The Problem of Khaggavisāṇa
The Pāli expression khaggavisāṇakappo may either mean ‘like the rhinoceros’ or ‘like the horn of the rhinoceros’. It occurs in the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo at the end of each stanza of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta and its parallels, and the refrain has been translated by some as ‘one should wander alone like the rhinoceros’ but by some, including K. R. Norman, as ‘one should wander alone like the horn of the rhinoceros’. K. R. Norman has however set out his reasons for regarding ‘like the rhinoceros horn’ as the correct translation, and ‘like the rhinoceros’ as wrong. The present article critically discusses Norman’s reasons, concluding that the expression khaggavisāṇa may be regarded as a deliberately ambiguous compound meaning both the rhinoceros and its horn, or perhaps as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’. The zoological facts are considered, as well as the difficult etymology of khaggavisāṇa, its contextual meaning, its meaning in Jain parallels, and its discussion in Pāli commentaries. The article concludes that ‘like the rhinoceros’ is in fact a correct translation
The Khaggavisāṇa-sutta of the Sutta-nipāta consists in 41 stanzas, each of which (except one) ends with the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo. These stanzas recommend a solitary, meditative, renunciate lifestyle, and employ a variety of naturalistic images and metaphors. They are commented upon in the Cullaniddesa, which also comments upon most of the stanzas in the Parāyanavagga. The Niddesa is itself included in the Pāli canon, which indicates that the stanzas of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta are some of the oldest examples of Buddhist literature (Jayawickrama 1977, 27; Norman 1983, 65; Norman 2001, 162). A smaller number of related or similar stanzas are preserved in Sanskrit in the Mahāvastu, with the refrain, eko care khaḍgaviṣāṇakalpo. These Sanskrit stanzas in the Mahāvastu are called khaḍgaviṣāṇagāthā, which I propose to translate ‘rhinoceros stanzas’. Yet another version of the rhinoceros stanzas, in the Gāndhārī dialect of MiddleIndo-Aryan, has recently appeared, having been edited by Richard Salomon from birch-bark manuscripts written in the first century ce, and then buried, probably in Afghanistan. They are now conserved by the British Museum.3 These 40 stanzas, which are similar to, but not identical with, the Pāli and Sanskrit versions, have the refrain eko care khargaviṣaṇagapo. The rhinoceros stanzas were therefore valued and preserved by several early Buddhist schools, and they belong to the earliest phase of Buddhist literature.
The question is, should the refrain, eko care khaggavisāṇakappo in Pāli, or its equivalents in Sanskrit and Gāndhārī, be translated ‘one should wander alone like the rhinoceros’; or, ‘one should wander alone like the horn of the rhinoceros’? Does the compound khaggavisāṇa refer to the rhinoceros or to its horn?4 The compound is ambiguous, and, as will be explained, may be understood either way. However, translators must make a choice, and most have preferred ‘like the rhinoceros’, probably partly because ‘one should wander alone like the rhinoceros’ sounds more natural in English.5 Nevertheless, in one of the two English translations of the Sutta-nipāta now in print,6 K.R. Norman has given the translation ‘one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn’ (2001, 5ff), and in an important article he has presented arguments for the correctness of this translation.7 In the present article I will raise some doubts in relation to Prof. Norman’s arguments, in order to conclude that the compound khaggavisāṇa remains ambiguous, and may therefore correctly be translated ‘rhinoceros’ as well as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, and that therefore the translation ‘rhinoceros’ is justified. This conclusion will confirm what seems to have been the intuition of most translators and commentators of recent years, though not all.8 Hence, this conclusion will have replaced mere intuition or guesswork with just the kind of philological rigour that Prof. Norman himself has recommended in the study of Pāli texts (2006, 10–14). Since I will structure this article around Prof. Norman’s arguments, I will first quote his conclusion regarding the translation of khaggavisāṇa as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’: When the Pāli can be so translated, when the earliest interpretations take it that way, when the Jain tradition supports it, and when the Indian rhinoceros is unique among animals in India in having only one horn, it seems certain to me that the reference is to the single horn … (1996, 139) This list conveniently provides four topics for my discussion (in re-arranged order) of how Prof. Norman’s conclusion is much less certain than it appears: (i) the facts about rhinoceroses (ii) the Pāli of the sutta itself; (iii) evidence from the Jain tradition; and (iv) the earliest interpretations of the sutta, i.e. the Cullaniddesa, and also the later commentaries.
The facts about rhinoceroses
In the other English translation of the Sutta-nipāta now in print, Ven. Saddhatissa renders the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo as ‘Let one live alone like a unicorn’s horn’ (1985, 4ff.). Part of the reason for this translation is his mistaken idea that the rhinoceros is gregarious. In a note, Saddhatissa explains that ‘in view of the gregarious nature of the Indian species, called Rhinoceros unicornis, I have chosen the latter term to emphasize solitariness symbolically’ (1985, 8 n.1).9 However, the fact is that the Indian rhinoceros is not gregarious; indeed, the very opposite is the case. Adult rhinoceroses usually roam and graze alone, though they occasionally form small groups to graze or wallow (Laurie et al. 1983, 4). The fact that the rhinoceros is a solitary wanderer is also something that Prof. Norman does not discuss, and of which he may possibly have been unaware.10 The lifestyle of the rhinoceros in fact provides a very apt simile for the lifestyle of the sage depicted in the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta, who is enjoined to wander alone, except to enjoy the company of a wise companion.11 Another relevant fact about the Indian rhinoceros is that it has only one horn (‘unicornis’),12 and it is this fact that Prof. Norman finds more significant than the rhinoceros’ solitary wandering. He understands eko, ‘solitary’, ‘single’, of the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo to refer to the eko, ‘single’, horn of the rhinoceros, and not to the eko, ‘solitary’, lifestyle of the beast, though he does so for philological reasons, which I will explain below. However, assuming that the early Buddhists composed the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo having observed the natural world around them, it is inconceivable that if they had noticed that the rhinoceros had only one horn that they should not also have observed its solitary habit of life. Moreover, the solitary wanderer of the rhinoceros stanzas is also compared to the solitary male elephant (Sn v.53, Dhp 329, discussed below), as well as to the lion (which is not in fact a solitary animal) (Sn vv.71–2, Ap 13, discussed below). These comparisons are thus with the habits of animals, rather than with parts of their anatomy, making it natural to suppose that khaggavisāṇa originally referred to the animal and not to its horn.13 The facts about rhinoceroses cannot, of course, by themselves determine the meaning of the expression khaggavisāṇa, which should be decided by philological and not zoological argument. However, should it be concluded that khaggavisāṇa really is ambiguous, and may just as well mean ‘rhinoceros’ as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, then these facts about rhinoceroses will take on a new significance. They would imply that someone familiar with rhinoceroses who was to hear the refrain, eko care khaggavisāṇakappo, would naturally hear the comparison implied by the refrain as being between the Buddhist renunciate and the solitary beast, not only with its horn. With this in mind, I turn to the expression khaggavisāṇa itself.
