Achtung!
Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe des Aufsatzes„A Glimpse into the Buddhist Part of the Maldives.
I. An Early Prakrit Inscription“von Jost Gippert (2003).
Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe in
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens
48, 2004, 81-109
zu entnehmen.
Attention!
This is a special internet edition of the article“A Glimpse into the Buddhist Part of the Maldives.
I. An Early Prakrit Inscription”
by Jost Gippert (2003).
It should not be quoted as such. For quotations, please refer to the original
edition in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens[Vienna Journal of South Asian Studies] 48, 2004, 81-109.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved:
Jost Gippert, Frankfurt 2011

Jost Gippert

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives
I. An Early Prakrit Inscription∗

For the inhabitants of the Maldivian archipelago, the beginning ofliteracy has for long been identical with the conversion of the country
to Islam in the middle of the 12th century of our era. As a matter offact, the Maldives have borne witness to a continuous production of
written texts since about 1192 A.D. when the oldest copper plate grantsthat have come down to us were issued by Maldivian kings. Both bytheir outer appearance and by their linguistic content, however, these
documents clearly suggest that the tradition of literacy must have beenmuch older, dating back to times when Buddhism was still prevalent in
the islands. This assumption is confirmed off-hand by a very small set of
inscriptions engraved in coral-stone artefacts which were unearthed in
excavations in the capital, Māle, and on Māḷos (Maalhos) Island (AriAtoll) and which bear clear indications of pertaining to a Vajrayānaenvironment.1 Even though these inscriptions have not been deciphered so far, 2 it is generally assumed that they date back to the tentheleventh centuries, thus representing the only remnants of Buddhist
literacy which was otherwise deliberately destroyed by the Islamic
convertors.3∗

My thanks are due to Mrs Naseema Mohamed and the staff of the National
Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research, Male, who drew my attention to thepresent monument and who provided the photographs illustrating it here; to H.
Falk, O. von Hinüber, D. Maue, who discussed various questions of the readingwith me, and Ch. Muller, I. Sinclair, and the CBETA publishers who made essential
information on Chinese Buddhism available to me. It goes without saying that all
remaining errors and shortcomings are mine.
1
Cf. Naseema 1999: 5 / 19 and Tholal 2002: 13f. for details.
2
A first attempt of decipherment will be published as part II of the present
series.
3
In the copper-plate grants (so-called lōmāfanus), the destruction of Buddhist monuments (statues) and institutions (monasteries) as well as the killing of
Buddhist monks not willing to be converted to the new faith is mentioned inextenso; cf., e.g., the Isdū grant of ca. 1194 A.D. (“L2”, translated by Maniku –Wijayawardhana 1986: 2): “In the third year of his reign His Majesty (the great
king Gadanaadheethiya), having destroyed the monastery erected previously on

82

Jost Gippert

The insight into the Buddhist past of the Maldives we can gain fromautochthonous written sources has now increased dramatically by thedetection of a stone inscription that must be centuries older than the
Buddhist statues mentioned above. The monument in question is arectangular, brick-shaped block of coral-stone measuring about 56 ×
19 × 21 cm, which was unearthed in the remnants of a Buddhist monastery on the island of Landhoo, situated in one of the northernmost
atolls of the Maldives. The stone, which is now preserved in the Male
National Museum, has broken into three pieces, with the result thatparts of it were further damaged at the fractures as well as the outeredges; a smaller fragment of about 10 × 3 × 1 cm which was found at
the same site and which bears the same kind of inscription does not fit
into any one of the resulting fissures and must thus represent the part ofanother monument. Originally, all four sides of the stone must havebeen inscribed completely, with three sides bearing six lines extending
from the left to the right edge each; the fourth side seems to have been
confined to five lines. All in all, about two thirds of the inscription havebeen preserved, and about one half of it is well readable; it is conceivable (and the reading provided below will confirm this) that it represents
a continuous text which ends with the side showing only five lines.
From a palaeographic point of view, the inscription bears a clear resemblance to South Indian epigraphical records of the sixth-eighth
centuries written in local subtypes of the Brāhmī script,4 with no tendency yet towards the development of cursive variants typical for thepalm-leaf based writing of later centuries. In this way, the inscription
has a totally different outlook in comparison with all later monumentsof the Maldives, including both the Vajrayāna Buddhist inscriptions
and the early Islamic records, whose script (called dives akuru) 5 is
Isdhoo by the infidel kings, uprooted the image and destroyed it and having
brought the ordained priests of the community of monks belonging to this monastery all together to Maale and beheaded them.” For the name of the king whichshould rather be read gaghanādītya ≈ Skt. gaganāditya, cf. Gippert 2003: 34, n.13.
4
A rough survey of the material published in Epigraphia Indica yields thefollowing examples of similar-looking types: Vol. 4, no. 25, between p. 196-197(Vikramendravarman II.); Vol. 6, no. 2, p. 18-19 (Kṛṣṇavarman II.); Vol. 8, no. 23,
p. 234-235 (Kumāraviṣṇu II.); no. 24, p. 238-239 (Sarvalokasraya, A.D. 673);
Vol. 14, no. 24, p. 334-335 (Madhava II.); Vol. 18, no. 2, p. 2-3 (Indravarman);Vol. 24, no. 36, p. 258-259; Vol. 31, no. 12, p. 78-79 (Viṣṇuvardhana II.) etc.
5
The term e vēla akuru, lit. “script of yore”, introduced by H.C.P. Bell for the
script used on the oldest (inscriptional) monuments known to him (as opposed toA Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives83

clearly of the cursive type, strongly reminding of the mediaeval script
used in Sri Lanka.
On the basis of a comparison with South Indian Brāhmī variants, thefollowing transliteration can be proposed for the Landhoo inscription:6

Side 1
1 m[a] vi-ṭṭ[ā] vi-l*<-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**->[m]<i> p[i]sa-ccha-grā-ha to-ṭa bhi-dā2 -mi va-smā-ra<-grā-ha to-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi **-**-**-grā-ha> to-ṭa bhi-dā-mibhu-ta-grā-ha to3 -ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi bhu[-i]-grā-[h]<a to-ṭa> bhi-dā-mi pre-ta-grā-ha to-ṭa bhi-dāmi [kā-]la4 -ma-ṭṭa-grā-ha to-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi <**->[n*-v*-ra]-kku-sa-grā-ha to-ṭaṃ bhidā-mi ku-mma-ṇḍa-grā-ha
5 to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi su-va-ṇṇa-grā-ha to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi du-ṭṭa-nā-ga-grā-ha to-ṭaṃ
bhi-dā6 mi sa-rvv[a] to-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi s[v]ā-ha i-li mi-li khi-li khi-li khi-li khi-li

normal dives akuru, lit. “islanders’ script”, used in paper manuscripts), is notbased on autochthonous tradition. The difference between the two script variants
in question is much smaller than with the script of the Landhoo inscription. For
the emergence of the left-directional tāna script of present day, cf. Gippert 1996: 80.
6
In the transliteration, ** stands for an illegible akṣara, * for an illegible part ofan akṣara (consonantal or vocalic). Spaces between akṣaras indicate presumed
word boundaries, while akṣaras within a (presumptive) word are separated by hyphens; as there is no indication whatsoever of word boundaries in the original
script, this means that hyphens and spaces are freely interchangeable in the transliteration. Parentheses denote uncertain readings; square brackets indicate damaged (parts of) akṣaras that are still conceivable, while angle brackets are used todenote gaps caused by damage. akṣaras contained in angle brackets are based onmere reconstruction.

