Like the Rhinoceros, or Like Its Horn? The Problem of Khaggavisāṇa Revisited

7/25/2019 Like the Rhinoceros, or Like Its Horn? The Problem of Khaggavisa Revisited

1/14

!"#$ !"#$ &$'"() "*+,"-. !&''()*+ "+&'),* #,-),. /001 &23456) '$+*7$.8-9:4; "'#"++.3?#?!"4$#"*+ !&''()*+ "+&'),* #,-),. /001 &:5@45A) "-(-78*."

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2014, Ofce 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Shefeld, S1 2BX

!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)12'$ 3,*45$6 *7Khaggavisa($8"-"&$9

!"#$%&(")*%+,)&-+

%++#+(%&(.-/(01-12 )3-&0$-1+#(4

!"#$%& ()"*+%,-,.!

%5+(1%/(

The Pli exression khaggavisakappo a either ean like therhinoceros or like the horn of the rhinoceros. t occurs in therefrain eko carekhaggavisakappoat the end of each stana of theKhaggavisa-suttaand its arallels, and the refrain has been trans/lated b soe as one should wander alone like the rhinoceros

but b soe, including . R. oran, as one should wander alonelike the horn of the rhinoceros. . R. oran has howeer set outhis reasons for regarding like the rhinoceros horn as the correcttranslation, and like the rhinoceros as wrong. The resent articlecriticall discusses orans reasons, concluding that the exres/&*#, khaggavisaa be regarded as a deliberatel abiguous co/ound eaning both the rhinoceros and its horn, or erhas as asingle exression eaning rhinoceros. The oological facts are con/sidered, as well as the difcult etolog of khaggavisa, its contex/

tual eaning, its eaning in ain arallels, and its discussion in Plicoentaries. The article concludes that like the rhinoceros is infact a correct translation.

ewordskhaggavisa, khagavia, khaggavisakappo, Khaggavisa-sutta, solitude

0". Khaggavisa-suttaof the Sutta-niptaconsists in 41 stanas, each of whichexcet one ends with the refraineko care khaggavisakappo-1These stanas rec/

oend a solitar, editatie, renunciate lifestle, and elo a ariet of nat/

1. Sn .55 also at 1, where the stanas are attributed to the paccekabuddha&- 0".excetional erse, Sn .45, has the refrain, careyya tenattamano satm, one should wanderwith hi indful, satised.


2/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

uralistic iages and etahors. The are coented uon in the Cullaniddesa,which also coents uon ost of the stanas in the Paryanavagga- 0".Niddesa is itself included in the Pli canon, which indicates that the stanas of!". Khaggavisa-sutta are soe of the oldest exales of Buddhist literatureaawickraa 1, 2 oran 1, 5 oran 2001, 12. saller nuberof related or siilar stanas are resered in Sanskrit in the Mahvastu,2withthe refrain, eko care khagaviakalpo. These Sanskrit stanas in the Mahvastuare called khagaviagth, which roose to translate rhinoceros stanas.et another ersion of the rhinoceros stanas, in the ndhr dialect of iddlendoran, has recentl aeared, haing been edited b Richard Saloon frobirchbark anuscrits written in the rst centur /-2 and then buried, robablin fghanistan. The are now consered b the British useu.1These 40 stan/as, which are siilar to, but not identical with, the Pli and Sanskrit ersions,hae the refrain eko care khargaviaagapo. The rhinoceros stanas were thereforealued and resered b seeral earl Buddhist schools, and the belong to theearliest hase of Buddhist literature.

The question is, should the refrain, eko care khaggavisakappoin Pli, or itsequialents in Sanskrit and ndhr, be translated one should wander alone likethe rhinoceros or, one should wander alone like the horn of the rhinocerosoes the coound khaggavisarefer to the rhinoceros or to its horn4The co/ound is abiguous, and, as will be exlained, a be understood either wa.oweer, translators ust ake a choice, and ost hae referred like the rhi/noceros, robabl artl because one should wander alone like the rhinocerossounds ore natural in English.2eertheless, in one of the two English trans/lations of the Sutta-niptanow in rint,.R. oran has gien the translationone should wander solitar as a rhinoceros horn 2001, 5ff, and in an iortantarticle he has resented arguents for the correctness of this translation.3n theresent article will raise soe doubts in relation to Prof. orans arguents, inorder to conclude that the coound khaggavisareains abiguous, and atherefore correctl be translated rhinoceros as well as horn of the rhinoceros,and that therefore the translation rhinoceros is ustied. This conclusion willconr what sees to hae been the intuition of ost translators and coen/tators of recent ears, though not all.ence, this conclusion will hae relaced

2. u 5, where the stanas are also attributed to thepratyekabuddha&!

. Saloon 2000. The stor of the birchbark anuscrits is gien in Saloon 1.

4. The literature on translating khaggavisais discussed in oran 1. Saloon 2000, 1014reiews it all again, and, while concluding that khaggavisais best translated rhinoceros,has soe isgiings about going against the authoritatie and ehatic oinion of .R. or/an .1 n.11.