The Pāli term khaggavisāṇa and its context
The compound khaggavisāṇa (or khaḍgaviṣāṇa in Sanskrit, or khargaviṣaṇa in the Gāndhārī Prakrit) is ambiguous and can be analysed in two different ways (See Margaret Cone, DOP I, 742). As Prof. Norman puts it:
The Pāli word khagga (Sanskrit khaḍga) has two meanings: ‘rhinoceros’ and ‘sword’. If khagga is taken in the meaning ‘rhinoceros’, then the compound can be interpreted as a tatpuruṣa (dependent) compound, meaning ‘the horn of a rhinoceros’. If khagga is taken in the meaning ‘sword’, then it can be taken as a bahuvrīhi (possessive) compound, meaning ‘having a sword as a horn’, i.e. ‘a rhinoceros’. Consequently, from the form of the word we cannot be certain whether it is the rhinoceros or its horn which is single. (1996, 134)
Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty about the meaning of khaggavisāṇa, Prof. Norman, while acknowledging that the compound is in itself ambiguous, as we will see prefers to interpret it as a tatpuruṣa, firstly, because the commentaries appear to take it as such, and, secondly, because a Jain parallel appears to take it that way too. By contrast, Edgerton had taken BHS khaḍgaviṣāṇa to be a bahuvrīhi meaning ‘rhinoceros’ rather than its horn.14 By way of reply, Prof. Norman has argued that the BHS tradition had forgotten the original meaning of the compound, that is, as a tatpurusạ (1996, 40).15 Given the ambiguity of the compound khaggavisāṇa, it seems reasonable to suppose that the composer(s) of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta may have intended the compound to be understood in both senses simultaneously, both as a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘rhinoceros horn’ and as a bahuvrīhi meaning ‘rhinoceros’. Ria Kloppenborg (1974, 59–60) has in fact proposed exactly such an interpretation, but Prof. Norman responded to this proposal with the criticism: ‘I find this line of argument hard to follow, unless she means that khaggavisāṇa is to be taken in both ways simultaneously in a play upon words (śleṣa)’ (1996, 135). As we will see below, Prof. Norman’s criticism of Kloppenborg, and his rejection of the possibility of deliberate ambiguity, is based on his arguments, to be considered and to some extent rejected below, by which he decides that khaggavisāṇa should be originally considered a tatpuruṣa and not a bahuvrīhi. However, Richard Salomon is kinder to Kloppenborg, commenting:
While it is true that Kloppenborg’s statement is not entirely clear, I think that it should still be taken seriously. It may not be question of śleṣa in the stricter technical sense of the terms in the expression khaggavisāṇakappo, but it is certainly reasonable to think that both interpretations — ‘like the rhinoceros’ and ‘like the rhinoceros horn’ — are in fact implied simultaneously. (2000, 13)
With this encouragement in mind, let us explore further the vexed question of the etymology of khaggavisāṇa. Heinrich Lüders maintained that khagga and khaḍga should be regarded as abbreviations of khaggavisāṇa and khaḍgaviṣāṇa, in the same way that Sanskrit sūcīka, ‘stinging insect’, can be regarded as an abbreviation of sūcīmukha, ‘having a mouth like a needle’, i.e. ‘stinging insect’ (1940, 429); and in the same way that Sanskrit śiśuka- (Pāli susu or susuka), ‘dolphin’, ‘crocodile’, can be regarded as abbreviations of śiśumāra, ‘child-killer’ (1942, 81). Prof. Norman has rejected this possibility, citing the works of Kuiper (1948, 137) and Mayrhofer (1956, 299), who show that khaḍga is a probably a Proto-Munda word that was borrowed into Sanskrit. Norman writes, ‘The original meaning of khaḍga was “rhinoceros” when it was first borrowed into Indo-Aryan, and it is not an abbreviation for khaḍgaviṣāṇa as has been suggested [by Lüders]’ (1996, 139-40 and 2001, 163).17 However, more recent work by Mayrhofer (which Norman does not cite) does not support Norman’s point of view. Mayrhofer concludes:
Because it can be assumed that both the Vedic khaḍgá- and also the khaḍga-‘sword’ of the younger language originate from a word borrowed from another language [Kulturwort], a connection between ‘sword’ and ‘rhinoceros’ in an undetermined original language cannot be ruled out; it is for now unprovable (1992, 444)
Given this uncertainty over the original meaning of khaḍga, Lüders’ proposal, despite the lack of corroborative evidence for it in the Indic languages, may not necessarily be incorrect. Indeed, Lüders’ proposal that khaggavisāṇa was not in fact a compound but a single expression denoting ‘rhinoceros’ has received more recent support from Prof. J.C. Wright, who has observed that the evidence presented by Mayrhofer and Kuiper suggests that there was a pre-Aryan word for ‘rhinoceros’, of which both khaḍga and khaḍgaviṣāṇa are adaptations, comparable to New Persian karg, kargadan, and Greek καργάζωνος. He compares khaḍgaviṣāṇa with mṛganābhi, ‘deer’s navel’, which in Sanskrit denotes both musk and the musk-deer (Wright 2001, 5; MW p.828). While the etymology of khaggavisāṇa remains uncertain, it seems clear that Prof. Norman has not sufficiently considered the possibility that the compound was originally intended to be deliberately ambiguous, and the further possibility that the expression khaggavisāṇa was originally understood as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’. In regard to the latter possibility, Prof. Norman has also not considered the (admittedly late) evidence of the Abhidhānappadīpika (a Burmese lexicon of Pāli by Moggallāna): khaggakhaggavisāṇā tu palāsādo ca gaṇḍako, meaning, ‘khagga and indeed khaggavisāṇa mean rhinoceros’.19 This too suggests the possibility that khaggavisāṇa was understood as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’.20 Given these several ways to understand khaggavisāṇa — as a tatpuruṣa (‘horn of a rhinoceros’), as a bahuvrīhi (‘having a horn which is a sword’, that is, ‘rhinoceros’), as deliberately ambiguous (both ‘rhinoceros’ and ‘horn of a rhinoceros’), or as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’ — the question is, which is the correct way to understand khaggavisāṇa in the refrain of the rhinoceros stanzas? Unfortunately, as Prof. Norman has observed, there are no clues about how to interpret the expression from the refrain itself. And the recently edited Gāndhārī version of the rhinoceros stanzas has shed no new light at all on this matter (Salomon 2000, 13). Norman looks to a Jain parallel and to the earliest commentary to decide. But before we look at these, let us consider the Buddhist and poetic context for the refrain. Firstly, there are a pair of verses in the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta (Sn 45–6) which are also found in the Dhammapada (328–29) and elsewhere, except for a different final line:
sace labhetha nipakaṃ sahāyaṃ If one should find a wise companion
saddhiṃ caraṃ sādhuvihāri dhīraṃ good to live and wander with, resolute,
abhibhuyya sabbāni parissayāni overcoming every danger,
careyya ten’attamano satīma ̄ one should wander with them, mindful, satisfied.
no ce labhetha nipakaṃ sahāyaṃ If one cannot find a wise companion
saddhiṃ caraṃ sādhuvihāri dhīraṃ good to live and wander with, resolute,
rājā va raṭṭhaṃ vijitaṃ pahāya like a king leaving a conquered kingdom,
eko care khaggavisāṇakappo one should wander alone like the khaggavisāṇa
The last line in the Dhammapada version, however, reads: eko care mātaṅg’araññe va nāgo, ‘one should wander alone like an elephant in the elephant-forest’; khaggavisāṇa is thus equivalent to the elephant. As Jayawickrama has argued, the comparison in the whole refrain is thus between the solitary wandering of the renunciate and that of an animal (a rhinoceros or elephant), not an object (a horn) (1977, 22–3). Another piece of evidence not so far produced that points in the same direction is found in the Apadāna (13 – v.52), in a stanza that follows the rhinoceros stanzas, and describes the paccekabuddhas:
mahantadhammā bahudhammakāyā They are great, with large Dharma-bodies,
cittissarā sabbadukkhoghatiṇṇā lords of mind, who have crossed the flood of all pain,
udaggacittā paramatthadassī minds exalted, seeing the ultimate,
sīhopamā khaggavisāṇakappā they are like lions, they are like khaggavisāṇas.