84

Jost Gippert

Side 2
1 <**-**> g[i]-li g[i]-li [hi-li hi-li hi-]<li hi->li hi-li hi-li
2 hi-li || khi-li bi-li i-li mi-li khi-li s(v)a-[h]<a a->si-ti sa-ha-ssa (cai-)
3 va-ṇa to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi [na]-vu-ti sa-ha-ssa m[u-l]<*-k*> to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi cā-sa4 -ṭṭhi sa-ha-ssa [cu]-ta-ka-(r)mma [t]o-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi sa-[va] sa-ha-ssa bhumi-ka-m[pa] to-ṭa bhi5 -dā-mi || sa-vv[a] to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi [a]-ṭṭi-ka [t]o-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi [a-bhā-ra] toṭa[ṃ] bhi-dā-mi
6 gi-la to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi [vi-ca] [to-]<ṭa bhi>(-dā-mi) <**>-ri-ḍa to-ṭaṃ bhi-dāmi [ca-m*-]

Side 3
1 <**-**-**-**> to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi [s*-]<**>-ka to-ṭa bhi-dā-mi da-ḍa-ka to-ṭa
2 [bhi]-dā-mi h[a-**-ra] to-ṭaṃ bhi-[dā]-mi ta-s[ya grā]-ha to-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi
3 va-[cca]-va-[smā]-ra-gr[ā]-ha to-ṭa [bhi]-dā-[m]i v[a-the] to-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi[bha-te] to4 -ṭaṃ [bhi]-dā-[mi] [yu-ñja-na] to-ṭa [bhi]-dā-mi sa-[r]vva to-ṭaṃ bhi-dā-mi [||b*-]<**->
5 [-m]i [bi]-mā-mi [to-ṭā-ya] <t*>[-ccha] to-[ṭā]-ya [da-ra-ya] [lā-hi]-sa-t[va]<**->
6 [**-** ha-la *o-**-**]<**-**-**->[dha]-ma [dha-ma dha-]ma dha-ma dha<**>A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives85

Side 4 + Extra Fragment
1 <** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **><** ** **-m* pa-ta> [p*]-ta [hā]-ta
va-t[a] [v*-]
2 <** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **><** ** ** v*> [||] ja-la ja-la ja-la jala ja-la ja3 <** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **><** **-l*> [pa]-la pa-la [pa-la pa-]la
pa-la || ma-ha
4 <** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **><**> [ma-ha la-**-**-la]-ma ka-[ro]mi ma-ha-k[u]-ti
5 <** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **><**> [sa-va chi-di bhi-]di [|] sva-ha ||The extra fragment reads: 1 -tvā-na-

2 -dā-mi

3 [bh]i-dā-With respect to the palaeography of the monument, the following observations can be made: First, it must be noted that in contrast to manyother South Indian Brāhmī variants, the given script clearly distinguishes <n> from <t> akṣaras7 in that the latter have a closed loop to
the left at their bottom (cp. preta, 1:3) while <n> akṣaras have none
(cp. nāga, 1:5).8 <k> akṣaras are also clearly marked, viz. by a nearlyhorizontal stroke crossing their vertical line in its upper half (cp. karmma
and kampa, 2:4). On the other hand, it seems extremely hard to differentiate between <d> and <ḍ> (cp. daḍaka, 3:1) as well as <v> and<c> (cp. vasmāra, 1:2, and cāsaṭṭhi, 2:3). The retroflex <ṇa> (cp. °vaṇa2:3) looks quite as a dental <no> would look like. Other difficulties inthe decipherment will be discussed below; in many cases, the scanty
7

Angle brackets comprising single akṣaras or letters are used to indicate
graphemic entities in this article.
8
Cp., e.g., the inscription published as no. 3 in EI 3 (1894-95) 18-19 whichshows an opposite distribution of <t> and <n> akṣaras.

86

Jost Gippert

material the inscription provides does not admit final decisions about
the intended reading.
Regarding the contents of the inscription, it will nevertheless be clear
at first glance that the text we have here is a dhāraṇī spell, consistingof but a few (≈ 36) mantras of apotropaic character and interspersedwith the bīja formulas typical for this genre of tantric Buddhism.9 It
will also be clear that the language used is basically Prakrit, with sanskritisms (and even hyper-sanskritisms) occurring here and there. Even
though it is for certain a different text, it bears a close resemblancewith the famous Sitātapatrādhāraṇī 10 which, preserved both in
Sanskrit and in various translated versions, contains similar formulas
used to prevent the possession (*graha, see below) caused by spirits
such as pretas, piśācas, kumbhāṇḍas, and rākṣasas.11 And also the bīja
syllables in question, beginning with ili mili khili, can be traced inseveral other texts of the dhāraṇī type. On this basis, the given text canbe established and interpreted to a certain extent as follows:

12m*vaṭṭāvil*<...> [m]<i>p[i]sacchagrāha toṭa bhidāmi
vasmāra<grāha toṭa bhidāmi><***grāha> toṭa bhidāmi
bhutagrāha toṭaṃ bhidāmi
bhu[i]grā[h]<a toṭa> bhidāmi

9

§1
??
I smash the possession caused bypiśācas into pieces.
I smash the possession caused byapasmāras into pieces.
I smash the possession caused by ???
into pieces.
I smash the possession caused bybhūtas into pieces.
I smash the possession caused by
bhūtīs into pieces.

For the main elements of this textual genre, cf., among others, Winternitz
1920: 269-273; Dasgupta 1974: 56-60; Mylius 1983: 414ff.; Porció 2000: xviiff.
10
The full name of the text (henceforth STDh.) is given as sarva-tathāgatoṣṇīṣasitātapatrā-nāma-aparājitā-mahāpratyaṅgirā (vidyā-rājñī) by Sander–Waldschmidt
1980: 274.
11
For an early use of √gra(b)hi/gṛ(b)hi in this sense cp. the Late Vedic Sāmavidhānabrāhmaṇa, 2, 2, 2, which is about somebody who is possessed by arakṣas: yo rakṣasā gṛhītaḥ syād ... (ed. Sharma 1964: 107,16). Cf. Sutherland 1991:
166ff. for the tradition of “possession by demons” in Old Indic literature.
12
Ca. 13 akṣaras are missing; the last word should be bhidāmi.