5. s en. Thanissaro uts it, rhinoceros horns dont wander ccess to nsight, httwww.accesstoinsight.orgtiitakaknsnsn.1.0.than.htl,accessed Oct 2014, and, as Steh/anie aison uts it, the idea of a horn wandering alone conures u an unintentionallcoic icture aison 1, 25 n.1.

. oran2001 and Saddhatissa 15. translation b Thanissaro is aailable online ccess tonsight, httwww.accesstoinsight.orgtiitakaknsnsn.1.0.than.htl, accessed Oct2014.

. oran 1 ore brie in oran 2001, 12.

. s well as oran, Steen ollins 12, 2 in a highl critical reiewarticle of Wiltshire
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html


3/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)1

ere intuition or guesswork with ust the kind of hilological rigour that Prof.oran hiself has recoended in the stud of Pli texts 200, 1014.

Since will structure this article around Prof. orans arguents, will rstquote his conclusion regarding the translation of khaggavisaas horn of therhinoceros

When the Pli can be so translated, when the earliest interretations take it thatwa, when the ain tradition suorts it, and when the ndian rhinoceros is uniqueaong anials in ndia in haing onl one horn, it sees certain to e that thereference is to the single horn 1, 1

This list conenientl roides four toics for discussion in rearrangedorder of how Prof. orans conclusion is uch less certain than it aears ithe facts about rhinoceroses ii the Pli of thesuttaitself iii eidence fro the

ain tradition and i the earliest interretations of thesutta, i.e. the Cullaniddesa,and also the later coentaries.

2'$ 7:+&- :4*;& ,'")*+$,*-$-

n the other English translation of the Sutta-niptanow in rint, en. Saddhatissarenders the refrain eko care khaggavisakappoas Let one lie alone like a uni/corns horn 15, 4ff.. Part of the reason for this translation is his istakenidea that the rhinoceros is gregarious. n a note, Saddhatissa exlains that iniew of the gregarious nature of the ndian secies, called Rhinoceros unicornis, hae chosen the latter ter to ehasie solitariness sbolicall 15,

n.1.

oweer, the fact is that the ndian rhinoceros is not gregarious indeed,the er oosite is the case. dult rhinoceroses usuall roa and grae alone,though the occasionall for sall grous to grae or wallow Laurie et al.1,4. The fact that the rhinoceros is a solitar wanderer is also soething that Prof.oran does not discuss, and of which he a ossibl hae been unaware. 10The lifestle of the rhinoceros in fact roides a er at siile for the lifestleof the sage deicted in the Khaggavisa-sutta, who is enoined to wander alone,excet to eno the coan of a wise coanion.11

nother releant fact about the ndian rhinoceros is that it has onl one hornunicornis,12and it is this fact that Prof. oran nds ore signicant than

10, states that khaggavisakappoeans like the single horn of the rhinoceros, againstWiltshires like a rhinoceros.

. is istake a relate, howeer, to Sinhalese tradition, since, according to anaonika,in a note to his eran translation of the Sutta-nipta n elon there is a tradition thatkhaggavisadoes not refer to the rhinoceros, but instead to a horselike anial with a hornon its forehead see The Buddhist, olobo, a 14. The Sinhalese nae for this iskangaveaor kagaveasee arters SinhaleseEnglish dictionar. t would thus see to bean anial related to the thical unicorn. The legend of the unicorn for its art howeeright hae arisen fro the rst garbled reorts of the rhinoceros. anaonika 155, 24, trans.. llen also regards khaggavisaas referring to the horn of the rhinoceros, becausehe erroneousl beliees that oologists hae neer described this anial as being other thangregarious 15, .

10. The ost he acknowledges is that it would aear that the ndian rhinoceros does not haea articularl gregarious nature oran 1, 1.

11. See e.g. Sn .45, 5.

12. Laurie et al.1, 1 horns of u to 52 along the cure hae been recorded.


4/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

the rhinoceros solitar wandering. e understands eko, solitar, single, of therefrain eko care khaggavisakappoto refer to the eko, single, horn of the rhinoc/eros, and not to the eko, solitar, lifestle of the beast, though he does so forhilological reasons, which will exlain below. oweer, assuing that the earlBuddhists coosed the refrain eko care khaggavisakappohaing obsered thenatural world around the, it is inconceiable that if the had noticed that therhinoceros had onl one horn that the should not also hae obsered its soli /tar habit of life. oreoer, the solitar wanderer of the rhinoceros stanas isalso coared to the solitar ale elehant Sn .5, h 2, discussed below,as well as to the lion which is not in fact a solitar anial Sn .12, 1,discussed below. These coarisons are thus with the habits of anials, ratherthan with arts of their anato, aking it natural to suose that khaggavisaoriginall referred to the anial and not to its horn.1

The facts about rhinoceroses cannot, of course, b theseles deterine theeaning of the exression khaggavisa, which should be decided b hilologicaland not oological arguent. oweer, should it be concluded that khaggavisareall is abiguous, and a ust as well ean rhinoceros as horn of the rhi/noceros, then these facts about rhinoceroses will take on a new signicance.The would il that soeone failiar with rhinoceroses who was to hear therefrain, eko care khaggavisakappo, would naturall hear the coarison iliedb the refrain as being between the Buddhist renunciate and the solitar beast,not onl with its horn. With this in ind, turn to the exression khaggavisaitself.