The comparison of paccekabuddhas with lions and with khaggavisāṇas again implies that the latter are animals and not things. These points do not of course prove that khaggavisāṇa does not mean ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, but only that, given this usage, we would certainly need some strong evidence to suppose that khaggavisāṇa does not mean ‘rhinoceros’. Secondly, we should note that Prof. Norman’s interpretation of khaggavisāṇa as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ implies that we must interpret khaggavisāṇakappo in the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo as qualifying only the word eko, alone, and not the verb care, since the horn may be eko, but it cannot wander. Norman concludes, ‘I think there is no problem if we translate: “Let him wander all by himself (eko adutiyo) having a resemblance to the rhinoceros horn, which is also eko adutiyo”’ (1996, 139). That is to say, that Norman’s interpretation requires us to think of the grammar of the refrain as:
One should wander alone, as the horn of the rhinoceros is alone. Rather than as: One should wander alone, as the rhinoceros wanders alone.
While Norman’s interpretation is perfectly intelligible and grammatically possible, it implies that the concept of being solitary in the phrase eko care could be separated from the concept of wandering. This implication, however, is hard to reconcile with the way ‘solitary wandering’, ekacariyā, appears as a unitary concept in Buddhist poetry. For instance, in the Sutta-nipāta we read of sīhaṃ v’ekacaraṃ nāgaṃ, ‘the nāga [Buddha] who wanders alone like a lion’ (166), and ekaṃ carantaṃ muniṃ, ‘the muni [Buddha] who wanders alone’ (213).22 Whether the adjective (eko) and the verbal construction (cariyā) are compounded or not the concept denoted is the same. A nice example is from the Mahāvastu: a seer called Kāśyapa had a child, and he, ‘Remembering the saying, “the one-horned beast wanders all alone”, the seer gave the child the name Ekaśṛnga’ (ekacaraṃ śṛṃgakaṃ jātanti tena ṛṣiṇā ekaśṛṃgo ti nāmaṃ kṛtaṃIII 144).23 Given these examples of the unitary concept of solitary-wandering in Buddhist poetry, it seems most likely that a reader of the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo would understand it to mean ‘one should wander alone, as the khaggavisāṇa wanders alone’. In which case, khaggavisāṇa must mean rhinoceros. The fact that rhinoceroses do indeed wander alone makes this reading rather difficult to resist, unless there is some compelling evidence that it must have been understood differently
Evidence from the Jain tradition
Let us now examine the reasons Prof. Norman believes khaggavisāṇa is a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, and not a bahuvrīhi meaning ‘rhinoceros’. Firstly, he cites a Jain parallel to the khaggavisāṇa refrain. Among a list of praiseworthy qualities of the Jain founder, Mahāvira, found in the Jinacaritra is (in Prakrit) khaggi-visāṇaṃ va ega-jāe, translated by Jacobi, ‘he was single and alone like the horn of a rhinoceros’.25 As Norman says, the grammatical form of khaggivisāṇaṃ is neuter singular, and therefore does not allow the compound to be analysed as a bahuvrīhi, which would agree with the masculine subject of the sentence, indicated by jāe. As Prof. Norman writes, ‘this effectively proves the point’ — that khaggavisāṇa is a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ (1996, 139). Two factors, however, cast doubt on this point. First, if the Pāli expression khaggavisāṇa can be considered a non-compounded expression denoting ‘rhinoceros’, having a neuter gender, then the Prakrit khaggi-visāṇaṃ might similarly be considered a neuter expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’. Second, the context of the epithet khaggi-visāṇaṃ is a series of comparisons with animals: in Jacobi’s translation, ‘his senses were well protected like those of a tortoise; he was single and alone like the [khaggi-visāṇaṃ]; he was free like a bird; he was always waking like the fabulous bird Bhârunda, valorous like an elephant, strong like a bull, difficult to attack like a lion’ (1879, 62). This rather suggests that khaggi-visāṇaṃ refers to the animal rather than to its horn. Collette Caillat makes the further point that the prose passage in the Jinacaritra is followed by a verse summary which states, vihage khagge ya bhāruṃḍe (‘a bird, a rhinoceros, and Bhāruṇḍa’, in Jacobi’s translation), which again suggests that the comparison is with the animal (2003, 38 n.580).26 The matter is of course far from certain, but the points made by Caillat do raise doubts about the degree to which the Jain parallel to the Pāli refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo allow us to conclude that khaggavisāṇa must originally have meant ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ rather than ‘rhinoceros’.
Interpretations in the Niddesa and commentaries
Secondly, Prof. Norman’s translation of khaggavisāṇa as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ relies especially, as he tells us, upon the Cullaniddesa and the later commentaries, since these works unambiguously explain the compound as a tatpuruṣa (1996, 137). The Niddesa comments on khaggavisāṇakappo like this: yathā khaggassa nāma visāṇaṃ ekaṃ hoti adutiyaṃ, evam eva paccekasambuddho takkappo tasadiso tappaṭibhāgo. (Nidd. II 129) Which Prof. Norman translates as follows: As the horn of the rhinoceros is single, solitary, so the pratyekabuddha is like that, resembling that, similar to that. (1996, 137) The Paramatthajotikā, the later commentary on the Sutta-nipāta, explains khaggavisāṇakappo in a different way to the Niddesa. It says: ettha khaggavisāṇaṃ nāma khaggamigasiṅgaṃ (Pj II 65), which Norman translates: ‘Here the horn of the rhinoceros means the horn of the animal [called] rhinoceros’ (1996, 137). This is of course clear evidence that the later commentators also understood the word khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa. The Paramatthajotikā clearly does not analyse khaggavisāṇa as a bahuvrīhi, since khagga in khaggamigasiṅga cannot be taken to mean ‘sword’. There is one exception to this commentarial line of interpretation. The commentary on the Apadāna uniquely explains khaggavisāṇakappo as a bahuvrīhi (Ap-a 203): khaggaṃ visāṇaṃ yassa migassa so’yaṃ migo khaggavisāṇo, ‘the animal whose horn is a sword is the “sword as horn”’, that is, the rhinoceros’ (tr. Norman 1996, 139). This however is less of an exception than it first looks, since the Apadāna commentary also reproduces the analyses of khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa given in the Niddesa and the Paramatthajotikā. 27 Its explanation of khaggavisāṇa as a bahuvrīhi, taken in conjunction with its reproductions of the explanation of the compound as a tatapuruṣa, may be an attempt to explain how this word khagga, which means ‘sword’, can also mean ‘rhinoceros’,28 for it goes on to say: khaggavisāṇakappā khaggavisāṇamigasiṅgasadisā cluding: eko adutiyo muttabandhano sammā loke carati, ‘single, solitary, he wanders properly in the world, freed from ties’. With this in mind, Wright comments on the grammar of the Niddesa passage as follows:gaṇasaṅgaṇikābhāvenā ti attho (Ap-a 204). Prof. Norman translates: ‘Like the khaggavisāṇa means like the horn of the animal [called] khaggavisāṇa, because of the absence of communication with a group’ (1996, 140). The idea of the ‘horn of the animal [called] khaggavisāṇa’ is, however, very strange. There is therefore no doubt that the Niddesa, the earliest commentary on the rhinoceros stanzas, as well as later commentaries, analyses khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa. There is nevertheless room for some doubt about what exactly the Niddesa intends with its analysis of khaggavisāṇa. Such doubt has been raised by Prof. J.C. Wright. He notes that the Niddesa continues its comments on the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo by explaining the meaning of -kappa, and then con-cluding: eko adutiyo muttabandhano sammā loke carati, ‘single, solitary, he wanders properly in the world, freed from ties’. With this in mind, Wright comments on the grammar of the Niddesa passage as follows:
It is an interesting attestation of the correlation of tat- in the posterior clause [i.e. in takkappo] with the genitive khaggassa as the logical subject of the prior clause, for it is not obvious how the horn could share with the individual … the quality of lack of encumbrance [i.e. muttabandhano] … The Niddesa can be attempting to combine the text’s rational meaning with its explanation of the word khaggavisāṇa ‘rhinoceros’ as ‘one-horned khagga’, hence ‘he should be minimally encumbered like the one-horned rhinoceros’ (2001, 4
If Wright is correct, we should translate the Niddesa passage as:
As the horn of the rhinoceros is single, solitary, so the pratyekabuddha is like that [one-horned rhinoceros], resembling it, similar to it.