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives

87

I smash the possession caused bypretas into pieces.
[kā]lamaṭṭagrāha toṭaṃ bhidāmi I smash the possession caused byakālamṛtyu(s) into pieces.
<**>[n*v*ra]kkusagrāha toṭaṃ I smash the possession caused by??-rakṣasas into pieces.
bhidāmiI smash the possession caused bykummaṇḍagrāha toṭa bhidāmi
kumbhāṇḍas into pieces.
I smash the possession caused bysuvaṇṇagrāha toṭa bhidāmi
suparṇa(s) into pieces.
duṭṭanāgagrāha toṭaṃ bhidāmi I smash the possession caused bywicked nāgas into pieces.
sarvv[a] toṭaṃ bhidāmi
I smash all (of them) into pieces.
s[v]āhaHail!
ili mili khili khili khili khili <****> g[i]li g[*]li [hili hili hi]<li hi>li hili hili hili ||pretagrāha toṭa bhidāmi§2khili bili ili mili khili
s[v]a[h]<a>Hail!
<a>siti sahassa (cai)vaṇa toṭa I smash the 80,000 śravaṇas (?) into
pieces.
bhidāmi[na]vuti sahassa m[ul]<*k*> toṭa I smash the 90,000 mūlikas (?) into
pieces.
bhidāmicāsaṭṭhi sahassa [cu]taka[r]mma I smash the 66,000 cyuta-karmas (?)
into pieces.
toṭaṃ bhidāmi
sa[va] sa[has]sa bhumikam[pa] I smash the 100,000 earth-quakes
into pieces.
toṭa bhidāmi ||savv[a] toṭa bhidāmi
I smash all (of them) into pieces.
§3[a]ṭṭika [to]ṭaṃ bhidāmi[abhāra] toṭa[ṃ] bhidāmi
gila toṭa bhidāmi

I smash the ārthikas (?) into pieces.
I smash ??? into pieces.
I smash the (poison) swallowed (?)
into pieces.
I smash (other) poison (?) into pieces.
[vica] [to]<ṭa bhi>dāmi<**>riḍa toṭaṃ bhidāmi
I smash Garuḍa (?) into pieces.
[cam*]<********> toṭa bhidāmi I smash ??? into pieces.
[v*]<**>ka toṭa bhidāmi
I smash ??? into pieces.

88

Jost Gippertdaḍaka toṭa [bhi]dāmi
h[a][**ra] toṭaṃ bhi[dā]mitas[ya grā]ha toṭaṃ bhidāmi
va[cca]va[smā]ragr[ā]ha toṭa[bhi]dā[m]iv[athe] toṭaṃ bhidāmi[bhate] toṭaṃ [bhi]dā[mi][yuñjana] toṭa [bhi]dāmisa[r]vva toṭaṃ bhidāmi [||]

I smash the (punishment by the)stick into pieces.
I smash ??? into pieces.
I smash the possession caused by it(?) into pieces.
I smash the possession caused by
vañca-apasmāras (?) into pieces.
I smash ??? into pieces.
I smash ??? into pieces.
I smash ??? into pieces.
I smash all (of them) into pieces.

§4b*]<**>[m]i [bi]māmi
I ???, I destroy (?);
[toṭāya] <t*>[ccha]smash into pieces, into pieces (?),
to[ṭā]ya [daraya]smash into pieces, destroy (?),
l[ā]hisatv[a]<**>???
[**** hala *o****]<******>[dha]ma [dhama dha]ma dhama dha<**><...>13<******m* pata> [p*]ta [hā]ta vat[a][v*<...>13<******v*> [||]
jala jala jala jala jala ja<...>13<**** l*> [pa]la pala [pala pa]la pala ||13

maha <...> <**>
[maha la****la]ma ka[ro]mimahak[u]ti <...>13<**>[sava chidi bhi]di [*i]svaha ||

§5???
I make ???.
???
cut (and) smash all (of them),
Hail!

Of the five paragraphs thus divided by the insertion of bīja formulasand by the usage of double daṇḍas at their ends, it is the first one whichfinds the most striking parallel both in its contents and its wording in the
STDh., viz. in the several enumerations of “possessor” demons andevil circumstances appearing in the mantra portions as well as otherpassages of this wide-spread text. The formulas used here are quite
different, though. Taking the better preserved Chinese and Tibetan
versions to support the fragmentary Sanskrit tradition, we can estab13

Ca. 12 akṣaras are missing.

89

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldiveslish the underlying text of the most consistent enumeration in thefollowing way (correspondences with the Landhoo inscription aremarked in bold characters):14
Reconstructed
text of STDh.

BSToṃ svastir[oṃ] svastirbhavatu mama bhavatu mama

KhA

KhB

àum
auma
svasta(ka)rasvasta(ka)rabhavaṃtu
bavattu mama[ma]mamasīdyākaracasya

itthaną̄masya

T no. 944

T1

Items

oṃ svastirbhavatu mama99

Oṃ! Salvation bemine,(So-and-So's,)rāja-bhayāt[rā]jabhay[ā]t1

rāja-bayā

rājabhayāt

rājabhay(āt)

100from the danger of
the king('s wrath)cora-bhayātcaurabhayāt

5cāra-bayācaurabhayāt

corabhay(āt)

101from the danger ofthieves,agni-bhayātagnibhayāt

6agna-bayāagnibha(yā)tagnibhay(āt)

102 of fire,udaka-bhayāt udakabhayāt

7udhaka-bayā udakabhayātudakabhay(āt)

103 of water,viṣa-bhayātviṣabhayāt

2vaṣa-bayāviṣabhayātviṣabhay(āt)

104 of poison,śatru-bhayāt

trubhayātśastra-bhayāt śastrabhayāt

3śastra-bayāśastrabhayātśastrabhay(āt)

105 of weapons,paracakrabhayāt

paracakrabhayāt

4paracakrrabayāparicakrrabhayāt

paracakrabhay(āt)

107

durbhikṣabhayāt

durbhikṣabhayāt

8dūrbaikṣabayā

durbhiksabhayāt

durbhikṣabhay(āt)

108 of famines,

ari-bhayāt

aribhayāt

9śatrubhayāt

14

106 of enemies,śastra-bayā

of armies ofenemies,

109 of foes,

The three Sanskrit manuscripts in question are fragments from Turfan andKhotan. The passage here quoted comprises no. 631 m4 to q3 (p. 278f.) in Sander–
Waldschmidt 1980: 278f. (BST), and p. 362, l. 48-56 (“KhA”) and p. 370, l. 62 –p. 371, l. 73 (“KhB”) in Bailey 1963. The Chinese transcript, by Amoghavajra, iscontained in the Taishō canon (hereafter quoted from CBETA 2002) as no. 944(vol. 19, p. 101a, l. 13-27; a similar text will be found in no. 945, vol. 19, p. 135a,l. 16 – p. 135b, l. 4). Parts of this passage are contained in the fragments of the
Uyghur version of the STDh. published by Müller (1911: 64 [T III M 182]). Four
Tibetan versions have now been edited in extenso by Porció 2000. In the following
quotations, Porciós numbers established for the items of the main Tibetan text,
T1, will be used as a convenient system of reference to individual text passages;
the passage in question here extends from 99 to 159 (deviations from the order
given there are indicated by superscript numbers introducing the respective text
passages; text duplications are indicated by curly brackets). Other enumerationsof the given type are found in T1 under nos. 259-274 (≈ Taishō no. 944: vol. 19, p.
102a, l. 28 – p. 102b, l. 13 / no. 945: p. 136b, l. 1-10) and, in a mantra passage transcribed in the Tibetan text, under nos. 227-236 (cf. below). Cf. Porció 2000: xxviiiff.
for a thorough analysis of the different lists appearing in the Tibetan texts.

