaro dusila silavapratirupaka (M) silam silam itti kasyapa ucyate / yatra natma (n) - - yam : na kriya nakriya / na karanam nakaranam : na caro nacaro na pracar. (M) na namarupam / na nimittam : na samo (M) na prasamah na graho notsargah na grahyam : na satvo na ---- 7. ptih na va na vaprajnaptih na citam na citaprajnapti / na lo(klo nalokah na nis[ra]yo nan(i)srayah natmas -- tka . (sa) -- parakarmmasilyapamnsana: na silamannyana / na si ---- 8. na : na samkalpana : idam ucyate kasyapa aryanam silamm /a ---- ------apagatam // sarvvanisrayavigatam // atha khalu bhagavam tasya velaly) In line 5 of the recto the word devamanusyesu has to be read. Fragment 143 S.B. 38 has devaman and the vowel e. M contains the subscript y and the syllable su. Reuter read xyanu, x indicating a deleted consonant. In line 7 of the verso Reuter read only the word (du] sile). It is possible to read ilo - r -.. The fragment 143 S.B. 39 has atmas -- tka . - . a (sa) - . It is therefore possible to reconstruct the word atmasilotkarsana. The scribe has the habit of doubling the t and the n, cf. recto (1) tte, -ohyamanne; (2) cikisittu; (3) srutenna, sruttam, etc. Several syllables have been omitted by him, cf. recto (3) knoty for saknoty; (4) citsi - for cikitsi -; verso (2) puna param for punar aparam. In recto (3) and (4) the scribe wrote asamvatsarena which must be a mistake for asamvarena, cf. Weller's translation of the corresponding passage in the Chin version: "Gerade wie wenn ein kranker Mensch die wunderbare Arznei eines Konigs einnimmt, sein Ende erreicht, (da er) sich nicht an die Regel halt, so, Kasyapa, verhalt es sich wiederum auch (damit) so, dass es vielfach Sramana, Brahmanen gibt, (die) das der Lehre nicht Gemasse ausfuhren, (sondern) alle Krankheiten der Bindungen aufkommen lassen, (und sie nach ihrem) Ende auf dem schlim

Page #4
250 J. W. DE JONG men Wegen (wieder) geboren werden." It is difficult to know how far the scribe has correctly reproduced the language of the text. In samdhi between vowels, a hiatus usually occurs, but in the first line of recto the scribe wrote kasyapaikatya. In reconstructing the text of the leaf I have normalized the spellings and the samdhi, although I am aware of the fact that the language of the original may have been more irregular. Apart from this aspect, it does not seem too difficult to reconstruct the text of the leaf. It is possible that the original had na pracaro napracarah instead of na pracarah and na nama na rupam instead of na namarupam (cf. $ 135). RECONSTRUCTED TEXT OF THE LEAF 128. evam eva kasyapaikatyah sramanabrahmana bahun dharman paryapya na ragatrsnam vinodayanti / na dvesatrsnam na mohatlsnam vinodayanti / te dharmarnavenohyamanah klesatnsnaya kalagata durgatigamino bhavanti / 129. tadyatha kasyapa vaidya ausadhabhastram glhitvanuvicaret / tasya kascid eva vyadhir utpadyeta / na ca tam vyadhim saknuyac cikitsitum / evam eva kasyapa bahusrutasya klesavyadhir drastavyo yas tena srutena na saknoty atmanah klesavyadhim cikitsitum / nirarthakam tasya tac chrutam bhavati / 130. tadyatha kasyapa glanah puruso rajarham bhaisajyam upayujyasam varena kalam kuryat / evam eva kasyapa bahusrutasya klesavyadhir drastavyo yas tenasanvarena kalam karoti / 131. tadyatha kasyapa maniratnam ucsare patitam akaryopagam bhavaty evam eva kasyapa bahusrutasya labhasatkaroccarapatanam drastavyam/ niskimcana devamanusyesu / . 132. tadyatha kasyapa mstasya mala / evam eva kasyapa duhsilasya kasayam drastavyam/ 133. tadyatha kasyapa susnatasya suviliptasya suchinnakesanakhasya vadatavastrapravitasya pravaracandananuliptasya sresthiputrasya sirse campakamala evam eva kasyapa duhsilavato bahusrutasya kasayadharanam drastavyam/ catvara ime kasyapa duhsilah silavatpratirupakah / katame catvarah / iha kasyapaikatyo bhiksuh pratimoksasamvarasamvito bhavati / acaragocarasampanna anumatresv api vadyesu bhayadarsi samadaya siksate siksapadesu parisuddhakayavanmanaskarmana samanvagato viharati parisuddhajivah sa ca bhavaty atmavadi / ayam kasyapa prathamo duhsilah silavatpratirupakah // + Kasyapaparivarta nach der Djin-Fassung verdeutscht, MIO, XII (1966), p. 419.