However, it is possible to object that Prof. Wright is reading too much into the Niddesa here, and muttabandhano in the extract above refers only to the paccekabuddha. Nevertheless, the Niddesa does continue to use khaggavisāṇa in such a way that it is natural to suppose it refers to the animal and not just to its horn. An example is its exegesis of the word nāga in Sn 53. The original stanza runs:
nāgo va yūthāni vivajjayitva Like an elephant, forsaking the herds,
sañjātakhandho padumī uḷāro massively built, spotted, huge,
yathābhirantaṃ vihare araññe might live as it wishes in the forest,
eko care khaggavisāṇakappo one should wander alone like the khaggavisāṇa.
The Niddesa (II 64) comments: yathā so hatthināgo yūthāni vivajjetvā … eko va arañña-vana-majjhe ajjhogāhetvā carati … paccekasambuddho pi gaṇaṃ vajjetvā … eko care khagga-visāṇa-kappo arañña-vanapatthāni Like that elephant forsaking the herds … like one who wanders alone having plunged into the middle of the forest … the pratyekabuddha also, abandoning the group … should wander the forest wildernesses alone like the khaggavisāṇa.
It would seem natural to suppose that the Niddesa is here comparing the khaggavisāṇa with the nāga, and that it takes the concept of ekacariyā to have a unitary sense. I would therefore suggest that Prof. Wright’s comment on the meaning of the Niddesa exegesis of khaggavisāṇakappo is not without some contextual support, and that it is possible that the Niddesa compares the paccekabuddha not to the horn of the rhinoceros, but to the solitary-wandering animal. Likewise, there is indirect evidence that, in its commentary on Sn 53, the Paramatthajotikā also seems to understand khaggavisāṇa to mean ‘rhinoceros’ and not its horn. Commenting on the stanza concerning the elephant forsaking the herds, quoted above, it says: yathā c’esa yūthāni vivajjetvā ekacariyasukhena yathābhirantaṃ viharaṃ araññe eko care khaggavisāṇakappo (Pj II 103): ‘and like that [elephant], forsaking the herd because of the bliss of solitary-wandering, lives as it wishes in the forest, one should wander alone like the khaggavisāṇa’. It is clear that the commentary understands ekacariyā to be a unitary concept, which would seem to imply that it understands khaggavisāṇa to mean the solitary-wandering horned rhinoceros and not just its single horn, since the horn can be single but cannot wander, as Prof. Norman himself acknowledges. Therefore, while the Niddesa and the Paramatthajotikā certainly take khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa, it would appear that the analysis is at odds with the comparison that they suppose the expression khaggavisāṇakappo implies. Even the Apadāna commentary’s discussion of khaggavisāṇa, discussed above, admits of this same ambiguity. When we read (in Norman’s translation), ‘Like the khaggavisāṇa means like the horn of the animal [called] khaggavisāṇa, because of the absence of communication with a group’, it must be said that horns do not communicate with groups, and the absence of such activity would again suggest that khaggavisāṇa refers to the uncommunicative animal and not merely to its horn.29 To conclude this complex discussion of the commentarial analysis of khaggavisāṇa: while there is no doubt that the commentaries treat the compound as a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, they also seem to treat the expression as if it refers to the animal and not merely its horn. While the opinion of the Niddesa certainly gives us the earliest analysis of khaggavisāṇa, it does not seem to me entirely certain that even the Niddesa supposes that the expression refers to the horn of the rhinoceros and not to the animal itself.
Conclusion
I have presented evidence to cast doubt on Prof. Norman’s certainty that the ambiguous compound khaggavisāṇa is a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’. The facts about rhinoceroses would suggest the very opposite; evidence from the Jain tradition is not compelling; and the evidence of the earliest commentary is not altogether convincing. The compound khaggavisāṇa therefore remains ambiguous. Richard Salomon, discussing this ambiguity, concludes positively:
the ambiguity [of khaggavisāṇa] may not be the result of a philological problem; rather, the expression can be seen as a doubly meaningful simile. Perhaps it was so intended by its original composer, who, if this is correct, cleverly took advantage of the natural fact that the Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is ‘alone’ (eko) in two respects as a solitary beast … and as having an unusual single horn. (2000, 13)
Salomon, however, did not consider the possibility that khaggavisāṇa is a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’, as suggested by Lüders and Wright, based on the work of Kuiper and Mayrhofer. While this possibility remains a matter of speculation, if it were actually the case, it would strengthen Salomon’s positive conclusion, since it need not be supposed that the original composer relied on a śleṣa or pun, which might well have been obscure to the original audience. If khaggavisāṇa is a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’ as well as a compound meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, the creative ambiguity of the expression would work without recourse to the sophistication of punning. To return finally to the question of translation, if the expression khaggavisāṇa is ambiguous, and was intended perhaps deliberately to be so, it is therefore most elegant, as well as not incorrect, to translate it as ‘rhinoceros’. A footnote indicating the ambiguity of the expression, and the consequent possibility of translating it ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, would complete the task of translation, to the satisfaction of both philologists and poets. I will conclude with a tentative suggestion concerning the wider implications of understanding khaggavisāṇa to mean ‘rhinoceros’ as well as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’. If we were to suppose that khaggavisāṇa meant only ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, then the rhinoceros stanzas as a whole would appear to recommend a form of solitude comparable to the solitary state of the rhinoceros’ horn, that is, an absolute form of solitude. If, however, we suppose that khaggavisāṇa means ‘rhinoceros’ (as well as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’), then the stanzas recommend a form of solitude comparable to the solitary lifestyle of the animal. This form of solitude is not absolute, but relative, since rhinoceroses do in fact congregate occasionally to wallow and graze. If we were to understand the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo to mean ‘one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn’, and therefore the stanzas to be recommending absolute solitude, then it would be difficult to reconcile such a recommendation with the teaching of the Buddha in the Nikāyas, which recommends a monastic lifestyle involving participation in community life and spiritual friendship (kalyāṇa mittatā). However, if we understand the refrain to mean ‘one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros’, and the stanzas to be recommending a relative solitude, punctuated by meaningful interactions with fellow renunciates, then the discourse no longer appears to recommend a lifestyle at odds with that which was taught by the Buddha. After all, considering that we have versions of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta in Pāli, Sanskrit and Gāndhārī languages, it was evidently popular among monastic reciters, who did not of course live in solitude. This popularity is best explained by supposing that those reciters understood the discourse to be recommending a form of solitude which they themselves could practise, at least occasionally on retreat. Nevertheless, it must be said that the attribution from early times of the rhinoceros stanzas to the paccekabuddhas, evident in the Mahāvastu as well as in the Apadāna and Cūlaniddesa, suggests that the solitary lifestyle recommended by the stanzas seemed to the early Buddhists not to be an ideal to which they could practically aspire. However, the topic of the reception of the rhinoceros stanzas in early Buddhism deserves a fuller account than is possible here.