90
Reconstructed
text of STDh.

Jost Gippert
BST

KhA

KhB

T no. 944

T1

Items

aśani-bhayātaśanibhayāt

10aśūca-bayā aśunabhayātaśanibhay(āt)

110 of thunderbolts,akālamṛtyubhayāt

akālamṛtyubhayā[t]akālamrrettya- akālamṛtyubayābhayātakālamṛtyubhay(āt)

111 of untimely death,dhāraṇī(-bhū(dhā)[ra]ṇīmi)-kampakampabhayāt
bhayātdaraṇi būmai- dharaṇībhudhāraṇībhūmika<ṃ>paulka- mekaṃpaulkā112 of earth-quakes
kampabhay(āt)
pā[pa]tta-bayā pātabhayātulkapātabhayātulkapātabha[yā]trājadaṇḍabhayāt[rā]ja[da]ṇḍabhayāt

nāga-bhayāt[nāga]bhay[ā]t nāgabayārāja-dhaṇḍibayāvidyud-bhayāt vidyudbhayā[t] vaidya-bayāulkapātabhay(āt)

113 of meteors falling,rājadaṇḍabhay(āt)

114

nāgabhayāt

nāgabhay(āt)

116 of snakes,

vidyubhayāt

vidyudbhay(āt) 117 of lightnings,

rajadąṇḍabhayātyakṣa-bhayāt ya[kṣa]bhayāttaptavālukabhayātof punishment (by)the king's stick,of yakṣas,taptavāku[ka]bhayāt

118 of hot sand,suvarṇa(-paksvarṇapakṣa- suvarṇapaksa- 16suparṇisuvarṇibha[yā]tṣa)-bhayātbhay(āt)bayā
bhayātof garuḍa (the119 golden wingedone),vyāḍacaṇḍamṛga-bhayāt

115vyāṇḍa-caṇḍa- vyāṇḍa-cąṇmaga-bayāḍamṛgabhayāt

of malicious andcruel animals,(sarva-)ītisarve[t]yupaupadrava-upa- dravopasargasarga-bhayāt bha(y)[ā]tof calamity,
120accidents and122
troubles,graha-bhayāt gṛhābhayāt

124(and) ofpossessions:125

possession (causedby) devas,deva-grahāt[de]vagrahātdeva-grahādevagrahātnāga-grahātnāga-grrahānāgagrahāt

126 nāgas,asura-grahātasuragrahāasuragrahāt

130 asuras,garuḍa-grahātgarūṇḍagrahāgarūḍagrahāt

gandharvagrahātgadharvagrahā

gaddharvagrahātkinnara-grahāt kinnaragrahātkainara-grahā kinaragrahāt

133 kinnaras,mahoragagrahātmahaurgagrahāmahą̄rgagrahāt

134 mahoragas,

yakṣa-grahātyakṣa-grahāyaksagrahātrākṣasagrahātrākṣa(sa)grahāt{garuḍagrahātgadarvagrahāt 18rākṣasarākṣasagrahākinaragrahāt grah(āt)
mahaurgagrahāt rāksasagrahāt}

22garuḍagrah(āt)

131 garuḍa,129 gandharvas,

17yakṣagrah(āt) 127 yakṣas,128 rākṣasas,

91

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives
Reconstructed
text of STDh.

BST

KhA

KhB

T no. 944

T1

Items

manuṣyagrahātmanu[ṣ](y)āgrahāt

135

human(-looking)[demons],

amanuṣyagrahātamanuṣyāgra[hāt]136non-human(-looking) [demons],māruta-grahāt marūtagrahātpreta-grahātpretagra[h]ā[t]piśāca-grahātp[i]ś(ācag)[r](ahāt)bhūta-grahāt bhū[ta]grahāt
kumbhāṇḍagrahāt

kumbhāṇḍagrahātpūtana-grahāt pūtanagrahātkaṭapūtanagrahātka[ṭ](ap)[ū]tanagrahātskanda-grahāt skandhagrahātapasmāragrahāt
ostārakagrahātbūtta-grahābhutagrahāt21kūbaṇḍagrahā

kumbhaṇḍagrahāt

30
puttanagrahāputanagrahāt

140 kumbhāṇḍas,23

pūtanagrah(āt)

jāmikī-grahātjāmikī[g]r(ahā)[t]141 pūtanas,24kaṭapūtanagrah(āt)

142 kaṭapūtanas,

32
skadhagrahā25
skandagrah(āt)

143 skandas,

utpādagrahāt
unmādagrahāt

35

chāyā-grahā chāyāgrahāt

36austārakagrahā(bad) omens,
27

unmādagrah(āt)
2826vastārakagrahāt

144

insanity (causing
demons),chāyagrah(āt) 145 nightmares,

apasmāragrah(āt)

146 apasmāras,147 ostārakas,ḍākinī-grahāt ḍākini[g]ra(hāt)[re]vatīgrahātbhūtagrah(āt) 137 bhūtas,kaṭaputtana- kaṭaputanagrahā
grahā<t>[a]pasmāragrah 33apasamāragrahāātrevatī-grahāt

139 piśācas,31

unmādagrahāt

ostārakagrahātpretagrah(āt) 138 pretas,20piśācagrah(āt)

udhapādagrahā

chāyā-grahāt chāyāgrahāt19paśāca-grahā piśą̄cagrahāt

34*utpāta-grahāt
unmādagrahāt

132 maruts,prętagrahāt

148 ḍākinīs,
37

raivattīgrahārevatīgrahāt

29

revatīgrah(āt) 150 revatīs,
152a jāmikīs,śakuni-grahāt śa[ku]nigrahāt

153 śakunis,*śamikāgrahāt+++..ṃ.āgra(hā)[t]155 śamikās,ālambhanagrahāt[ā]lambhanagra[hāt]152 ālambhanas,*kaṇṭha+..ṇ.[ka]mi++++kāmini-grahāt

151 kaṇṭha-kāminīs,*kambu+++minigrahātkāmini-grahāt

kambu-kāminīs;

mama svastikarā bhavatu

mama satyākarācasya
svasta(ka)rabavattūmama svasta(ka)ra bhavatu(from them all)salvation be mine(, So-and-so's).