Page #5
Sanskrit Fragments of the Kasyapaparivarta 251 punar aparam kasyapehaikatyo bhiksur vinayadharo bhavati pravitavinayo vinayaguptau sthitaha satkayadsstis casyanucalita bhavati / ayam kasyapa dvitiyo duhsilah silavatpratirupakah // punar aparam kasyapehaikatyo bhiksur maitravihari bhavati / sattvarambanaya karunaya samanvagato bhavati / ajatim ca sarvasamskaranam srutva / uttrasati samtrasati sastrasam apadyate / ayam kasyapa titiyo duhsilah silavatpratirupakah // punar aparam kasyapehaikatyo bhiksur dvadasa dhutagunan samadaya vartate / upalambhadsstikas ca bhavati / ahamkaramamakarasthitah / ayam kasyapa caturtho duhsilah silavatpratirupakah // ime kasyapa catvaro duhsilah silavatpratirupakah // 135. silam silam iti kasyapocyate / yatra natma natmiyam / na kriya nakriya / na karanam nakaranam / na caro nacaro na pracarah / na namarupam na nimittam / na samo na prasamah / na graho notsargah / na grahyam na sattvo na sattvaprajnaptih / na van na vakprajnaptih / na cittam na cittaprajnaptih / na loko nalokah / na nisrayo nanisrayah / natmasilotkarsana na parasilapamsana / na silamanyana / na silavikalpana (?) / na samkalpana / idam ucyate kasyaparyanam silam anasravam aparyapannam traidhatukapagatam sarvanisrayavigatam // 136. atha khalu bhagavams tasyam velayam a Cf. Tib. 'dul-ba'i tshul-la gnas-pa and the Indikatusaya copper plaque no. 67: vanaya-gupto sthitah (S. Paranavitana, 'A Note on the Indikatusaya copper plaques', Epigraphica Zeylanica, vol. IV, pt. 5, 1939, p. 241). Thanks are due to Mr. G. Schopen for drawing my attention to this article. In 1957 V.S. Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij published two fragments of Sanskrit manuscripts of the Kasyapaparivarta. The first fragment is an almost complete leaf. It carries the number three and forms part of the manuscript published by von Stael-Holstein. Weller is of the opinion that this leaf does not agree in all details with the manuscript published by von Stael-Holstein. As his only reason Weller adduces the fact that this leaf contains the words: idam uvaca bhagavams which are absent in the Tibetan version. This only proves that the Sanskrit original on which the Tibetan version is based is different. Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij points out that the dimensions of the leaf are the same as those of the other leafs of the manuscript. His conclusion that this leaf is the formerly unknown third leaf of the manuscript is undoubtedly 5 'Vnov' najdennye listy rukopisej Kasyapaparivarty', Rocznik Orientalistyczny, 21 (1957), pp. 491-500. 6 Zum Kasyapaparivarta, p. 63, n. 3.

