print prev. next

Work in progress


Other press marks:Pelliot Koutchéen Ancienne Série 7N; K 11


Main find spot:Duldur-Akhur
Specific find spot:DA, cour
Expedition code:DA cour FM 6a1
Collection:Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds Pelliot Koutchéen (Paris)

Language and Script

Linguistic stage:Late
Add. linguistic characteristics:With archaic forms

Text contents

Title of the work:Karmavibhaṅga
Parallel texts:PK AS 7K; PK AS 7L; Mahākarmavibhaṅga §§ 76, 74 (Lévi 1932: 103, 100, 149-150) (a1-a5)
Text genre:Literary
Text subgenre:Doctrine


Manuscript:Karmavibhaṅga γ
Leaf number:Lost
Material:Ink on paper
Size (h × w):10 × 28,8 cm
Number of lines:7
Interline spacing:1,5 cm
Remarks:This leaf was restored already in antiquity. One can distinguish three parts with two different hands and different layers of paper. It seems that the central part to the right of the string hole is a remnant of an older leaf that had been torn at the left and at the right. Afterwards these left and right parts were glued to the central piece and the second scribe tried to restore all lines, most likely after the model of a complete leaf. However, he made several mistakes in reproducing the original disposition. The script type of this later addition is of the late type, while the middle piece is classical. Note that the leaf does not have the classical size and disposition of the poṭhī manuscripts, but is much smaller with only one string hole.


PK AS 7N Recto PK AS 7N Verso

Images loaded from by courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Pelliot koutchéen.


a1śak\ park[ā]wanta tuñ\ a(– –) tu(–) – ta(– –) – (– –)[n](·) : mele(·)ṣṣe indri cpi mā kauṣtra : kektseñmeṃ [c](·)i
a2karttse were yaṃ kektseñmeṃ cpi yolo mā wars̝a(·)-ne kalymi-kalymi s̝ap cpi papāṣṣorñeṣe were kar[t]ts ya(·)
a3cañcarona larona wäntarwampa eṣe kanmastra : yñakteṃ tanmastra ramer s̝pa keṣtra : śak\ pa-
a4rkawänta pyapyai ailyñe○ntse tuk-yakne sarkas̝s̝alle : yāmor kre wärpalyemeṃ ramer keṣtra
a5|| niṣkramatne || taka rano anaiwatse srukalñeṣṣe ime onolmens\ keś no tatarmeṃ olypotse lare ñi
a6srukalyñeṣṣ= īme yolo añmantse kektse[ñ] (·)eki palskosa yamtsi paknāntra srukalyñeṣṣ= īme kos ra
a7(– ·)o[l](·)[a](·)[s](·) ñi (–)sa lare sta(–) [kuc]e kca o«no»lmi (– – – –)losa yamaskeṃ yolo (–) waṣmo ma ne[s](··)i (–)
b1(–)[lyñ]e(·)ṣ= (·)m(·) ceṃ [pa]lsko yairo[ṣ y]a[ma](·) y(·)lo (– – – – – ·)kentra tarya cmel(·)n(·) c(·) rano wäntres(· – – – –)
b2(–) ñi srukalyñeṣṣ= īme 2 bodhisatventse kakr[au](–)wa snai keśa yāmornta krenta kosauk\ srukalyñeṣṣ= īme ma ta-
b3ś·-ne tot ma mrauskate teksa-ne ka no mrauskāte olyposte sū tāka pudñäkte ce rano wäntresa lare maske-
b4(–) ñi srukalyñeṣṣ= īme 3 ○ (– –) [o]nolmi saṃsārne wärpanantra makā-ykne skwanma srukalyñeṣṣ= īme
b5toṃ skwan[m]antsa wrotse ṣarm\ : tusa lāre star-ñi teteka srukalñeṣṣ= īme onolments\ nesale ma ṣai ṣeme-
b6ykne lkalyi lakl[e]nta ṅke ṣem wesa tusa lāre star-ñ\ 4 srukalñeṣṣ= īme waṣamo nauṣ tākaṃ wāwäṣṣeñca
b7se sal[e] yamastra ke[k](··)eñ reki [pa]lsko(··)[e] (– – – – –) wāyatsi ś[m]an-ne katkemane yaṃ caumpa kau ///