The Khaggavisāṇa-sutta of the Sutta-nipāta consists in 41 stanzas, each of which (except one) ends with the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo. These stanzas recommend a solitary, meditative, renunciate lifestyle, and employ a variety of naturalistic images and metaphors. They are commented upon in the Cullaniddesa, which also comments upon most of the stanzas in the Parāyanavagga. The Niddesa is itself included in the Pāli canon, which indicates that the stanzas of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta are some of the oldest examples of Buddhist literature (Jayawickrama 1977, 27; Norman 1983, 65; Norman 2001, 162). A smaller number of related or similar stanzas are preserved in Sanskrit in the Mahāvastu, with the refrain, eko care khaḍgaviṣāṇakalpo. These Sanskrit stanzas in the Mahāvastu are called khaḍgaviṣāṇagāthā, which I propose to translate ‘rhinoceros stanzas’. Yet another version of the rhinoceros stanzas, in the Gāndhārī dialect of MiddleIndo-Aryan, has recently appeared, having been edited by Richard Salomon from birch-bark manuscripts written in the first century ce, and then buried, probably in Afghanistan. They are now conserved by the British Museum.3 These 40 stanzas, which are similar to, but not identical with, the Pāli and Sanskrit versions, have the refrain eko care khargaviṣaṇagapo. The rhinoceros stanzas were therefore valued and preserved by several early Buddhist schools, and they belong to the earliest phase of Buddhist literature.
The question is, should the refrain, eko care khaggavisāṇakappo in Pāli, or its equivalents in Sanskrit and Gāndhārī, be translated ‘one should wander alone like the rhinoceros’; or, ‘one should wander alone like the horn of the rhinoceros’? Does the compound khaggavisāṇa refer to the rhinoceros or to its horn?4 The compound is ambiguous, and, as will be explained, may be understood either way. However, translators must make a choice, and most have preferred ‘like the rhinoceros’, probably partly because ‘one should wander alone like the rhinoceros’ sounds more natural in English.5 Nevertheless, in one of the two English translations of the Sutta-nipāta now in print,6 K.R. Norman has given the translation ‘one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn’ (2001, 5ff), and in an important article he has presented arguments for the correctness of this translation.7 In the present article I will raise some doubts in relation to Prof. Norman’s arguments, in order to conclude that the compound khaggavisāṇa remains ambiguous, and may therefore correctly be translated ‘rhinoceros’ as well as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, and that therefore the translation ‘rhinoceros’ is justified. This conclusion will confirm what seems to have been the intuition of most translators and commentators of recent years, though not all.8 Hence, this conclusion will have replaced mere intuition or guesswork with just the kind of philological rigour that Prof. Norman himself has recommended in the study of Pāli texts (2006, 10–14). Since I will structure this article around Prof. Norman’s arguments, I will first quote his conclusion regarding the translation of khaggavisāṇa as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’: When the Pāli can be so translated, when the earliest interpretations take it that way, when the Jain tradition supports it, and when the Indian rhinoceros is unique among animals in India in having only one horn, it seems certain to me that the reference is to the single horn … (1996, 139) This list conveniently provides four topics for my discussion (in re-arranged order) of how Prof. Norman’s conclusion is much less certain than it appears: (i) the facts about rhinoceroses (ii) the Pāli of the sutta itself; (iii) evidence from the Jain tradition; and (iv) the earliest interpretations of the sutta, i.e. the Cullaniddesa, and also the later commentaries.
The facts about rhinoceroses
In the other English translation of the Sutta-nipāta now in print, Ven. Saddhatissa renders the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo as ‘Let one live alone like a unicorn’s horn’ (1985, 4ff.). Part of the reason for this translation is his mistaken idea that the rhinoceros is gregarious. In a note, Saddhatissa explains that ‘in view of the gregarious nature of the Indian species, called Rhinoceros unicornis, I have chosen the latter term to emphasize solitariness symbolically’ (1985, 8 n.1).9 However, the fact is that the Indian rhinoceros is not gregarious; indeed, the very opposite is the case. Adult rhinoceroses usually roam and graze alone, though they occasionally form small groups to graze or wallow (Laurie et al. 1983, 4). The fact that the rhinoceros is a solitary wanderer is also something that Prof. Norman does not discuss, and of which he may possibly have been unaware.10 The lifestyle of the rhinoceros in fact provides a very apt simile for the lifestyle of the sage depicted in the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta, who is enjoined to wander alone, except to enjoy the company of a wise companion.11 Another relevant fact about the Indian rhinoceros is that it has only one horn (‘unicornis’),12 and it is this fact that Prof. Norman finds more significant than the rhinoceros’ solitary wandering. He understands eko, ‘solitary’, ‘single’, of the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo to refer to the eko, ‘single’, horn of the rhinoceros, and not to the eko, ‘solitary’, lifestyle of the beast, though he does so for philological reasons, which I will explain below. However, assuming that the early Buddhists composed the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo having observed the natural world around them, it is inconceivable that if they had noticed that the rhinoceros had only one horn that they should not also have observed its solitary habit of life. Moreover, the solitary wanderer of the rhinoceros stanzas is also compared to the solitary male elephant (Sn v.53, Dhp 329, discussed below), as well as to the lion (which is not in fact a solitary animal) (Sn vv.71–2, Ap 13, discussed below). These comparisons are thus with the habits of animals, rather than with parts of their anatomy, making it natural to suppose that khaggavisāṇa originally referred to the animal and not to its horn.13 The facts about rhinoceroses cannot, of course, by themselves determine the meaning of the expression khaggavisāṇa, which should be decided by philological and not zoological argument. However, should it be concluded that khaggavisāṇa really is ambiguous, and may just as well mean ‘rhinoceros’ as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, then these facts about rhinoceroses will take on a new significance. They would imply that someone familiar with rhinoceroses who was to hear the refrain, eko care khaggavisāṇakappo, would naturally hear the comparison implied by the refrain as being between the Buddhist renunciate and the solitary beast, not only with its horn. With this in mind, I turn to the expression khaggavisāṇa itself.