The Pli term khaggavisa:)9 "&- +*)&$


5/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)1

oran has argued that the BS tradition had forgotten the original eaningof the coound, that is, as a tatpurus 1, 40.15

ien the abiguit of the coound khaggavisa, it sees reasonable tosuose that the coosers of the Khaggavisa-sutta$%4 "%+. *,!.,).) !".coound to be understood in both senses siultaneousl, both as a tatpuruaeaning rhinoceros horn and as a bahuvrhi eaning rhinoceros. Rialoenborg 14, 50 has in fact roosed exactl such an interretation,but Prof. oran resonded to this roosal with the criticis nd this lineof arguent hard to follow, unless she eans that khaggavisa is to be takenin both was siultaneousl in a la uon words lea 1, 15. s we willsee below, Prof. orans criticis of loenborg, and his reection of the os/sibilit of deliberate abiguit, is based on his arguents, to be considered andto soe extent reected below, b which he decides that khaggavisashould beoriginall considered a tatpurua%,) ,#! % bahuvrhi. oweer, Richard Saloonis kinder to loenborg, coenting

While it is true that loenborgs stateent is not entirel clear, think that itshould still be taken seriousl. t a not be question of leain the stricter tech/nical sense of the ters in the exression khaggavisakappo, but it is certainlreasonable to think that both interretations like the rhinoceros and like therhinoceros horn are in fact ilied siultaneousl. 2000, 11

With this encourageent in ind, let us exlore further the exed questionof the etolog of khaggavisa-

einrich Lders aintained that "#$%%$%,) khaga should be regarded asabbreiations of khaggavisa%,) khagavia, in the sae wa that Sanskritscka, stinging insect, can be regarded as an abbreiation of scmukha, ha/ing a outh like a needle, i.e. stinging insect 140, 42 and in the sae wathat Sanskritiuka/Plisusu or susuka, dolhin, crocodile, can be regardedas abbreiations of iumra, childkiller 142, 1. Prof. oran has reectedthis ossibilit, citing the works of uier 14, 1 and arhofer 15, 2,who show that khagais a robabl a Protounda word that was borrowed intoSanskrit. oran writes, The original eaning of khagawas rhinoceros whenit was rst borrowed into ndoran, and it is not an abbreiation for khaga-viaas has been suggested b Lders 1, 140 and 2001, 1.1oweer,ore recent work b arhofer which oran does not cite does not suortorans oint of iew. arhofer concludes

Because it can be assued that both the edic khag-and also the khagaswordof the ounger language originate fro a word borrowed fro another languageKulturwort, a connection between sword and rhinoceros in an undeterinedoriginal language cannot be ruled out it is for now unroable 12, 444.1

15. cf. arhofer 12, 444, who also regards Edgertons etolog as istaken.

1. cf. Lean 2012, who shows that Pli pahitatta is a deliberatel abiguous coound,

eaning both of resolute will and haing abandoned self.1. uier aears not to disagree with orans criticis of Lders, coenting that an ei/

dence of the suosed older for of khagavisain the eaning rhinoceros is wanting14, 1.

1. an thanks to Bran Lean and Robert lark for hel with the translation.


6/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

10 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

ien this uncertaint oer the original eaning of khaga, Lders roosal,desite the lack of corroboratie eidence for it in the ndic languages, a notnecessaril be incorrect. ndeed, Lders roosal that khaggavisawas not infact a coound but a single exression denoting rhinoceros has receied orerecent suort fro Prof. .. Wright, who has obsered that the eidence re/sented b arhofer and uier suggests that there was a reran word forrhinoceros, of which both khaga%,) khagaviaare adatations, coarableto ew Persian karg,kargadan, and reek . e coares khagaviawith mganbhi, deers nael, which in Sanskrit denotes both usk and theuskdeer Wright 2001, 5 W .2.

While the etolog of khaggavisa reains uncertain, it sees clear thatProf. oran has not sufcientl considered the ossibilit that the cooundwas originall intended to be deliberatel abiguous, and the further ossibilitthat the exression khaggavisawas originall understood as a single exressioneaning rhinoceros. n regard to the latter ossibilit, Prof. oran has also notconsidered the adittedl late eidence of the Abhidhnappadpika a Bureselexicon of Pli b oggallna khaggakhaggavis tu palsdo ca gaako, eaning,"#$%%$%,) *,)..) khaggavisaean rhinoceros.1This too suggests the ossibil/*!4 !"%! khaggavisawas understood as a single exression eaning rhinoceros.20

ien these seeral was to understand khaggavisa as a tatpuruahorn of arhinoceros, as a bahuvrhihaing a horn which is a sword, that is, rhinoceros,as deliberatel abiguous both rhinoceros and horn of a rhinoceros, or as asingle exression eaning rhinoceros the question is, which is the correct wato understand khaggavisain the refrain of the rhinoceros stanas nfortunatel,as Prof. oran has obsered, there are no clues about how to interret the exres/sion fro the refrain itself. nd the recentl edited ndhr ersion of the rhinoc/eros stanas has shed no new light at all on this atter Saloon 2000, 1. oranlooks to a ain arallel and to the earliest coentar to decide. But before we lookat these, let us consider the Buddhist and oetic context for the refrain. irstl,there are a air of erses in the Khaggavisa-suttaSn 45 which are also found*, !". Dhammapada22 and elsewhere, excet for a different nal line21

sace labhetha nipaka sahya f one should nd a wise coanionsaddhi cara sdhuvihri dhra good to lie and wander with, resolute,

abhibhuyya sabbni parissayni oercoing eer danger,careyya tenattamano satma one should wander with the, indful, satised.