a1śak pärkāwanta tuñ a(yormeṃ) tu(ñe) – ta(tākau)(cmela)n(e) : mele(ṃ)ṣṣe indri cpi kauṣträ : kektseñmeṃ c(p)i
a2karttse were yaṃ kektseñmeṃ cpi yolo warṣä(ṃ)-ne kälymi-kälymi ṣäp cpi papāṣṣorñeṣe were kartts〈e〉 ya(ṃ)
a3cañcarona larona wäntarwampa eṣe känmasträ : yñakteṃ tänmästrä ramer ṣpä keṣträ : śak pä-
a4-rkawänta pyapyai ailyñentse tuk-yakne sarkäṣṣälle : yāmor kre wärpalyemeṃ rämer keṣträ
a5|| niṣkrama〈n〉tne || taka rano anaiwatse srukalñeṣṣe ime onolmens keś no tätarmeṃ olypotse lare ñi
a6srukalyñeṣṣ= īme yolo añmantse kektseñ (r)eki palskosa yamtsi päknānträ srukalyñeṣṣ= īme kos ra
a7(añmts=) ol(y)a(r)s(e) ñi (tu)sa lare sta(r-ñ) kuce kca olmi (katkemane yo)losa yamaskeṃ yolo (:) waṣmo ma ne(sn ñ)i (sru)-
b1-(ka)lyñe(ṣ)ṣ= (ī)m(e) ceṃ〈ts〉 palsko yairoṣ yama(ṃ) y(o)lo (cai) (ette tänmas)kenträ tärya cmel(a)n(e) c(e) rano wäntres(a lare mäske-
b2-trä) ñi srukalyñeṣṣ= īme 2 bodhisatventse kakrau(pau)wa snai keśä yāmornta krenta kosauk srukalyñeṣṣ= īme ma ta-
b3-ś(i)-ne tot ma mrauskate teksa-ne ka no mrauskāte olyposte tāka pudñäkte ce rano wäntresa lare mäske-
b4-(trä) ñi srukalyñeṣṣ= īme 3 (kuce kca) onolmi saṃsārne wärpananträ makā-ykne skwanma srukalyñeṣṣ= īme
b5toṃ skwanmantsa wrotse ṣarm : tusa lāre star-ñi teteka srukalñeṣṣ= īme onolments nesale ma ṣai ṣeme-
b6-ykne lkalyi läklenta ṅke ṣem wesä tusa lāre star-ñ 4 srukalñeṣṣ= īme waṣamo nauṣ tākaṃ wā〈r〉wäṣṣeñca
b7se sale yamasträ kek(ts)eñ reki palsko(ṣṣ)e (āstreṃ warṣälñe) wāyatsi śman-ne katkemane yaṃ caumpa kau(nne postaṃñe) ///