The Pāli term khaggavisāṇa and its context
The compound khaggavisāṇa (or khaḍgaviṣāṇa in Sanskrit, or khargaviṣaṇa in the Gāndhārī Prakrit) is ambiguous and can be analysed in two different ways (See Margaret Cone, DOP I, 742). As Prof. Norman puts it:
The Pāli word khagga (Sanskrit khaḍga) has two meanings: ‘rhinoceros’ and ‘sword’. If khagga is taken in the meaning ‘rhinoceros’, then the compound can be interpreted as a tatpuruṣa (dependent) compound, meaning ‘the horn of a rhinoceros’. If khagga is taken in the meaning ‘sword’, then it can be taken as a bahuvrīhi (possessive) compound, meaning ‘having a sword as a horn’, i.e. ‘a rhinoceros’. Consequently, from the form of the word we cannot be certain whether it is the rhinoceros or its horn which is single. (1996, 134)
Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty about the meaning of khaggavisāṇa, Prof. Norman, while acknowledging that the compound is in itself ambiguous, as we will see prefers to interpret it as a tatpuruṣa, firstly, because the commentaries appear to take it as such, and, secondly, because a Jain parallel appears to take it that way too. By contrast, Edgerton had taken BHS khaḍgaviṣāṇa to be a bahuvrīhi meaning ‘rhinoceros’ rather than its horn.14 By way of reply, Prof. Norman has argued that the BHS tradition had forgotten the original meaning of the compound, that is, as a tatpurusạ (1996, 40).15 Given the ambiguity of the compound khaggavisāṇa, it seems reasonable to suppose that the composer(s) of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta may have intended the compound to be understood in both senses simultaneously, both as a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘rhinoceros horn’ and as a bahuvrīhi meaning ‘rhinoceros’. Ria Kloppenborg (1974, 59–60) has in fact proposed exactly such an interpretation, but Prof. Norman responded to this proposal with the criticism: ‘I find this line of argument hard to follow, unless she means that khaggavisāṇa is to be taken in both ways simultaneously in a play upon words (śleṣa)’ (1996, 135). As we will see below, Prof. Norman’s criticism of Kloppenborg, and his rejection of the possibility of deliberate ambiguity, is based on his arguments, to be considered and to some extent rejected below, by which he decides that khaggavisāṇa should be originally considered a tatpuruṣa and not a bahuvrīhi. However, Richard Salomon is kinder to Kloppenborg, commenting:
While it is true that Kloppenborg’s statement is not entirely clear, I think that it should still be taken seriously. It may not be question of śleṣa in the stricter technical sense of the terms in the expression khaggavisāṇakappo, but it is certainly reasonable to think that both interpretations — ‘like the rhinoceros’ and ‘like the rhinoceros horn’ — are in fact implied simultaneously. (2000, 13)
With this encouragement in mind, let us explore further the vexed question of the etymology of khaggavisāṇa. Heinrich Lüders maintained that khagga and khaḍga should be regarded as abbreviations of khaggavisāṇa and khaḍgaviṣāṇa, in the same way that Sanskrit sūcīka, ‘stinging insect’, can be regarded as an abbreviation of sūcīmukha, ‘having a mouth like a needle’, i.e. ‘stinging insect’ (1940, 429); and in the same way that Sanskrit śiśuka- (Pāli susu or susuka), ‘dolphin’, ‘crocodile’, can be regarded as abbreviations of śiśumāra, ‘child-killer’ (1942, 81). Prof. Norman has rejected this possibility, citing the works of Kuiper (1948, 137) and Mayrhofer (1956, 299), who show that khaḍga is a probably a Proto-Munda word that was borrowed into Sanskrit. Norman writes, ‘The original meaning of khaḍga was “rhinoceros” when it was first borrowed into Indo-Aryan, and it is not an abbreviation for khaḍgaviṣāṇa as has been suggested [by Lüders]’ (1996, 139-40 and 2001, 163).17 However, more recent work by Mayrhofer (which Norman does not cite) does not support Norman’s point of view. Mayrhofer concludes:
Because it can be assumed that both the Vedic khaḍgá- and also the khaḍga-‘sword’ of the younger language originate from a word borrowed from another language [Kulturwort], a connection between ‘sword’ and ‘rhinoceros’ in an undetermined original language cannot be ruled out; it is for now unprovable (1992, 444)
Given this uncertainty over the original meaning of khaḍga, Lüders’ proposal, despite the lack of corroborative evidence for it in the Indic languages, may not necessarily be incorrect. Indeed, Lüders’ proposal that khaggavisāṇa was not in fact a compound but a single expression denoting ‘rhinoceros’ has received more recent support from Prof. J.C. Wright, who has observed that the evidence presented by Mayrhofer and Kuiper suggests that there was a pre-Aryan word for ‘rhinoceros’, of which both khaḍga and khaḍgaviṣāṇa are adaptations, comparable to New Persian karg, kargadan, and Greek καργάζωνος. He compares khaḍgaviṣāṇa with mṛganābhi, ‘deer’s navel’, which in Sanskrit denotes both musk and the musk-deer (Wright 2001, 5; MW p.828). While the etymology of khaggavisāṇa remains uncertain, it seems clear that Prof. Norman has not sufficiently considered the possibility that the compound was originally intended to be deliberately ambiguous, and the further possibility that the expression khaggavisāṇa was originally understood as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’. In regard to the latter possibility, Prof. Norman has also not considered the (admittedly late) evidence of the Abhidhānappadīpika (a Burmese lexicon of Pāli by Moggallāna): khaggakhaggavisāṇā tu palāsādo ca gaṇḍako, meaning, ‘khagga and indeed khaggavisāṇa mean rhinoceros’.19 This too suggests the possibility that khaggavisāṇa was understood as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’.20 Given these several ways to understand khaggavisāṇa — as a tatpuruṣa (‘horn of a rhinoceros’), as a bahuvrīhi (‘having a horn which is a sword’, that is, ‘rhinoceros’), as deliberately ambiguous (both ‘rhinoceros’ and ‘horn of a rhinoceros’), or as a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’ — the question is, which is the correct way to understand khaggavisāṇa in the refrain of the rhinoceros stanzas? Unfortunately, as Prof. Norman has observed, there are no clues about how to interpret the expression from the refrain itself. And the recently edited Gāndhārī version of the rhinoceros stanzas has shed no new light at all on this matter (Salomon 2000, 13). Norman looks to a Jain parallel and to the earliest commentary to decide. But before we look at these, let us consider the Buddhist and poetic context for the refrain. Firstly, there are a pair of verses in the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta (Sn 45–6) which are also found in the Dhammapada (328–29) and elsewhere, except for a different final line:
sace labhetha nipakaṃ sahāyaṃ If one should find a wise companion
saddhiṃ caraṃ sādhuvihāri dhīraṃ good to live and wander with, resolute,
abhibhuyya sabbāni parissayāni overcoming every danger,
careyya ten’attamano satīma ̄ one should wander with them, mindful, satisfied.
no ce labhetha nipakaṃ sahāyaṃ If one cannot find a wise companion
saddhiṃ caraṃ sādhuvihāri dhīraṃ good to live and wander with, resolute,
rājā va raṭṭhaṃ vijitaṃ pahāya like a king leaving a conquered kingdom,
eko care khaggavisāṇakappo one should wander alone like the khaggavisāṇa
The last line in the Dhammapada version, however, reads: eko care mātaṅg’araññe va nāgo, ‘one should wander alone like an elephant in the elephant-forest’; khaggavisāṇa is thus equivalent to the elephant. As Jayawickrama has argued, the comparison in the whole refrain is thus between the solitary wandering of the renunciate and that of an animal (a rhinoceros or elephant), not an object (a horn) (1977, 22–3). Another piece of evidence not so far produced that points in the same direction is found in the Apadāna (13 – v.52), in a stanza that follows the rhinoceros stanzas, and describes the paccekabuddhas:
mahantadhammā bahudhammakāyā They are great, with large Dharma-bodies,
cittissarā sabbadukkhoghatiṇṇā lords of mind, who have crossed the flood of all pain,
udaggacittā paramatthadassī minds exalted, seeing the ultimate,
sīhopamā khaggavisāṇakappā they are like lions, they are like khaggavisāṇas.
The comparison of paccekabuddhas with lions and with khaggavisāṇas again implies that the latter are animals and not things. These points do not of course prove that khaggavisāṇa does not mean ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, but only that, given this usage, we would certainly need some strong evidence to suppose that khaggavisāṇa does not mean ‘rhinoceros’. Secondly, we should note that Prof. Norman’s interpretation of khaggavisāṇa as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ implies that we must interpret khaggavisāṇakappo in the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo as qualifying only the word eko, alone, and not the verb care, since the horn may be eko, but it cannot wander. Norman concludes, ‘I think there is no problem if we translate: “Let him wander all by himself (eko adutiyo) having a resemblance to the rhinoceros horn, which is also eko adutiyo”’ (1996, 139). That is to say, that Norman’s interpretation requires us to think of the grammar of the refrain as:
One should wander alone, as the horn of the rhinoceros is alone. Rather than as: One should wander alone, as the rhinoceros wanders alone.
