The Spitzer manuscript

The Spitzer Manuscript (1st-2nd Century CE)[1] is the oldest surviving Sanskrit manuscript[2] ever found. The highly fragmented material was discovered in 1906 by a German expedition team headed by Indologist Dr. Moritz Spitzer. The material was found in Qizil[3](Central Asia) which falls in the ancient silk route. The material is currently preserved in State library of Berlin, Germany . The work is unique in that no parallel work has ever been found related to it and also the text has not been transmitted to China/Tibet/Japan through translations like most other early Buddhist texts do.

## Script Used

This ancient manuscript was written with a broad-nib copper pen in Kuṣāṇa-Brāhmã script.

## Contents

The account of the manuscript as edited by Franco is presented below with a few comments.

* avidyA-lakShaNa; godAna vastra-dAna, criticism of the ghR^ihastAshrama, brAhmaNa-s. None of this is clear as the pages are rather fragmentary.

* An account of AjIvika theories such as dharma and adharma having no consequence.

* Some account of sukha, dukha, death, bandha and mokSha, etc.

* An account of the properties (lakShaNa-s) of the primary substances teja, vAyu, Apa etc. A detailed account of vaisheShika theory of guNa-s, probably statement of a pUrvapakSha for a nAstika (?)

* The four Arya satyAni of the buddha and the concept of nairAtmya.

* Some account of principles of logical inference and argument.

* saMkSipta rAmAyaNa- a summary of vAlmIki’s epic. A parvan summary of the mahAbhArata. It should be noted that this is fragmentary with the so claimed missing virATaparvan being a lacuna in the manuscript with some name starting in ‘a’ or ‘A’, which might have read aj~nAtaparvan – effectively the same as the virATaparvan. The missing anushAsanaparvan cannot be confirmed as being really missing or: 1) poor preservation; 2) some Mbh manuscripts outside India, like Indonesia, combine the shAntiparvan and the anushAsanaparvan; simply accidental or ignorant omission by the author.

In conclusion, the evidence is just tenuous to insist that this fragmentary parvan list from a unique manuscript from uttarApatha (Central Asia) represented the state of the Mbh as was known elsewhere in jambudvIpa at that age. Franco also places a fragment of the text regarding the origin of daitya-s and dAnava-s, a legal procedure, an account of the gandharva veda, the chatuH ShaShTi kalA-s, vedA~Nga-s, and the duties of each varNa in this part of the text.

* Brief account of upaniShad-s, mantra-s and brAhmaNa injunctions. The concepts of adhidaiva and adhyAtman.

* Brief account of taxonomy of living beings.

* The claim that the buddha knew all of the veda, the vedA~Nga-s, astronomy, dance and music. Arguments [possibly of an Astika] as to why the buddha could not have been all-knowing.

* The buddha as an authoritative teacher, the merits of building stUpa-s, the evils of dishonest actions, destruction of desire by knowledge, a meditation on the bodily processes to end desire, mokSha, use of garlic vis-a-vis brAhmaNa-s and shaka-s.

* Nature of saMsAra, a refutation of Ishvara concept, law of conservation of matter and the beginningless nature of saMsAra.

* An attack on the bauddha-mata [Arguments of mImAMsaka-s]: The buddha’s teaching is not pramANa because he used prAkR^ita, examples of vulgar prAkR^ita

* Debate regarding whether compassion is dharma because it involves attachment to the object of compassion.

* sharabha and other animals.

* Existence of past and future dharma-s in addition to those of the present – bauddha theory of sarvAstivAda, which was popular in uttarApatha and among the chIna-s.

* Discourse on how the Arya satyAni of the buddha can be understood – by a gradual process or in a sudden revelation. The text explains that it is a gradual process.

* An attack on the Astika theory of the “self-luminescent” consciousness.

* The tathAgata’s place in the saMgha and the obscure question of whether making a donation to the saMgha is a donation to the buddha.

* The concepts of samyag-buddhi and mithyA-buddhi – correct and wrong cognition.

* An attack on the kAshyapIya theory of the action continuing to exist until it bears fruit.

* Lengthy philosophical considerations and debates between tAthAgata-s and naiyAyika-s, mImAMsaka-s and sAMkhyavAdin-s.

## References

1. ↑ "A brief note on the Spitzer manuscript and related issues" (in en-US). mAnasa-taraMgiNI. 2013-05-01. https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-note-on-the-spitzer-manuscript-and-related-issues/.
2. ↑ (Ed.), Eli FRANCO (2004) (in de). The Spitzer Manuscript. http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/0xc1aa500d_0x00046257.
3. ↑ "A brief note on the Spitzer manuscript and related issues" (in en-US). mAnasa-taraMgiNI. 2013-05-01. https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-note-on-the-spitzer-manuscript-and-related-issues/.

0.00

(0 votes)

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Religion:The_Spitzer_manuscript&oldid=2515620"