Page #6
252 J. W. DE JONG correct. The Institute of Oriental Studies has kindly put at my disposal a photocopy. Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij's transliteration has to be corrected in the following points: recto (3) vaksyaparamah, read: vakyaparamah, verso (a) dharitva, read: dharitva, (3) taparo; read: ca taparo; (4) vartate; read: vartamte; (5) -visamvadanataya; read: -visamvadanatayd. Recto (1) Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij reads adiptasiras ce [la..kru) and adds in a note that he is unable to restore the missing word. The Tibetan version has mgo-am-gos-la me bar-ba bzin which renders adiptasirascelopama, cf. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary s.v. adiptasirascailopama. Recto (2) arutal for srutas and verso (2) pratipattiya for pratipattiya are misprints as is obvious from Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij's notes. At the beginning of verso (1) Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij reads.. y... tah. I fail to see any trace of a y on the photocopy. Also the photocopy does not show the syllable ka which Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij adds at the end of recto (5): labhasatkarasiloka. The second fragment corresponds to sections 14-19. The text does not contain the verses which are to be found in von Stael-Holstein's text. The Institute of Oriental Studies has kindly given me a photocopy of this fragment also. In recto (6) read bhlutagu/nah for bhluta gujnah, (7) read cabhisraddhadati for cabhisraddadhati; verso (2) read satparamita for satparamita-, (2-3) read dharmabhanakadar/sa) (b31 namm for dharmabhanakadarsa) (b3] nam; (4-5) read sarvvadrstikr(tand] (bs) m for sarvvadrstikrtalna) (bs) m, (6) read niskuhakasy/dra/nyavasah for niskuhasy[aralnyavasah, pratikarapratikamksinas for pratikarakratikamksinas; (7) read saddharmaparyestim for saddharmamaryastim. Weller is of the opinion that this fragment does not entirely agree with the Chinese Chin version, as Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij had maintained. This is not quite correct because Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij said only that "of all Chinese versions only the Chin version reproduces exactly marasamatikramand dharmah in section 18 and that this represents a distinctive peculiarity of this version" (p. 498). Although Weller agrees with him on this point, I fail to see in what way the Chin version is any closer to the Sanskrit text of the fragment than the Han and Ch'in versions. None of the three versions translates only the word mara. According to Weller's translations of the three versions, the Han version has "die Welt Maras", the Chin version "alle mara" und the Ch'in version "maras Angelegenheiten". 7 Op. cit., p. 10. 8 'Kasyapaparivarta nach der Han-Fassung verdeutscht, Buddhist Yearly 1968/69 (Halle, 1970), p. 114; 'Kasyapaparivarta nach der Djin-Fassung verdeutscht', MIO, XII (1966), p. 394; 'Kasyapaparivarta nach der Tjin-Ubersetzung verdeutscht', Wiss. Z. der KarlMarx-Universitat Leipzig, 13 (1964), Gesellschafts- und Sprachw. Reihe, Heft 4, p. 775.

Page #7
Sanskrit Fragments of the Kasyapaparivarta 253 Again according to Weller, the fragment agrees with the Chin version in section 19: srutarthatrptata sarvvakusalamulasamudanayanlayal". The Chin version has: "Die Lehre zu suchen gibt es (fur ihn) keinen Uberdruss (und kein) Genugen, weil (er) jedwede Wurzel des Heilsamen aufsammelt." However, "die Lehre zu suchen" does not correspond to srutartha but to saddharmaparyestim arabhya which belongs to the third category in this section. It is interesting to note that in this instance the text of the fragment corresponds better to the Sung version and the Tibetan version than the text of von Stael-Holstein's manuscript. The latter has atiptita as against srutarthatnptata which is confirmed by the Tibetan version: thos-pa dan don-gyis noms