While Norman’s interpretation is perfectly intelligible and grammatically possible, it implies that the concept of being solitary in the phrase eko care could be separated from the concept of wandering. This implication, however, is hard to reconcile with the way ‘solitary wandering’, ekacariyā, appears as a unitary concept in Buddhist poetry. For instance, in the Sutta-nipāta we read of sīhaṃ v’ekacaraṃ nāgaṃ, ‘the nāga [Buddha] who wanders alone like a lion’ (166), and ekaṃ carantaṃ muniṃ, ‘the muni [Buddha] who wanders alone’ (213).22 Whether the adjective (eko) and the verbal construction (cariyā) are compounded or not the concept denoted is the same. A nice example is from the Mahāvastu: a seer called Kāśyapa had a child, and he, ‘Remembering the saying, “the one-horned beast wanders all alone”, the seer gave the child the name Ekaśṛnga’ (ekacaraṃ śṛṃgakaṃ jātanti tena ṛṣiṇā ekaśṛṃgo ti nāmaṃ kṛtaṃIII 144).23 Given these examples of the unitary concept of solitary-wandering in Buddhist poetry, it seems most likely that a reader of the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo would understand it to mean ‘one should wander alone, as the khaggavisāṇa wanders alone’. In which case, khaggavisāṇa must mean rhinoceros. The fact that rhinoceroses do indeed wander alone makes this reading rather difficult to resist, unless there is some compelling evidence that it must have been understood differently
Evidence from the Jain tradition
Let us now examine the reasons Prof. Norman believes khaggavisāṇa is a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, and not a bahuvrīhi meaning ‘rhinoceros’. Firstly, he cites a Jain parallel to the khaggavisāṇa refrain. Among a list of praiseworthy qualities of the Jain founder, Mahāvira, found in the Jinacaritra is (in Prakrit) khaggi-visāṇaṃ va ega-jāe, translated by Jacobi, ‘he was single and alone like the horn of a rhinoceros’.25 As Norman says, the grammatical form of khaggivisāṇaṃ is neuter singular, and therefore does not allow the compound to be analysed as a bahuvrīhi, which would agree with the masculine subject of the sentence, indicated by jāe. As Prof. Norman writes, ‘this effectively proves the point’ — that khaggavisāṇa is a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ (1996, 139). Two factors, however, cast doubt on this point. First, if the Pāli expression khaggavisāṇa can be considered a non-compounded expression denoting ‘rhinoceros’, having a neuter gender, then the Prakrit khaggi-visāṇaṃ might similarly be considered a neuter expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’. Second, the context of the epithet khaggi-visāṇaṃ is a series of comparisons with animals: in Jacobi’s translation, ‘his senses were well protected like those of a tortoise; he was single and alone like the [khaggi-visāṇaṃ]; he was free like a bird; he was always waking like the fabulous bird Bhârunda, valorous like an elephant, strong like a bull, difficult to attack like a lion’ (1879, 62). This rather suggests that khaggi-visāṇaṃ refers to the animal rather than to its horn. Collette Caillat makes the further point that the prose passage in the Jinacaritra is followed by a verse summary which states, vihage khagge ya bhāruṃḍe (‘a bird, a rhinoceros, and Bhāruṇḍa’, in Jacobi’s translation), which again suggests that the comparison is with the animal (2003, 38 n.580).26 The matter is of course far from certain, but the points made by Caillat do raise doubts about the degree to which the Jain parallel to the Pāli refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo allow us to conclude that khaggavisāṇa must originally have meant ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ rather than ‘rhinoceros’.
Interpretations in the Niddesa and commentaries
Secondly, Prof. Norman’s translation of khaggavisāṇa as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’ relies especially, as he tells us, upon the Cullaniddesa and the later commentaries, since these works unambiguously explain the compound as a tatpuruṣa (1996, 137). The Niddesa comments on khaggavisāṇakappo like this: yathā khaggassa nāma visāṇaṃ ekaṃ hoti adutiyaṃ, evam eva paccekasambuddho takkappo tasadiso tappaṭibhāgo. (Nidd. II 129) Which Prof. Norman translates as follows: As the horn of the rhinoceros is single, solitary, so the pratyekabuddha is like that, resembling that, similar to that. (1996, 137) The Paramatthajotikā, the later commentary on the Sutta-nipāta, explains khaggavisāṇakappo in a different way to the Niddesa. It says: ettha khaggavisāṇaṃ nāma khaggamigasiṅgaṃ (Pj II 65), which Norman translates: ‘Here the horn of the rhinoceros means the horn of the animal [called] rhinoceros’ (1996, 137). This is of course clear evidence that the later commentators also understood the word khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa. The Paramatthajotikā clearly does not analyse khaggavisāṇa as a bahuvrīhi, since khagga in khaggamigasiṅga cannot be taken to mean ‘sword’. There is one exception to this commentarial line of interpretation. The commentary on the Apadāna uniquely explains khaggavisāṇakappo as a bahuvrīhi (Ap-a 203): khaggaṃ visāṇaṃ yassa migassa so’yaṃ migo khaggavisāṇo, ‘the animal whose horn is a sword is the “sword as horn”’, that is, the rhinoceros’ (tr. Norman 1996, 139). This however is less of an exception than it first looks, since the Apadāna commentary also reproduces the analyses of khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa given in the Niddesa and the Paramatthajotikā. 27 Its explanation of khaggavisāṇa as a bahuvrīhi, taken in conjunction with its reproductions of the explanation of the compound as a tatapuruṣa, may be an attempt to explain how this word khagga, which means ‘sword’, can also mean ‘rhinoceros’,28 for it goes on to say: khaggavisāṇakappā khaggavisāṇamigasiṅgasadisā cluding: eko adutiyo muttabandhano sammā loke carati, ‘single, solitary, he wanders properly in the world, freed from ties’. With this in mind, Wright comments on the grammar of the Niddesa passage as follows:gaṇasaṅgaṇikābhāvenā ti attho (Ap-a 204). Prof. Norman translates: ‘Like the khaggavisāṇa means like the horn of the animal [called] khaggavisāṇa, because of the absence of communication with a group’ (1996, 140). The idea of the ‘horn of the animal [called] khaggavisāṇa’ is, however, very strange. There is therefore no doubt that the Niddesa, the earliest commentary on the rhinoceros stanzas, as well as later commentaries, analyses khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa. There is nevertheless room for some doubt about what exactly the Niddesa intends with its analysis of khaggavisāṇa. Such doubt has been raised by Prof. J.C. Wright. He notes that the Niddesa continues its comments on the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo by explaining the meaning of -kappa, and then con-cluding: eko adutiyo muttabandhano sammā loke carati, ‘single, solitary, he wanders properly in the world, freed from ties’. With this in mind, Wright comments on the grammar of the Niddesa passage as follows:
It is an interesting attestation of the correlation of tat- in the posterior clause [i.e. in takkappo] with the genitive khaggassa as the logical subject of the prior clause, for it is not obvious how the horn could share with the individual … the quality of lack of encumbrance [i.e. muttabandhano] … The Niddesa can be attempting to combine the text’s rational meaning with its explanation of the word khaggavisāṇa ‘rhinoceros’ as ‘one-horned khagga’, hence ‘he should be minimally encumbered like the one-horned rhinoceros’ (2001, 4
If Wright is correct, we should translate the Niddesa passage as:
As the horn of the rhinoceros is single, solitary, so the pratyekabuddha is like that [one-horned rhinoceros], resembling it, similar to it.