92

Jost Gippert

The diversity of spellings that appear in the manuscripts notwithstanding, it is conceivable from this table that both the elements and theirbasic order are the same, thus indicating that one single prototype ofthe dhāraṇī must once have existed.15 Of course we must admit that
this cannot have been identical with the text of the Landhoo inscription, but the given similarities speak in favour of a common tradition
underlying both texts.
The astonishing fact that for one sort of demons, viz. the bhūtas, theirfemale equivalents, the bhūtīs (spelled bhui), are mentioned separately
in the Landhoo inscription, reminds us of the dhāraṇī chapter (ch. 9)of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra where the same pair occurs two times. Here,however, the female counterparts are named, in a very modern-looking
way, for the complete list of demons, and both their order and the bīja
“verses” carrying the magical spell are far more different from those of
the Landhoo inscription:16
tuṭṭe 2 | vuṭṭe 2 | paṭṭe 2 | kaṭṭe 2 | amale 2 | vimale 2 | nime 2 | hime 2 |vame 2 | kale 2 | kale 2 | aṭṭe maṭṭe | vaṭṭe tuṭṭe | jñeṭṭe spuṭṭe | kaṭṭe 2 |laṭṭe paṭṭe | dime 2 | cale 2 pace pace | bandhe 2 | añce mañce | dutāre 2 |patāre 2 | arkke 2 | sarkke 2 | cakre 2 | dime 2 | hime 2 | ṭu ṭu ṭu ṭu | 4 |ḍu ḍu ḍu ḍu | ru ru ru ru phu phu phu phu | 4 | svāhā ||imāni mahāmate mantrapadāni laṅkāvatāre mahāyānasūtre yaḥ kaścin
mahāmate kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vemāni mantrapadāny udgrahīṣyati
dhārayiṣyati vācayiṣyati paryavāpsyati | na tasya kaścid avatāram lapsyate |“These, Mahāmati, are the magical phrases of the Laṅkāvatāra Mahāyāna Sūtra: If sons and daughters of good family should hold forth, retain,
proclaim, realise these magical phrases, no one should ever be able toeffect his descent upon them.”
devo vā devī vā | nāgo vā nāgī vā | yakṣo vā yakṣī vā | asuro vāsurī vā |garuḍo vā garuḍī vā | kiṃnaro vā kiṃnarī vā | mahorago vā mahoragī vā15Some elements remain doubtful, of course, especially at the end of the list.
Among the bhaya-compounds, the authenticity of yakṣabhaya is questionable. Possibly, this reflects the second element of suvarṇapakṣabhaya; this is what the
Chinese text suggests by jumping from suparṇibhaya directly to yakṣagraha. A
thorough investigation into the text of the STDh. cannot be attempted here.
16
See Laṅkāvatārasūtra ch. 9, ed. Nanjio 1923: 260ff.; tr. Suzuki 1932: 223ff.
The Chinese translations of the Sūtra by Bodhiruci and Śikṣānanda as containedin the Taishō canon (no. 671 and 672, vol. 16, 514-186 and 587-640) each comprisea transcript of the bīja verses (p. 564f. / 624f.), the former also a transcript of thenames of male and female demons (p. 565).

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives93| gandharvo vā gandharvī vā | bhūto vā bhūtī vā | kumbhāṇḍo vā kumbhāṇḍī vā | piśāco vā piśācī vā | ostārako vaustārakī vā | apasmāro vāpasmārī vā | rākṣaso vā rākṣasī vā | ḍāko vā ḍākinī vā | ojohāro vaujohārī
vā | kaṭapūtano vā kaṭapūtanī vā | amanuṣyo vāmanuṣyī vā | sarve
te ’vatāram na lapsyante ...
“Whether it be a god, or a goddess, or a Nāga, or a Nāgī, or a Yaksha, or
a Yakshī, or an Asura, or an Asurī, or a Garuḍa, or a Garuḍī, or a Kinnara, or a Kinnarī, or a Mahoraga, or a Mahoragī, or a Gandharva, or a
Gandharvī, or a Bhūta, or a Bhūtī, or a Kumbhāṇḍa, or a Kumbhāṇḍī, ora Piśāca, or a Piśācī, or an Austāraka, or an Austārakī, or an Apasmāra,or an Apasmārī, or a Rākshasa, or a Rākshasī, or a Dāka, or a Dākinī, oran Aujohāra, or an Aujohārī, or a Kaṭapūtana, or a Kaṭapūtanī, or an
Amanushya, or an Amanushyī, — no one of these will be able to effecthis or her descent ...”
padme padmadeve | hine hini hine | cu cule culu cule | phale phula phule| yule ghule yula yule | ghule ghula ghule | pale pala pale | muñce 3
cchinde bhinde bhañje marde pramarde dinakare svāhā ||imāni mahāmate mantrapadāni yaḥ kaścit kulaputro vā kuladuhitāvodgrahīṣyati dhārayiṣyati vācayiṣyati paryavāpsyati | tasya na kaścid
avatāram lapsyate |“If, Mahāmati, any son or daughter of good family should hold forth,retain, proclaim, and realise these magical phrases, on him or her no[evil beings] should be able to make their descent.”
devo vā devī vā | nāgo vā nāgī vā | yakṣo vā yakṣī vā ... sarve te avatāramna lapsyante | ya imāni mantrapadāni paṭhiṣyati | tena laṅkāvatārasūtram paṭhitam bhaviṣyati |“Whether it be a god, or a goddess, or a Nāga, or a Nāgī, or a Yaksha, or
a Yakshī ... — no one of these will be able to effect his or her descentupon [the holder of these magical phrases]. By him who will recite thesemagic phrases, the [whole] Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra will be recited.”

The special treatment of bhūtīs in the Landhoo inscription may be connected with the fact that of the many names of demons present in it,
only this one seems to have a direct descendant in modern Dhivehi,17viz. in Santi Mariyam̆ bu, the name of a female ghost (devi) “who car-17

The name of the Maldivian language, divehi, simply means “islanders’(language)”, cp. dives akuru mentioned above, n. 5. The usual spelling with dh(“Dhivehi”) indicates not an aspirate (which does not exist in divehi, cf. below) but adental pronunciation (as opposed to d denoting the retroflex ḍ).

94

Jost Gippert

ries a bag full of teeth”.18 It is clear that this consists of the (Christian)name of St. Mary, most probably introduced into the Maldives by thePortuguese invaders in the sixteenth century, in combination with anotherwise unknown element bu that can easily be identified with ourbhui. The usage of the term in the spoken language may then be responsible for its remarkable spelling which seems better to conform to
its presumable Prakrit pronunciation than its male counterpart, bhuta,
with its Sanskrit t preserved.19 Of the other names of demons, preta isrepresented in Modern Dhivehi, too, in the form furēta, “frequently
used as a generic term for a whole group of DHEVI which is considered malevolent”.20 This cannot be a direct descendant of the Sanskrit
name, however, which we would expect to appear as *fē; instead, it
must represent a learned sanskritism, re-introduced into the Maldivian
language in the same way as, e.g., farubada “mountain” (Skt. parvata),
contrasting with the inherited faru “reef” which represents the direct
descendant of the same etymon.
As was stated above, the formula perused in the Landhoo inscription
has not yet been traced in any other Buddhist text. It seems clear in thiscontext that bhidāmi stands for Skt. bhindāmi, the thematic (1st class)
first person sg. present indicative of √bhid which came to replace theolder athematic bhinadmi in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit as well as
many Prakrits. 21 With its meaning “I cleave” (→ Dhivehi binnan “Ipluck”) it fits well in the given context. Furthermore, the same verb
might be concealed in the final phrase of the text, combined with its
quasi-synonym √chid “to split” in a rhyming pair just as in the formula
chinda-bhinda “cut-and-smash” occurring in several other dhāraṇī
texts, 22 including the Laṅkāvatāradhāraṇī mentioned above (p. 92)
18

Cf. Maniku 1988: 37 s.v. SANTHI MARIYABU. For a story on this ghost, cf. Fritz
2002b: 171ff. — Sanskrit yakṣa and yakṣiṇī might be concealed in the Maldivian devinames dakō and dagini (Maniku 1988: 16 s.vv. DHAKOA and DHAGINI); in the latter
case, the g consonant (instead of k; cp. Pali yakkhinī) remains unexplained, though.
19
Cf. below, p. 101, for details on this and other spelling rules.
20
Maniku 1988: 19 s.v. FUREYTHA.
21
The replacement of the original bhinadmi (7th class) must have been basedon analogy after the third person pl. bhindanti; cp. Fritz 2002: 204. For the representation of *-nd- by <d> cf. below.
22
Cp., e.g., the Chinese transcript of the STDh. (vol. 19, p. 101c, l. 8-9) or the“Dhāraṇī of the Great Guardress” contained, also as a transcript from Sanskrit, in the
Chinese canon (no. 1153, vol. 20, p. 620, l. 18 f.) The Vajrayāna statues from
Māle show the same formula; cp. the forthcoming edition.