no ce labhetha nipaka sahya f one cannot nd a wise coanionsaddhi cara sdhuvihri dhra good to lie and wander with, resolute,rj va raha vijita pahya like a king leaing a conquered kingdo,eko care khaggavisakappo one should wander alone like the khaggavisa-

1. bh .1, cited in OP .42 gaako%,)palsdo are words for rhinocerosgaako *& !".sae in Skt., usuall taken to ean ossessing swellings in reference to the knobbl hide,though uier 14, 1 suggests an ustrosiatic origin palsdois gien in PE underpalsataand a be equialent to edicparasvat-

20. The English word rhinoceros resents erhas a coarable case. The word coes frothe reek / 5rhino-, eaning nose, and 5keras, horn. n Englishseaking ersona sa rhinoceros nosehorn, cf. eran ashorn, or use the shortened for rhino,but the words equall refer to the sae anial.

21. , 154, in 50, a 4.


7/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

11!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)1

The last line in the Dhammapadaersion, howeer, reads eko care mtagaraeva ngo, one should wander alone like an elehant in the elehantforestkhaggavisa is thus equialent to the elehant. s aawickraa has argued,the coarison in the whole refrain is thus between the solitar wandering ofthe renunciate and that of an anial a rhinoceros or elehant, not an obect ahorn 1, 22. nother iece of eidence not so far roduced that oints inthe sae direction is found in theApadna1 .52, in a stana that follows therhinoceros stanas, and describes thepaccekabuddhas

mahantadhamm bahudhammaky The are great, with large harabodies,

cittissar sabbadukkhoghati lords of ind, who hae crossed the ood ofall ain,

udaggacitt paramatthadass inds exalted, seeing the ultiate,

shopam khaggavisakapp the are like lions, the are like khaggavisa&-The coarison of paccekabuddhas with lions and with khaggavisas againilies that the latter are anials and not things. These oints do not of courseroe that khaggavisadoes not ean horn of the rhinoceros, but onl that,gien this usage, we would certainl need soe strong eidence to suose thatkhaggavisadoes not ean rhinoceros.

Secondl, we should note that Prof. orans interretation of khaggavisaas horn of the rhinoceros ilies that we ust interret khaggavisakappo*,the refrain eko care khaggavisakappoas qualifing onl the word eko,alone, andnot the erb care, since the horn a be eko, but it cannot wander. oran con/cludes, think there is no roble if we translate Let hi wander all b hi/self eko adutiyo haing a reseblance to the rhinoceros horn, which is also ekoadutiyo 1, 1. That is to sa, that orans interretation requires us tothink of the graar 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 orans interretation is erfectl intelligible and graaticall os/sible, it ilies that the concet of being solitar in the hrase eko carecould besearated fro the concet of wandering. This ilication, howeer, is hardto reconcile with the wa solitar wandering, ekacariy, aears as a unitarconcet in Buddhist oetr. or instance, in the Sutta-nipta we read of shavekacara nga, the nga Buddha who wanders alone like a lion 1, andeka caranta muni, the uni Buddha who wanders alone 21.22Whetherthe adectie eko and the erbal construction cariy are coounded or not,

22. See also e.g. Sn 21 muni idha ekacariyam daha kayir, a uni should ake his solitarwandering r, h ekacara, wandering alone of the ind, h 1 ekacariy,solitarwandering, h 05 eksana ekaseyya eko caram atandito 6 eko damaya attna vananteramito siy, one who sits alone, slees alone, wanders alone, strenuous, who subdues hiselfalone, ight delight in the forest, h 2 eko care mtagarae va ngo, one should wanderalone like an elehant in the taga forest, h 0 eko care na ca ppni kayir, appossukkomtagarae va ngo, one should wander alone, one should not do eil, as unconcerned asan elehant in the taga forest, d . ekacaro sa bhikkhu, he is a bhikkhu, who wanders


8/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

12 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

the concet denoted is the sae. nice exale is fro the Mahvastu a seercalled aa had a child, and he, Reebering the saing, the onehornedbeast wanders all alone, the seer gae the child the nae Ekanga ekacaragaka jtanti tena i ekago ti nma kta 144.2ien these exalesof the unitar concet of solitarwandering in Buddhist oetr, it sees ostlikel that a reader of the refrain eko care khaggavisakappowould understand itto ean one should wander alone, as the khaggavisawanders alone. n whichcase, khaggavisaust ean rhinoceros. The fact that rhinoceroses do indeedwander alone akes this reading rather difcult to resist, unless there is soecoelling eidence that it ust hae been understood differentl.24