mi-myon zin and the Sung version: "Der Sinn (der Lehre) zu horen findet er kein Genugen"10. Another example is niskuhakasyaranyavasah in section 19. In this case the fragment agrees with the Tibetan version (tshul-'chos-pa med-par dgon-pa na gnas-pa) and von Stael-Holstein's manuscript (niskuhakasyaranyavasabhiratih) with the Sung version: "Er freut sich, im Walde zu weilen, (ist) vollig still und zuruckgezogen''11. In section 14 von Stael-Holstein's manuscript has bhutakalyanamitrani as against kalyanamitrani in the fragment and in the Tibetan version (dge-ba'i baes-gnen). Von Stael-Holstein's manuscript adds after each category the word samvartate which is missing in the fragment and in the Tibetan version. The oldest Chinese version does not contain any verses in sections 136-137. In spite of this, it is not certain that the Sanskrit original, on which this version is based, was written in prose. The Chinese version is very primitive and it is possible that the translator rendered the original Sanskrit verses into prose. It is noteworthy that section 136 in the Han translation begins with a solemn statement which is not found anywhere else in the text: "At that time the Buddha spoke, saying". As to the date and the author of this translation, both Pelliot and Ono Hodo have drawn attention to the fact that, although the oldest extant Chinese catalogue, the Ch'u san-tsang chi-chi (about 515 A.D.), states that the text was translated in 179 A.D. by Lou-chia-ch'an (Taisho no. 2145, P. 6b17), this is very doubtful12. Pelliot supposes that Lou-chia-ch'an's translation of the Astasahasrikaprajnaparamitasutra was confused with the translation of the Kasyapaparivarta. However, Pelliot points out that the translation judging by its archaic aspect could well have been made in the Han period: Ono declared peremptorily that the language of the text proves that it was translated during the Eastern Chin. It is impossible to adhere to his point of view. 9 Zum Kasyapaparivarta, p. 10. 10 'Die Sung-Fassung des Kasyapaparivarta', Monumenta Serica, 25 (1966), p. 240. 11 Ibid., p. 239. 12 P. Pelliot, Compte rendu de The Kacyapaparivarta, etc., T'oung Pao, 32 (1936), pp. 68-76; ONO Hodo, Daijo kaikyo no kenkyu (Tokyo, 1954), pp. 98, 101-102. Cf. also Taisho no. 2145, pp. 19519 and 29017.

Page #8
254 J. W. DE JONG Already von Stael-Holstein remarked that the translation uses the same equivalent for bhagavat as Lou-chia-ch'an's translation of the A-ch'u fo-kuo ching (Taisho no. 313). The transliterations of cakravartin, upayakausalya and abhijna are the same as those found in Lou-chia-ch'an's translation of the Astasahasrikaprajnaparamitasutra13. It is therefore probable that this translation of the Kasyapaparivarta is indeed due to Lou-chia-ch'an. According to von Stael-Holstein the manuscript edited by him was probably written in the ninth and tenth centuries. His main argument seems to be the agreement of the text with the Chinese Sung version. This version was made in the year 98614. Whatever the date of the manuscript may be, the text must already have been more or less the same at the time of the Tibetan translation, which dates from the beginning of the ninth century. It is possible to push the terminus ad quem even further back. The Kasyapaparivarta is quoted in many texts. Von Stael-Holstein listed quotations in the Siksasamuccaya, the Mahayanasutralamkara and the Bodhicaryavatarapanjika. Japanese scholars have pointed out quotations in the Prasannapada, the Madhyantavibhagatika, the Lankavatarasutra and the Ratnagotravibhaga and in texts, preserved only in Chinese and/or Tibetan translation, such as the Mahayanasamgraha, the Dasabhumivibhasa (Taisho no. 1522), the Prajnaparamitopadesa (Taisho no. 1509), the Mahayanavatara (Taisho no. 1634), the Fo-hsing lun (Taisho no. 1610), the Chi chu-fa-pao tsui-shang-i lun (Taisho no. 1638), the Anuttarasrayasutra (Taisho no. 669) and the