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives95

where we find cchinde bhinde in the bīja verses, or the list of “harshnesses of speech” in the Vedic Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, kháṭ pháṭ jahí |chindhī́ bhindhī́ handhī́ káṭ | íti vā́caḥ krūrāṇi (4,27,1),23 which exhibits the older (athematic) imperative forms chindhī́ bhindhī́ ; should
these two forms be meant in [chidi bhi]di in the Landhoo inscription(§ 5), too? — The alternative proposal to read nidāmi as representing
Skt. nindāmi “I blame” (√nid) instead of bhidāmi24 has no advantages,
all the more since in most cases, a reading ni° cannot be sustained.
As for toṭa(ṃ) co-occurring with bhidāmi throughout, no such clear solution imposes itself. Of course the word in question cannot be identified
with Dhiv. toʾ ← older toṭu meaning “ford”, 25 a descendant of Skt.
*tūrtha-.26 Instead, it is probable that we have a derivative of the Skt.
root √truṭ here which, with its alleged meaning of “to be torn or split”
or, for its causative troṭayati, “to tear, break asunder”,27 matches thecontext perfectly. In the given syntagm, we might then assume toṭa(ṃ)
to be an absolutive formation, reinforcing the meaning of bhidāmi inthe sense of “smashing into pieces”.28 This view would be supportedby the twofold occurrence of toṭāya in 3:5 if this represents a second per-23

In TA 4,37,1, we find a comparable formula, kháṇ pháṇ mrási. The characteristic syllable pháṭ first occurs in VS 7,3 in a mantra referring to killing, dévāṁśo
yásmai tvéḍe tát sátyam upariprútā bhaṅgéna hatò ’sáu pháṭ “God filament (of theSoma plant), what I ask thee for, (let) that be(come) true; (may) that one, ‘crash’, be
struck”; the mantra is quoted in ŚBM 4,1,1,26 (pháḍ íti) / ŚBK 5,1,1,21 (phál íti),ĀpŚS 12,11,10 and other ritual texts (cp. also KauśS 47,21 with phaḍ ḍhato ’sau and116,7 with phaḍ ḍhatāḥ pipīlikāḥ). Another mantric occurrence is to be found inAV(Ś) 4,18,3 (AVP 5,24,3) which is about the usage of witchcraft to kill somebody
else (yás .. anyáṃ jíghāṁsati “who intends to kill another [person]”). These
attestations clearly show that phaṭ was associated with killing from Vedic times on.
For the use of vācaḥ krūrāṇi, i.e. “harshnesses of speech”, in magical contexts cf.
Hillebrandt 1897: 169f.
24*nidāmi “I sleep” (Skt. ni-drāya-, √drā/drai, → Dhiv. nidan “id.”) must ofcourse be ruled out for semantic reasons.
25
This word constitutes the name of the island toḍḍū (Thoddoo), lit. “ford-island”,← older toṭḍuvu (cf. Fritz 2002: 19).
26
Cf. Turner 1966: 337a (no. 5903) for other Indo-Aryan words presupposing
this basis (instead of regular tīrtha-). In Dhivehi, -tīr- seems to be represented in atiri“beach” (← *saṃtīraka-?) and atoḷu “atoll” (← ateḷu, ← *saṃtīrtha-?), the only
Maldivian word that has spread into Western languages.
27
Monier-Williams 1899: 462a.
28
That the root √truṭ has a late appearance (cf. KEWA I 536 f.), has no bearing on
the present proposal.

96

Jost Gippert

son imperative of the causative of the same verb.29 The exact formationof toṭa(ṃ) remains unclear, however, all the more since the word-final
anusvāra is not written consistently in it:30 Should it reflect an (irregular) ṇamul 31 or the nominative form of the present participle32 of thecausative, quasi *toṭayaṃ, or of the (secondary) full-grade transitive
1st class stem, *toṭa-, present in Pkt. toḍaï = Skt. tróṭati?33
An alternative solution, which would identify to of toṭa(ṃ) with thehomonymous quasi-ablative ending of Sanskrit, might be suggested by
the appearance of a complete list of compounds containing -grahato inanother Sanskrit text of the dhāraṇī type, viz. the Asilomapratisara
which has been preserved in a set of manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan collection. It reads:34*rakṣāṃ karomi
devagrahato | nāgagrahato | asuragrahato |mārutagrahato | garuḍagrahato | gandharvvagrahato | kinnaragrahato | mahoragagrahato | pretagrahato | pūtanagrahato |kumbhāṇḍagrahato | klāṭapūtanagrahato |piśācagrahato | kṛtyakarmaṇa|kakkhordavaitāḍagrahato |29

I provide protection
from possession (caused by) devas,nāgas, asuras, mārutas, garuḍas,gandharvas, kinnaras, mahoragas,
pretas, pūtanas, kumbhāṇḍas,kāṭapūtanas (!), piśācas, (and)kṛtyakarmaṇa-kākhorda-vetāḷas,If the long ā-vowel in the causative suffix is “sprachwirklich” and not just due
to a confusion of long and short vowels that must be presupposed for Insular Prakrit(cf. p. 99 below), it might be explained by an influence of the desideratives in -ā-yadiscussed in Pischel–Jha 1981: 447 (§ 558). For Skt. troṭaya- cf., e.g., the absolutivetroṭayitvā occurring in the Pañcatantra (2,6,218 = ed. Kale 1982: 132,29) with pāśa“snare” as its object.
30
In the first occurrence in 1:4, the dot may as well pertain to the <i> akṣara of
the line above; cp. ili in 1:6 which shows both dots on the base line of the <i>character. Note that the many accusatives to be assumed as objects of bhidāmi show
no anusvāra at all.
31
For the use of the “gerund in am” in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit cf. BHSG
171.
32
Proposal by Chlodwig H. Werba (letter of 30.12.2003).
33
For Pkt. toḍa- cf. Pischel–Jha 1981: 403 (§ 486) with a reference to Hemacandra (Hc. 116). Possibly, the full-grade present stem is attested for Sanskrit too, inthe medial form troṭate occurring, with sarvabhūtāni “all bhūta demons” as its object,in the Turfan ms. SHT 906 containing a magic spell (Waldschmidt 1971: 162 [kV, l.
6]); the form traṭaya immediately following may as well be read *troṭaya as the ms.
is damaged just where the o-vowel mark should be (cf. the facsimile ib., plate 61).
34
SHT 60b = Bl. 6, VI-R3, cf. Sander–Waldschmidt 1980: 273. The text
published under the same name as no. 843 in Waldschmidt 1971: 86-88 does notcontain the list in question.