=8"9$)+$ 7,*6 &'$ >:") &,:9"&"*)

Let us now exaine the reasons Prof. oran beliees khaggavisa*& % tatpurua

eaning horn of the rhinoceros, and not a bahuvrhi eaning rhinoceros.irstl, he cites a ain arallel to the khaggavisarefrain. ong a list of raise/worth qualities of the ain founder, ahira, found in the Jinacaritra *& 5*,Prakrit khaggi-visa va ega-je, translated b acobi, he was single and alonelike the horn of a rhinoceros.25s oran sas, the graatical for of khaggi-visa is neuter singular, and therefore does not allow the coound to beanalsed as a bahuvrhi, which would agree with the asculine subect of the sen/tence, indicated bje. s Prof. oran writes, this effectiel roes the oint that khaggavisa*& % tatpuruaeaning horn of the rhinoceros 1, 1.

Two factors, howeer, cast doubt on this oint. irst, if the Pli exression

khaggavisacan be considered a noncoounded exression denoting rhinoc/eros, haing a neuter gender, then the Prakrit khaggi-visaight siilarl beconsidered a neuter exression eaning rhinoceros. Second, the context of theeithet khaggi-visais a series of coarisons with anials in acobis trans/lation, his senses were well rotected like those of a tortoise he was single andalone like the khaggi-visa he was free like a bird he was alwas waking likethe fabulous bird Bhrunda, alorous like an elehant, strong like a bull, difcultto attack like a lion 1, 2. This rather suggests that khaggi-visarefers tothe anial rather than to its horn. ollette aillat akes the further oint thatthe rose assage in theJinacaritrais followed b a erse suar which states,

vihage khagge ya bhruea bird, a rhinoceros, and Bhrua, in acobis trans/lation, which again suggests that the coarison is with the anial 200, n.50.2The atter is of course far fro certain, but the oints ade b aillatdo raise doubts about the degree to which the ain arallel to the Pli refrain eko

alone, il 105 paccekabuddh ekacarino khaggavisnakapp, solitar buddhas who wanderalone like the khaggavisa.

2. Trans. ones 15, 140. ones rearks n. the horned beast is here taken to denote thendian onehorned rhinoceros. owe this reference to Wiltshire 10, .50 n.2.

24. We should note also that, according to W, .22, ekacaracan ean rhinoceros.

25. oran 1, 1 citing acobi 1, 2, Jinacarita11. The hrase is also found in the

Aupaptikastra, Leuann 1, 2, cited in Baute, 15, 414, n.21.2. See also .4, n.0. aillat also argues that Pli kappa*, khaggavisakappoight be taken to

retain a ore substantie sense, following ain testion concerning ascetics who follow therule kalpa of ahra which includes solitar wandering. ence we ight translate fol/lowing the habits of the rhinoceros ..


9/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)1

care khaggavisakappoallow us to conclude that khaggavisa ust originallhae eant horn of the rhinoceros rather than rhinoceros.

/)&$,?,$&:&"*)- ") &'$ !"##$%&:)9 +*66$)&:,"$-

Secondl, Prof. orans translation of khaggavisaas horn of the rhinocerosrelies eseciall, as he tells us, uon the Cullaniddesaand the later coentar/ies, since these works unabiguousl exlain the coound as a tatpurua1,1. The Niddesacoents on khaggavisakappolike this

yath khaggassa nma visa eka hoti adutiya, evam eva paccekasambuddho tak-kappo tasadiso tappaibhgo. idd. 12

Which Prof. oran translates as follows

s the horn of the rhinoceros is single, solitar, so thepratyekabuddhais like that,

resebling that, siilar to that. 1, 1

0". Paramatthajotik, the later coentar on the Sutta-nipta, exlainskhaggavisakappoin a different wa to the Niddesa. t sas ettha khaggavisanma khaggamigasiga P 5, which oran translates ere the horn ofthe rhinoceros eans the horn of the anial called rhinoceros 1, 1.This is of course clear eidence that the later coentators also understood theword khaggavisa%& % tatpurua- 0". Paramatthajotikclearl does not analsekhaggavisa%& % bahuvrhi, since "#$%%$*, khaggamigasigacannot be taken toean sword.

There is one excetion to this coentarial line of interretation. The co/entar on theApadnauniquel exlains khaggavisakappo%& % bahuvrhi a20 khagga visa yassa migassa soya migo khaggaviso, the anial whosehorn is a sword is the sword as horn, that is, the rhinoceros tr. oran1, 1. This howeer is less of an excetion than it rst looks, since theApadnacoentar also reroduces the analses of khaggavisa%& % tatpuruagien in the Niddesa%,) !". Paramatthajotik-2ts exlanation of khaggavisa%& % bahuvrhi, taken in conunction with its reroductions of the exlanationof the coound as a tatapurua, a be an attet to exlain how this word"#$%%$, which eans sword, can also ean rhinoceros,2for it goes on to sa

khaggavisakapp khaggavisamigasigasadis gaasagaikbhven ti atthoa 204. Prof. oran translates Like the khaggavisaeans like the hornof the anial called khaggavisa, because of the absence of counicationwith a grou 1, 140. The idea of the horn of the anial called khaggavisais, howeer, er strange.