Mahaparinirvanasutra (Taisho nos. 374-377)15. Tsukinowa drew attention to the fact that the four verses of section 71 are quoted in the Prasannapada pp. 156-15716. As Sthiramati, the commentator of the Kasyapaparivarta, did not yet know a text which contained verses apart from those in sections 136-137, he concluded that the text, as transmitted in von Stael-Holstein's manuscript, the Tibetan version and the Sung version, was established in the period 13 Cf. F. Weller, Buddhist Yearly 1968/69, pp. 91, 85 and 75, L. R. LANCASTER, An Analysis of the Astasahasrikaprajnaparamitasutra from the Chinese Translations (The University of Wisconsin, Ph. D. 1968), pp. 393, no. 198, p. 388 no. 144 and p. 392, no. 185. Cf. also PAUL PELLIOT, Papiyan > Po-siun', T'oung Pao, 30 (1933), p. 92. 14 Cf. MOCHIZUKI SHINKO, Bukkyo daijiten, vol. 8 (Tokyo, 1958), p. 259. 15 SHIOMI TETSUDO, 'Ryuju shoin no Daijo kyoten no ni-san ni tsuite', Shukyo kenkyu, N.S. IX, 6 (1932), pp. 1031-1044; TSUKINOWA KENRYU, Kohon Daihoshakkyo ni tsuite', Bukkyogaku no shomondai (Tokyo, 1935), pp. 849-869 | = Butten no hihanteki kenkyu (Kyoto, 1971), pp. 393-407); KUNO, op. cit.; ONO, op. cit.; HASEOKA KAZUYA, Jujuji-basharon ni okeru Kacyapaparivarta no inyo ni tsuite', Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu, 2 (1954), pp. 553-556; AMANO HIROFUSA, 'Hochokyo ni tsuite', ibid., 4 (1956), pp. 464-465; HACHIRIKI HIROKI, 'Purasannapada no inyo kyoten (2). Ratnakutasutra no inyo ni tsuite', ibid., 15 (1967), pp. 720-723. 16 Op. cit., p. 863.

Page #9
Sanskrit Fragments of the Kasyapaparivarta 255 between Sthiramati and Candrakirti. This is certainly possible, although it must be pointed out that other quotations in the Prasannapada do not entirely agree with the text of von Stael-Holstein's manuscript. This, however, is only to be expected in the case of a text which has been transmitted over centuries and which has been continually expanded. In any case, the quotations of the Kasyapaparivarta are capable of throwing much light on the history of the text. For instance, it is very interesting to see that the comparison of the bodhisattva with the kalavinka in section 84 is absent in the Chin and Ch'in versions, but is already quoted in the Prajnaparamitopadesa which was translated about 404 A.D.17. It is interesting to note that this comparison is also absent in Sthiramati's commentary which was translated into Chinese in the period 508-535, and in a hitherto unnoticed Chinese version of the Kasyapaparivarta, chapter 7 of the Ratnameghasutra (Taisho no. 659, vol. XVI, pp. 276-283). This latter version was recently discovered almost simultaneously by Takasaki Jikido18 and by Nagao Gajin19. Nagao shows that this version is closely related to the Ch'in version. According to him the translator of it was not Man t'o lo hsien from Funan, but Subodhi from Funan who worked as translator during the Ch'en dynasty (557-589). The Sanskrit fragments in London, Helsinki and Leningrad confirm the evidence which can be gained from the Chinese versions and the quotations of the Kasyapaparivarta in other texts. The Kasyapaparivarta, in which the verse parts are later than the prose parts, offers an interesting example of a text in which the verses, written in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, are definitely later than the prose parts, the language of which is much closer to standard Sanskrit. 17 Taisho no. 1599, p. 266c. Cf. KUNO, op. cit., p. 92. The same comparison is already found in the Ratnakarandasutra, cf. Siksasamuccaya (ed. CECIL BENDALL, Bibliotheca Buddhica, vol. I, 1897-1902), p. 6.11-15; Taisho no. 461, p. 45405-9, no. 462, p. 468b25-29. Taisho no. 461 was translated by Chu Fa-hu in 289, cf. Taisho no. 2145, p. 70. 18 Cf. Nyoraize shisa no keijo (Tokyo, 1974), p. 449. 19 <<"Kashohon no shohon" to "Daihoshakkyo" seiritsu no mondai', Suzuki gakujutsu kenkyu nenpo, 10 (1973) (published in 1974), pp. 13-25.