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives97śīrṣagrahato | hṛdayagrahato | udaragrahato | vastigrahato | skandhagrahato |*bāhugrahato | *ūrugrahato | jaṅghagrahato | pādagrahato |ekīyakato | *dvitīyakato | tṛtīyakato*caturthakato | ++ n(i)tyajvarāto |from possession (affecting) the head,
the heart, the belly, the bladder, theshoulder(s), the forearm(s), thethigh(s), the shank(s), the feet;from fever (recurring) every day, every
two days, every three days, every fourdays, (or) uninterruptedly;nakṣatragrahato | *upadhigrahato |from possession (caused by) (unforalakṣmīgrahato | *vidyāgrahato |tunate?) lunar constellations, bond(s)(?), bad luck, (and) magic(al power);sa[mā]sena *sarvarogam pratiṣedhayami | I prevent all diseases, altogether
tadyathā |(by uttering) the (formula)namo | hāhā | hili | pili | hulu | hulu | hulu |Albeit this enumeration contains many items we have met in the Landhoo inscription,35 it is much less probable that we have the same construction there, too; for in this case, the element ṭa(ṃ) would remain
isolated, and it would be extremely surprising to find a monosyllabic
word beginning with a retroflex consonant here.
For the sequences of bīja syllables (or rather disyllabics) occurring in
the Landhoo inscription, no exact equivalent has yet been detected
either. Most of the individual “words” or pairs of them are found elsewhere in dhāraṇī spells, however. This is true, e.g., of the first two elements, ili mili, which are met with as such in the Āṭānāṭikasūtra, a textthat is explicitly dedicated to the protection against demons.36 In both
the Chinese translation of this sūtra37 and the Tibetan one,38 ili mili are
the leading syllables, followed, among others, by hili, in the mantras
uttered by king Vaiśramaṇa; in the fragmentary Sanskrit text (from35

For the elements of the monstruous compound kṛtyakarmaṇakakkhordavaitāḍagrahato, cp. BHSD 190b s.v. kṛtya (1) and 175a s.v. kākhorda; the function ofkarmaṇa most remain open (supporting kṛtya in a figura etymologica?). The same
term also occurs in the STDh. manuscripts from Khotan: sarva-krratya karmauṇya
khākaurrda-vekīraṇa-vaittāṇḍa-ca[tte]ca-prraśaka-dūṣachara-dadūttarebūttakebyaphaṭa (Bailey 1963: 363,80ff.) and sarva-kṛtyakarvaṇya-(khā)khaurrda-(vi?)-kīraṇavetāḍa-ci(ca)-prriṣaka-duṣichara-daradura-bhutakebya phaṭ\ (op.cit., p. 372, 104ff.).
– For the lists of “possessed” body parts and fevers, cp. the STDh., nos. 285-293 and276-278. *upadhigrahato stands for uparigrahato of the published text.
36
Cf. Hoffmann 1939: 5-6 for its contents. – My thanks are due to D. Maue whodrew my attention to this sūtra.
37
Taishō no. 1245; vol. 21, p. 217, l. 23.
38
Hoffmann 1939: 54.

98

Jost Gippert

Turfan), only [mi]le is preserved.39 A sequence of ili, mili, cili, kili occurs two times, first in a wordwise combination with ratna (ili-ratna itietc.) in a four-verse stanza, then repeated as a plain sequence of utterances (oṃ ili etc.), within ch. 21 of the Sarva-Tathāgata-TattvaSaṃgraha, 40 and so forth. 41 Of the other bīja syllables used in theLandhoo inscription, khili is comparible with khile occurring, alongwith bidukhile and kakhile, in the Turfan ms. SHT 90642 where we alsofind dama and vidhama contrasting with dhama in the Landhoo text.43
jala in the latter might be identified with jvala appearing several times
in the Sitātapatrā-Dhāraṇī, etc.44
The attempt to cross-verify the bīja formulas, meaningless as they seemto be at first glance, in various texts of the dhāraṇī type is justified by
the fact that their occurrence within a given text may be an indicationof its age. Thus, it is important that the oldest Chinese translation of
the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (by Guṇabhadra), of 443 A.D., does not yet
contain the dhāraṇī chapter (ch. 9) and the metric Sagāthakam (ch. 10)
closing the Sūtra in the Sanskrit text.45 A similar divergence between
39

Hoffmann 1939: 55 (ms. [K] 531,16 V); the Pali version of the sūtra containedin the Dīghanikāya has no equivalent passage (ib.). Double hili is met with as theleading part of another bīja sequence later on in the text, preserved even in the
Sanskrit fragments (Hoffmann 1939: 75: 524,[6]).
40
Yamada 1981: 421. The Chinese version of text (which is also called Vajraśekhara-Sūtra) by Dānapāla (ca. A.D. 1012-1015) gives an exact transcript of theformula (Taishō no. 882, vol. 18, p. 420a, l. 25 ff.).
41
In a mantra of the Ekādaśamukha (Dutt 1984: 39,11-13), we have ili mili in aformula introduced by dhara dhara dhiri dhiri dhuru dhuru; a Chinese transcript of
this will be found in the Taishō canon in no. 1069 (vol. 20, p. 104c, l. 10-15; cf. Lin
1999: 314). A sequence [mili mili] is assumed for the Turfan ms. 960 (eV6; cf.
Waldschmidt 1971: 160), leading a bīja sequence as well (introduced by the usual
tadyathā). Within the texts of the Chinese canon, we find ili mili also in Amoghavajra’s transcript of the Mahāmāyūrī-Vidyārājñī (Taishō no. 982: vol. 19, p. 416,
l. 10f.); and the Chinese “Dhāraṇī of the Great Guardress” (no. 1153) has, among
others, the sequence hili mili kili cili sili (vol. 20, p. 634a, l. 4).
42
Cp. also Fatian’s version of the Śravanasyaputranaḍagupilāya-Kalparāja(Taishō no. 1288) which has khili khili and also hili hili mili mili (vol. 21, 364b, l. 20/ 365b, l. 28).
43
Cf. Waldschmidt 1971: 162 (906 kV 1-4).
44
Cp. also jvale occurring in one bīja formula in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra(cf. n. 46 below). jvala might well represent a second person sg. imperative meaning“burn!, shine!”, and dhama, a corresponding imperative of √dhami “to blow”, as
proposed by Meisezahl (1962: 269). A thorough investigation of bīja “words” andtheir presumptive linguistic background would be an interesting task.
45
Cf. Suzuki 1932: xliif.

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives99

an older, shorter version and a later, extended one is assumed for the
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra where the chapter containing bīja formulas(ch. 21) is regarded to pertain to a secondary extension comprising
chapters 21 to 26; 46 however, all of these formulas are included, astranscripts, in the Chinese version of A.D. 601 (by Kumārajīva) as
contained in the Taishō canon,47 which gives us a terminus ante quem
for their emergence. All in all, it seems conceivable that the extended
production of dhāraṇīs of the given type was a feature of the sixth
century of our era.
Many other words occurring in the Landhoo inscription require further
comments. Generally speaking, the text exhibits several traits that musthave been characteristic for the Middle Indic stage leading to what hascome down to us as written Dhivehi.48 This holds true, e.g., for the
distribution of long and short vowels which seems rather unexpectedfrom the Sanskrit point of view: There are no long ā vowels in pisaccha = Skt. piśāca- or kummaṇḍa = Skt. kumbhāṇḍa-, but lots of occurrences of long ā in the compound member grāha which must represent
Skt. graha- “possession” as is clear from the many parallels found in
the dhāraṇī texts. 49 The “irregular” seeming spelling will in thesecases be due to the fact that in the Insular Prakrit developing into theMaldivian language, the distinction of long and short vowels musthave been given up very early, just as in Sinhalese Prakrit; additionally,h in intervocalic position must have tended to get lost as well, leading
to new long vowels by contraction. Thus, e.g., Skt. mahā “big” developed into Maldivian mā and is attested in this form many times in the46