There is therefore no doubt that the Niddesa, the earliest coentar on therhinoceros stanas, as well as later coentaries, analses khaggavisa %& %tatpurua. There is neertheless roo for soe doubt about what exactl theNiddesaintends with its analsis of khaggavisa. Such doubt has been raised bProf. .. Wright. e notes that the Niddesacontinues its coents on the refrain

eko care khaggavisakappob exlaining the eaning of -kappa, and then con/2. a .1 reroduces the coentar on khaggavisakappo fro the Niddesa, and a

.15 reroduces that at P .5.

2. owe this obseration to argaret one.


10/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

14 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

cluding eko adutiyo muttabandhano samm loke carati, single, solitar, he wandersroerl in the world, freed fro ties. With this in ind, Wright coents onthe graar of the Niddesa assage as follows

t is an interesting attestation of the correlation of tat-in the osterior clause i.e.*, takkappo with the genitie "#$%%$&&$as the logical subect of the rior clause,for it is not obious how the horn could share with the indiidual the qualitof lack of encubrance i.e. muttabandhano The iddesa can be atteting tocobine the texts rational eaning with its exlanation of the word khaggavisarhinoceros as onehorned khagga, hence he should be iniall encuberedlike the onehorned rhinoceros 2001, 4.

f Wright is correct, we should translate the Niddesaassage as

s the horn of the rhinoceros is single, solitar, so the pratyekabuddhais like that

onehorned rhinoceros, resebling it, siilar to it.oweer, it is ossible to obect that Prof. Wright is reading too uch into

!". Niddesa here, and muttabandhanoin the extract aboe refers onl to thepac-cekabuddha-

eertheless, the Niddesa does continue to use khaggavisain such a wa thatit is natural to suose it refers to the anial and not ust to its horn. n exaleis its exegesis of the word ngain Sn 5. The original stana runs

ngo va ythni vivajjayitva Like an elehant, forsaking the herds,sajtakhandho padum uro assiel built, sotted, huge,

yathbhiranta vihare arae ight lie as it wishes in the forest,eko care khaggavisakappo one should wander alone like the khaggavisa-

0". Niddesa 4coents

yath so hatthingo ythni vivajjetv eko va araa-vana-majjhe ajjhoghetv carati paccekasambuddho pi gaa vajjetv eko care khagga-visa-kappo araa-vana-patthni

Like that elehant forsaking the herds like one who wanders alone hainglunged into the iddle of the forest the pratyekabuddhaalso, abandoning thegrou should wander the forest wildernesses alone like the khaggavisa-

t would see natural to suose that the Niddesa is here coaring thekhaggavisawith the nga, and that it takes the concet of ekacariy !# "%+.a unitar sense. would therefore suggest that Prof. Wrights coent on theeaning of the Niddesaexegesis of khaggavisakappois not without soe contex/tual suort, and that it is ossible that the Niddesacoares thepaccekabuddhanot to the horn of the rhinoceros, but to the solitarwandering anial.

Likewise, there is indirect eidence that, in its coentar on Sn 5, theParamatthajotik also sees to understand khaggavisa to ean rhinocerosand not its horn. oenting on the stana concerning the elehant forsaking

the herds, quoted aboe, it sas yath cesa ythni vivajjetv ekacariyasukhenayathbhiranta vihara arae eko care khaggavisakappo P 10 and like thatelehant, forsaking the herd because of the bliss of solitarwandering, lies asit wishes in the forest, one should wander alone like the khaggavisa. t is clear


11/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

15!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)1

that the coentar understands ekacariyto be a unitar concet, which wouldsee to il that it understands khaggavisato ean the solitarwanderinghorned rhinoceros and not ust its single horn, since the horn can be single butcannot wander, as Prof. oran hiself acknowledges.

Therefore, while the Niddesa %,) !". Paramatthajotik certainl takekhaggavisa%& % tatpurua, it would aear that the analsis is at odds with thecoarison that the suose the exression khaggavisakappoilies. Een theApadnacoentars discussion of khaggavisa, discussed aboe, adits of thissae abiguit. When we read in orans translation, Like the khaggavisaeans like the horn of the anial called khaggavisa, because of the absenceof counication with a grou, it ust be said that horns do not couni/cate with grous, and the absence of such actiit would again suggest thatkhaggavisarefers to the uncounicatie anial and not erel to its horn.2

To conclude this colex discussion of the coentarial analsis ofkhaggavisa while there is no doubt that the coentaries treat the co/ound as a tatpuruaeaning horn of the rhinoceros, the also see to treat theexression as if it refers to the anial and not erel its horn. While the oinionof the Niddesacertainl gies us the earliest analsis of khaggavisa, it does notsee to e entirel certain that een the Niddesasuoses that the exressionrefers to the horn of the rhinoceros and notto the anial itself.