a1(There are) ten advantages (from) the gi(ving) of perfume. ... One will be(come) a per(fume) in (the rebirths). His sense of smell [lit. pertaining to the nostrils] is not destroyed. From his body
a2comes a good smell, from his body he does not smell bad. And in every direction goes the good smell of his virtuous observance.
a3He comes together with charming [and] dear objects. He is reborn among the gods and he becomes extinct [i.e. enters extinction = nirvāṇa] soon. One should take care about the ten advantages
a4of the giving of flower[s] precisely in that manner. Out of the enjoying of the good deed one become extinct soon.
a5In (the tune) Niṣkramānta. Even though the idea of death [is] certainly repulsive for the beings, [1a] after having thought about it, the idea of death
a6[is] very dear to me. [1b] [If] they intend to do evil to themselves with respect to body, word, [and] mind, [1c] as long as the idea of death [is] sup(erior to the self),
a7therefore [it] is dear to me. [1d] Whichever evil the beings do while rejoicing about evil, [2a] [while thinking:] “The idea of death is not
b1my friend”, they have exercised their mind. [2b] [If] (these ones) do evil, they are reborn in the three (inferior) existences. [2c] Because of this fact also the idea of death
b2(is dear) to me. [2d] By the bodhisattva good deeds without number have been accumulated, [3a] as long as the idea of death would not
b3touch him, so long did he not feel repulsion [for the world]. [3b] But as soon as it touched him, this one strongly felt repulsion [for the world], [and] he became a Buddha. [3c] Because of this fact also the idea of death
b4is dear to me. [3d] Whatever the beings enjoy in the saṃsāra as happiness of many kinds, [4a] the idea of death [is]
b5the great cause of these [forms of] happiness; therefore [it] is dear to me [4b]. [If] suddenly the beings would not have the idea of death, [4c]
b6then we would see the sufferings in the same way; therefore [it] is dear to me. [4d] [If] the idea of death is a friend [who is someone] urging at
b7first, [5a] he provides a basis for a (pure exercise?) of body, word, [and] mind. [5b] [If] it [i.e. the idea of death as a friend] comes to lead him, it goes with him rejoicing (for the ultimate day). [5c]

Philological commentary

The beginning until a5 is in prose. Then we have a meter of 4 x 17 (5/7/5 or 6/6/5). The text from there onwards is parallel to PK AS 7K followed by PK AS 7L. There is no punctuation in the metrical part except in line b5 pāda 4d a double dot at the end of a second colon.

a5. Note that the parallel PK AS 7K often has a slightly different wording and cola divsion. The colon division here is wrong. The first has four syllables, the second eight. In the second, however, seven syllables may be recovered by reading srukalñeṣṣe ime with sandhi (as is attested otherwise here) as srukalñeṣṣ= ime, even though this would mean sandhi over a colon boundary. That means that one would have to add a monosyllable word in the first colon, maybe a particle. In pāda 1b the second colon lacks one syllable, which can be recovered by reading the prose form olyapotse instead of olypotse.

a7. The middle part of pāda 1d is badly damaged; in any case the pronoun ñi is recognizable, as well as a form related to the adverb olya ‘more’. An adjective olyartse is recorded in the Manichean bilingual text with the same meaning as olyapotse (cf. Pinault 2008a: 103, 114). Hence it seems possible to restore this adjective here in a late variant. The restoration of the complement ‘self’ in the perlative makes sense with regard to the preceding sentence.

The first two colons of pāda 2b are wrong. From a syntactic point of view, ñi belongs to the finite verb, while the classical form would even be nesaṃ-ñ. Such a form would indeed make a correct first colon. Then one has to assume that in the original second colon a word with two syllables was left out by the scribe, who, in contrast, reinforced nesaṃ-ñ, maybe in the form nesañ, as a clearer nesan plus independent pronoun ñi. This was most likely even an easier interpretation to make since this redone manuscript is certainly late, and in this stage final was even depalatalized. Having done that, he had to leave out this other two-syllable word because the colon was then too long. Probably this word had been the quotative adverb te-mant = Skt. iti.

b1. The last colon of pāda 2b ends with ceṃ palsko yairoṣ. The parallel text PK AS 7K b4 gives us the genitive plural of the demonstrative and a singular PPt (yai)ru. However, one may keep the plural here assuming constructio ad sensum. There is no need to assume, pace Sieg 1938: 51, that the following verb yamaṃ should be included in this same colon. It does neither improve the meter nor the sense – even less so since, as a consequence, a further misspelling ceṃ for cai would have to be assumed.

b2. A correct meter of 6/6/5 can be recovered by resolving the sandhi form srukalyñeṣṣ= ; īme into srukalyñeṣṣe ; īme.