However, it is possible to object that Prof. Wright is reading too much into the Niddesa here, and muttabandhano in the extract above refers only to the paccekabuddha. Nevertheless, the Niddesa does continue to use khaggavisāṇa in such a way that it is natural to suppose it refers to the animal and not just to its horn. An example is its exegesis of the word nāga in Sn 53. The original stanza runs:
nāgo va yūthāni vivajjayitva Like an elephant, forsaking the herds,
sañjātakhandho padumī uḷāro massively built, spotted, huge,
yathābhirantaṃ vihare araññe might live as it wishes in the forest,
eko care khaggavisāṇakappo one should wander alone like the khaggavisāṇa.
The Niddesa (II 64) comments: yathā so hatthināgo yūthāni vivajjetvā … eko va arañña-vana-majjhe ajjhogāhetvā carati … paccekasambuddho pi gaṇaṃ vajjetvā … eko care khagga-visāṇa-kappo arañña-vanapatthāni Like that elephant forsaking the herds … like one who wanders alone having plunged into the middle of the forest … the pratyekabuddha also, abandoning the group … should wander the forest wildernesses alone like the khaggavisāṇa.
It would seem natural to suppose that the Niddesa is here comparing the khaggavisāṇa with the nāga, and that it takes the concept of ekacariyā to have a unitary sense. I would therefore suggest that Prof. Wright’s comment on the meaning of the Niddesa exegesis of khaggavisāṇakappo is not without some contextual support, and that it is possible that the Niddesa compares the paccekabuddha not to the horn of the rhinoceros, but to the solitary-wandering animal. Likewise, there is indirect evidence that, in its commentary on Sn 53, the Paramatthajotikā also seems to understand khaggavisāṇa to mean ‘rhinoceros’ and not its horn. Commenting on the stanza concerning the elephant forsaking the herds, quoted above, it says: yathā c’esa yūthāni vivajjetvā ekacariyasukhena yathābhirantaṃ viharaṃ araññe eko care khaggavisāṇakappo (Pj II 103): ‘and like that [elephant], forsaking the herd because of the bliss of solitary-wandering, lives as it wishes in the forest, one should wander alone like the khaggavisāṇa’. It is clear that the commentary understands ekacariyā to be a unitary concept, which would seem to imply that it understands khaggavisāṇa to mean the solitary-wandering horned rhinoceros and not just its single horn, since the horn can be single but cannot wander, as Prof. Norman himself acknowledges. Therefore, while the Niddesa and the Paramatthajotikā certainly take khaggavisāṇa as a tatpuruṣa, it would appear that the analysis is at odds with the comparison that they suppose the expression khaggavisāṇakappo implies. Even the Apadāna commentary’s discussion of khaggavisāṇa, discussed above, admits of this same ambiguity. When we read (in Norman’s translation), ‘Like the khaggavisāṇa means like the horn of the animal [called] khaggavisāṇa, because of the absence of communication with a group’, it must be said that horns do not communicate with groups, and the absence of such activity would again suggest that khaggavisāṇa refers to the uncommunicative animal and not merely to its horn.29 To conclude this complex discussion of the commentarial analysis of khaggavisāṇa: while there is no doubt that the commentaries treat the compound as a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, they also seem to treat the expression as if it refers to the animal and not merely its horn. While the opinion of the Niddesa certainly gives us the earliest analysis of khaggavisāṇa, it does not seem to me entirely certain that even the Niddesa supposes that the expression refers to the horn of the rhinoceros and not to the animal itself.
Conclusion
I have presented evidence to cast doubt on Prof. Norman’s certainty that the ambiguous compound khaggavisāṇa is a tatpuruṣa meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’. The facts about rhinoceroses would suggest the very opposite; evidence from the Jain tradition is not compelling; and the evidence of the earliest commentary is not altogether convincing. The compound khaggavisāṇa therefore remains ambiguous. Richard Salomon, discussing this ambiguity, concludes positively:
the ambiguity [of khaggavisāṇa] may not be the result of a philological problem; rather, the expression can be seen as a doubly meaningful simile. Perhaps it was so intended by its original composer, who, if this is correct, cleverly took advantage of the natural fact that the Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is ‘alone’ (eko) in two respects as a solitary beast … and as having an unusual single horn. (2000, 13)
Salomon, however, did not consider the possibility that khaggavisāṇa is a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’, as suggested by Lüders and Wright, based on the work of Kuiper and Mayrhofer. While this possibility remains a matter of speculation, if it were actually the case, it would strengthen Salomon’s positive conclusion, since it need not be supposed that the original composer relied on a śleṣa or pun, which might well have been obscure to the original audience. If khaggavisāṇa is a single expression meaning ‘rhinoceros’ as well as a compound meaning ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, the creative ambiguity of the expression would work without recourse to the sophistication of punning. To return finally to the question of translation, if the expression khaggavisāṇa is ambiguous, and was intended perhaps deliberately to be so, it is therefore most elegant, as well as not incorrect, to translate it as ‘rhinoceros’. A footnote indicating the ambiguity of the expression, and the consequent possibility of translating it ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, would complete the task of translation, to the satisfaction of both philologists and poets. I will conclude with a tentative suggestion concerning the wider implications of understanding khaggavisāṇa to mean ‘rhinoceros’ as well as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’. If we were to suppose that khaggavisāṇa meant only ‘horn of the rhinoceros’, then the rhinoceros stanzas as a whole would appear to recommend a form of solitude comparable to the solitary state of the rhinoceros’ horn, that is, an absolute form of solitude. If, however, we suppose that khaggavisāṇa means ‘rhinoceros’ (as well as ‘horn of the rhinoceros’), then the stanzas recommend a form of solitude comparable to the solitary lifestyle of the animal. This form of solitude is not absolute, but relative, since rhinoceroses do in fact congregate occasionally to wallow and graze. If we were to understand the refrain eko care khaggavisāṇakappo to mean ‘one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn’, and therefore the stanzas to be recommending absolute solitude, then it would be difficult to reconcile such a recommendation with the teaching of the Buddha in the Nikāyas, which recommends a monastic lifestyle involving participation in community life and spiritual friendship (kalyāṇa mittatā). However, if we understand the refrain to mean ‘one should wander solitary as a rhinoceros’, and the stanzas to be recommending a relative solitude, punctuated by meaningful interactions with fellow renunciates, then the discourse no longer appears to recommend a lifestyle at odds with that which was taught by the Buddha. After all, considering that we have versions of the Khaggavisāṇa-sutta in Pāli, Sanskrit and Gāndhārī languages, it was evidently popular among monastic reciters, who did not of course live in solitude. This popularity is best explained by supposing that those reciters understood the discourse to be recommending a form of solitude which they themselves could practise, at least occasionally on retreat. Nevertheless, it must be said that the attribution from early times of the rhinoceros stanzas to the paccekabuddhas, evident in the Mahāvastu as well as in the Apadāna and Cūlaniddesa, suggests that the solitary lifestyle recommended by the stanzas seemed to the early Buddhists not to be an ideal to which they could practically aspire. However, the topic of the reception of the rhinoceros stanzas in early Buddhism deserves a fuller account than is possible here.
Comments
Post a Comment