@*)+5;-"*)

hae resented eidence to cast doubt on Prof. orans certaint that theabiguous coound khaggavisa*& % tatpuruaeaning horn of the rhinoceros.The facts about rhinoceroses would suggest the er oosite eidence fro the

ain tradition is not coelling and the eidence of the earliest coentar is notaltogether conincing. The coound khaggavisatherefore reains abiguous.Richard Saloon, discussing this abiguit, concludes ositiel

the abiguit of khaggavisa a not be the result of a hilological roblerather, the exression can be seen as a doubl eaningful siile. Perhas it was sointended b its original cooser, who, if this is correct, cleerl took adantageof the natural fact that the ndian rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis is alone eko intwo resects as a solitar beast and as haing an unusual single horn. 2000, 1

Saloon, howeer, did not consider the ossibilit that khaggavisa*& % &*,/gle exression eaning rhinoceros, as suggested b Lders and Wright, basedon the work of uier and arhofer. While this ossibilit reains a atter ofseculation, if it were actuall the case, it would strengthen Saloons ositieconclusion, since it need not be suosed that the original cooser relied on% lea or un, which ight well hae been obscure to the original audience. fkhaggavisais a single exression eaning rhinoceros as well as a cooundeaning horn of the rhinoceros, the creatie abiguit of the exression wouldwork without recourse to the sohistication of unning. To return nall to thequestion of translation, if the exression khaggavisa is abiguous, and wasintended erhas deliberatel to be so, it is therefore ost elegant, as well as

2. ndeed, taking khaggavisa to ean the anial, we ight refer to translategaasagaikbhvennot as because of the absence of counication with a grou or /an, but as because of not being in contact with the crowd.


12/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

not incorrect, to translate it as rhinoceros. footnote indicating the abiguitof the exression, and the consequent ossibilit of translating it horn of therhinoceros, would colete the task of translation, to the satisfaction of bothhilologists and oets.

will conclude with a tentatie suggestion concerning the wider ilicationsof understanding khaggavisato ean rhinoceros as well as horn of the rhi/noceros. f we were to suose that khaggavisaeant onl horn of the rhi/noceros, then the rhinoceros stanas as a whole would aear to recoend afor of solitude coarable to the solitar state of the rhinoceros horn, that is,an absolute for of solitude. f, howeer, we suose that khaggavisa$.%,&rhinoceros as well as horn of the rhinoceros, then the stanas recoenda for of solitude coarable to the solitar lifestle of the anial. This forof solitude is not absolute, but relatie, since rhinoceroses do in fact congregateoccasionall to wallow and grae. f we were to understand the refrain eko carekhaggavisakappoto ean one should wander solitar as a rhinoceros horn, andtherefore the stanas to be recoending absolute solitude, then it would be dif/cult to reconcile such a recoendation with the teaching of the Buddha in theNikyas, which recoends a onastic lifestle inoling articiation in co/unit life and siritual friendshi kalya mittat. oweer, if we understandthe refrain to ean one should wander solitar as a rhinoceros, and the stanasto be recoending a relatie solitude, unctuated b eaningful interactionswith fellow renunciates, then the discourse no longer aears to recoend alifestle at odds with that which was taught b the Buddha. fter all, consideringthat we hae ersions of the Khaggavisa-suttain Pli, Sanskrit and ndhr lan/guages, it was eidentl oular aong onastic reciters, who did not of courselie in solitude. This oularit is best exlained b suosing that those recit/ers understood the discourse to be recoending a for of solitude which thetheseles could ractise, at least occasionall on retreat. eertheless, it ustbe said that the attribution fro earl ties of the rhinoceros stanas to thepac-cekabuddhas, eident in the Mahvastuas well as in theApadna%,) Claniddesa,suggests that the solitar lifestle recoended b the stanas seeed to theearl Buddhists not to be an ideal to which the could racticall asire. oweer,the toic of the recetion of the rhinoceros stanas in earl Buddhis deseresa fuller account than is ossible here.

A+#)*B5$9C$6$)&-

would like to thank argaret one, not ust for her acute coents on anearlier ersion of this article, but for her atient helfulness oer seeral earsof reading Pli with e. Thanks also to Bran Lean for his encouraging andexert coents on the reised ersion of this article. a also grateful to Prof.oran for the gift of soe of his books, including an of those which includediscussion of khaggavisn-

A44,$8":&"*)-bh AbhidhnappadpikaSubhti, 100

ApadnaLille, 1252


13/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1!"#$ &'$ ('")*+$,*-. *, !"#$ /&- 0*,)1

a Apadna-ahakath5Apadnacoentar odakubura, 154

BS Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit DictionaryEdgerton, 15

h Dhammapada on inber and oran, 14

OP Dictionary of Pli, vol.1one, 2001a Jtakawith its coentar ausbll, 1

Majjhima-nikyaTrenckner halers, 1102

il Milindapaho Trenckner, 10

u MahvastuSenart, 1.