b5. The last colon of pāda 4b has one syllable too many, which can be repaired by reading the usual form star-ñ at the end. This is confirmed by the parallel PK AS 7L a1. The missing syllable in the second colon of pāda 4c can be recovered by reading onolmentsä at the end.

b6. The second colon of 5c is one syllable too short. One can recover the meter with the rhythm 6/6/5 by reading srukalñeṣṣe īme in the first colon. Sieg’s correction (Sieg 1938: 52) of nauṣ into nauṣäk in the second colon is unnecessary.

b7. The parallel manuscript PK AS 7L a2 reads wārwäṣṣeñca ṣek “who always urges”, which makes more sense. The form palskoṣṣe is incorrect; however, note that the parallel manuscript shows the spelling pälskoṣṣe written with 〈pa〉 and double dots instead of fremdzeichen; hence, some original manuscript from which both were ultimately copied had a mistake here.

Linguistic commentary

In general, this leaf shows archaic spellings beside late forms and also many simple misspellings. It seems that a scribe who himself spoke a very advanced variant of TB (or even TA?) copied from an archaic manuscript (or even from several different ones) in order to restore the damaged leaf).

Archaic spellings: rämer (a4 beside ramer in a3), tärya (b1 for tarya), metrically preserved final in colon-final position (keśä in b2 and wesä in b6) beside colon-internal skwanmantsä (b5).

Late forms: karttse (a2 bis), wärpalye (a4 for wärpalñe), tn for ntn in niṣkrama〈n〉tne (a5); onolmens (a5 for onolments), ṣem (b6 for ṣeyem, cf. ṣeṃ for ṣeyeṃ in other late texts).

Sometimes it is difficult to decide, e.g., pyapyai (a4) may be a mistake for either pyāpyai or pyapyai(ṃ); quite often we have short a for ā: tätarmeṃ (a6 for tättārmeṃ); yamtsi (a6 for yāmtsi), waṣmo (a7 for wāṣmo); ma (a7, b2, b3 for ); lare (a5, a7, b3 beside the classical form lāre b5, b6); mrauskate (b3 for mrauskāte); lkalyi (b5 for lkālyi); sale (b7 for sāle); ceṃ (b1 for ceṃts) may show cluster simplification.


Lévi 1933: 96-97, 106; Sieg 1938: 49-53.
Translation: a2 Peyrot 2013: 821; a3-4 Peyrot 2013: 541; a6-7 Peyrot 2013: 699; b6-7 Peyrot 2013: 678.


Georges-Jean Pinault (in collaboration with Melanie Malzahn and Michaël Peyrot)

Date of online publication: February 2012


Lévi 1932

Lévi, Sylvain, 1932: Mahākarmavibhaṅga (La grande classification des actes) et Karmavibhaṅgopadeśa (Discussion sur le Mahā Karmavibhaṅga), Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Lévi 1933

Lévi, Sylvain, 1933: Fragments de textes koutchéens. Udānavarga, Udānastotra, Udānālaṁkāra et Karmavibhaṅga, publiés et traduits avec un vocabulaire et une introduction sur le «tokharien» par M. Sylvain Lévi, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Peyrot 2013

Peyrot, Michaël, 2013: The Tocharian subjunctive, A study in syntax and verbal stem formation. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 8.) Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Pinault 2008a

Pinault, Georges-Jean, 2008a: "Bilingual hymn to Mani: Analysis of the Tocharian B parts", Studies on the Inner Asian Languages XXIII. Papers in Honour of Professor Takao Moriyasu on His 60th Birthday, 93-120.

Sieg 1938

Sieg, Emil, 1938: "Die Kutschischen Karmavibhaṅga-Texte der Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris", Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 65, 1-54. AS 7N
Output automatically generated on Sat, 2014-11-01, 05:54:47.
Page last edited on Thu, 2014-07-31, 08:51:36, by Martin Braun. Version 11.
Page created on Fri, 2011-12-16, 13:07:00, by Theresa Illés.