W A Sanskrit-English DictionaryonierWillias, 1.

idd Cullaniddesacoentar on Pryanavagga%,) Khaggavisa-suttaStede, 11

P Paramatthajotik 5Sutta-niptacoentar Sith, 1117, Sutta-niptandersen Sith, 11

7+ Sumagalavilsin 5Dgha-nikya coentar Rhs aids arenter, 112

d UdnaSteinthal, 15

in Vinaya-piaka Oldenberg, 1

D"45"*C,:?'E

llen, . . 15. The Buddhas Philosophy. London eorge llen and nwin.ndersen, . and W. Stede, ed. 11. Sutta-nipta.London Pali Text Societ.Baute, . 15. The Proble of the haga Rhinoceros nicornis in the Light of

rchaeological inds and rt. n South Asian Archaeology 1983, ol. 1, edited banine Schotsans and auriio Taddei, 4054. ales stituto uniersitarioorientale.

aillat, . 200. leanings fro a coaratie reading of earl canonical Buddhist andain texts.Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21 2550.

ollins, S. 12. Reiew rticle Probles with Paccekabuddhas. Religion 22 212.

httdx.doi.org10.10100421X20022one, . 2001.A Dictionary of Pliol. . Oxford Pali Text Societ.Edgerton, . 15. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary.ew aen, T ale niersit Press.ausbll, ., ed. 1. The Jtaka together with its commentary.London Pali Text Societ.odakubura, ., ed. 154. Visuddhajanavilsin (Apadna-ahakath).London Pali Text

Societ.acobi, . 1. The Kalpastra of Bhadrabhu.Leiig Brockhaus.aison, S. W. 1. Rhinoceros Toes, anu .11, and the eeloent of the hara

Sste. Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 2425. httdx.doi.org10.2005

aawickraa, . 1. ritical nalsis of the Sutta ita art . Pali Buddhist Review21 1441 httukabs.org.ukresourcesournalarchiesalibuddhistreiewones, . 15. The Mahvastuol. . London Luac.loenborg, R. 14. The Pacceka-buddha: a Buddhist Ascetic.Leiden Brill.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-721X(92)90022-Vhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2307/605897http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/605897http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/605897http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/605897http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-721X(92)90022-V


14/14

! #$%&'() *%+,&-.&'/ 012 3456

1 !"#$%& (")*%+ ,)&-+

uier, . 14. Proto-Munda Words in Sanskrit. sterda oordollandscheitgeers aatschai.

Laurie, W. ., E. . Lang and .P. roes. 1. Rhinoceros unicornis. Mammalian Species211 1. httdx.doi.org10.20504002

Leuann, E. 1. Das Aupaptika Stra erstes Upnga der Jaina.Leiig.Lean, Bran. 2012. What does the Pli hrase ahitatta ean Thai International Journal

of Buddhist Studies 54.Lille, ., ed. 12512.Apadna 2 ols, with consecutie agination. London Pali Text

Societ.Lders, . 140. Philologica Indica.ttingen andenhoeck Rurecht.. 142. on indischen Tieren. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft

21.arhofer, . 15. Kurzgefates etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindischen ol. 1.

eidelberg arl Winter.

. 12. Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindoarischenol. 1. eidelberg arl Winter.

onierWillias, S. . 1. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary new ed.. Oxford Oxfordniersit Press.

oran, . 1. Pli Literature.Wiesbaden Otto arrassowit.. 1. Solitar as a rhinoceros horn. Buddhist Studies Review 12 1142 htt

ukabs.org.ukresourcesournalarchiesbuddhiststudiesreiewols122. 2001. The Group of Discourses2nd ed.. Oxford Pali Text Societ.. 200.A Philolological Approach to Buddhism.Lancaster Pali Text Societ.anaonika. 155. Sutta-nipta.onstan erlag hristiani.Oldenberg, . ed.. 1. Vinayapiaka.London Pali Text Societ.

Rhs aids, T. and . E. arenter, eds. 112. Sumagalavilsin (Dghanikya-ahakath) ols!London Pali Text Societ.

Saddhatissa, . 15. The Sutta-nipta.London uron.Saloon, R. 1.Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara.London The British Librar.. 2000.A Gndhr Version of the Rhinoceros Stra.niersit of Washington Press.Senart, . 1. Le Mahvastuol. . Paris.Sith, ., ed. 111. Paramatthajotik II (Sutta-nipta-ahakath) ols!London Pali

Text Societ.Stede, W., ed. 11. Cullaniddesa.London Pali Text Societ.Steinthal, P., ed. 15. Udna.London Pali Text Societ.

Subhti, W., ed. 100.Abhidhnappadpik.olobo Pali Text Societ.Thanissaro. n.d.. Khaggavisana Sutta: A Rhinoceros. Retrieed 01 Se 201, fro ccess

to nsight httwww.accesstoinsight.orgtiitakaknsnsn.1.0.than.htlTrenckner, . and R. halers, eds. 1102. Majjhimanikya ols. London Pali Text

Societ.Trenckner, ., ed. 10. Milindapaho.London Pali Text Societ.on inber, O. and . R. oran, eds. 14. Dhammapada.Oxford Pali Text Societ.Wiltshire, . . 10.Ascetic Figures before and in Early Buddhism.Berlin outon de ruter.

httdx.doi.org10.151511055Wright, . 2001. The andhari Prakrit ersion of the Rhinoceros Stra. Anusadhn 1

115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3504002http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110858563http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110858563http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3504002

Documents

Like the Rhinoceros, or Like Its Horn? The Problem of Khaggavisāṇa Revisited