Cf. Vaidya 1960: VIII. The formulas in ch. 21 are: anye manye mane mamane
citte carite same samitā viśānte mukte muktatame same aviṣame samasame jayekṣaye akṣaye ... amanyanatāya svāha (ed. Vaidya 1960: 233,17ff.); jvale mahājvale
ukke tukke mukke aḍe aḍāvati tṛtye nṛtyāvati iṭṭini viṭṭini ciṭṭini nṛtyani nṛtyāvati
svāha (234,3-4); aṭṭe taṭṭe naṭṭe navaṭṭe anaḍe nāḍi kunāḍi svāha (234,10); agaṇe
gaṇe gauri gandhāri caṇḍāli tātaṅgi pukkasi saṃkule brūsali sisis svāha (234,19); iti
me iti me iti me iti me iti me | nime nime nime nime nime | ruhe ruhe ruhe ruhe ruhe |
stuhe stuhe stuhe stuhe stuhe svāha (235,1f.).
47
No. 262: vol. 9, p. 58b, l. 19 ff.; 58c, 14 ff.; 59a, 10 ff.; 18 ff.; 59b, 1 ff.
48
For general observations as to the prehistory of Dhivehi in general and thesound changes involved in particular, cf. Fritz-Gippert 2000, Fritz 2002: 17-52, andGippert 2005.
49
It is true that a long grade derivative grāha also existed in Old Indic, but thisseems rather to have been used as an agent noun, denoting “grasping” animals suchas crocodiles; cf. the detailed descriptions of both terms in PW II 850ff. and 862f.

100

Jost Gippert

twelfth century copper plate grants. 50 grāha may then represent a
hyper-sanskritization, based on a contemporary pronunciation of*graha as *[grā].51 Accordingly, we find no indication of long <ū> inbhuta- = Skt. bhūta- or <ī> in asiti = Skt. aśīti- “80”.
The latter word reveals yet another characteristic feature of the Prakritprestage of Dhivehi, viz. the total merger of all three sibilants plus thevoiceless palatals into just one /s/ sound (cp. Dhiv. āhi “80” whichshows the later development of /-s-/ into a new /-h-/52). Although thiseffect is mostly concealed by the writing (which can thus be styled“traditional”), there are some other cases which prove that this stage
had already been reached at the time of the inscription. This is true,e.g., for cāsaṭṭhi “66” which represents Skt. ṣaṭṣaṣṭi- in a similar way
as Pali chasaṭṭhi- does.53 The spelling of a geminate cch in pisaccha
must then reflect another type of hypersanskritization.
A comparable oscillation between a traditional, “sanskritizing” spelling and an exact graphical representation of what was pronounced canbe seen in the rendering of consonant clusters. Thus, e.g., kummaṇḍa
exhibits both the assimilation of mbh → mm and the preservation of ṇḍ(instead of ṇṇ).54 If the frequent bhidāmi stands for *bhindāmi as pro-50

Cp., e.g., mārasun “great-king” ≈ mahā-rājan- in the Isdhoo Lōmāfanu (“L2”,pl. 1, l. 1; pl. 22, l. 2 etc.; ed. Maniku–Wijayawardhana 1986 1/22). The name of
the Maldives, in its turn derived from the name of the capital island, māle (thus, e.g.
L2, pl. 2, l. 5), must contain this element, too, given that it contrasts with that of theneighbouring island, huḷule (the present-day airport Hulhule) < suḷule (thus L2,
pl. 10, l. 5; op.cit., p. 10: <sulhile>), which contains huḷu < suḷu < Pkt. *c(h)uḷḷa
< Skt. kṣudra- “small” (as against Dhiv. kuḍa / kudu “id.” < Pkt. *khuḍḍa / khudda< Skt. kṣudra-, for which cf. Fritz 2002: 163; cp. Pāli culla and cūḷa besides
khudda). Both names most probably represent karmadhāraya-compounds with *lē< Skt. loka (or, rather, loc. loke, cp. Pkt. loe mentioned in Pischel–Jha 1981: 164[§187] and 297 [§366a]; cp. Dhiv. lē “blood” < Skt. lohita), i.e., *mahāloka/e and*kṣudraloka/e.
51
In an even more striking way, the prohibitive particle Skt. mā seems to be
represented by hyper-sanskritizing mahā in the Vajrayāna statue inscriptions; cf. part
II of this series (forthcoming).
52
With unexplained initial ā-; cf. Fritz 2002: 117.
53
For the unexpected long vowel cp. Sindhī chāhaṭhi (cf. Berger 1992: 266).
54
Presupposing BHS kumbhāṇḍa- as its source. It does not matter in this context
whether or not this reflects the older word kūṣmāṇḍa- (cf. EWA I 387 s.v. kūśmāṇḍa)as a secondary re-sanskritization of Pkt. kummaṇḍa- or the like as it is thepreservation of the ṇḍ cluster which is crucial here.

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives101

posed above (p. ), its <d> must represent an intermediary stage leading
to the Dhiv. geminate nasal in Dhiv. binnan “I pluck”.55
Another typical feature of the Prakrit stage in question must have been
the loss of aspiration as a distinctive feature of stops and affricates.
Although our text is quite consistent in preserving the older (Sanskrit)
spelling conventions, there are at least some indications that confusion
had arisen; cp., e.g., Skt. ṣṭ substituted by ṭṭ in duṭṭa- (← duṣṭa- “bad”,
1:5) but by ṭṭh in cāsaṭṭhi “66”. The unexpected cch in pisaccha may
also be mentioned in this context, as may rakkusa (1:4) with its -kk- (instead of “usual” *kkh as in Pkt. rakkhasa)56 if this represents rākṣasa-.
The treatment of intervocalic stops is inconsistent as well. In the pair of(male) bhūta- and (female) bhūtī-demons represented by bhuta and bhuï,resp. (1:2-3), we see the traditional spelling (with -t- preserved) and the“phonetic” spelling (with *t omitted) side by side (cf. p. 92 above). Ina similar way, apasmāra, denoting the demon of “forgetting”, becomesvasmāra (1:2), with its -p- “lenited” to -v- which must have occurred
when the word-initial a- was still there, while kālamaṭṭa ← akālamṛtyushows no such change in its k (albeit the condition would be quite thesame).57 -p- → -v- can also be seen in suvaṇṇa which represents thecommon Prakrit development of Garuḍa’s epithet suparṇa-.58
A special problem is implied in aṭṭika which we read in 2:5. Generally
speaking, its geminate ṭṭ can be derived from various sources, among
them an older retroflex consonant cluster ṣṭ as in duṭṭa- ← duṣṭa- (1:5).
On the other hand, there is good evidence that the retroflex geminate
may also have resulted from a former sequence of /r/ plus dental /t/;this is clearly the case with kālamaṭṭa representing akālamṛtyu-, thedemon of “untimely death”. If we further consider that the rendering ofolder aspirates is inconsistent, esp. in clusters, we arrive at *arthika- or
the like as a possible Skt. source of the word; in the same way, the55

Besides binnan, Modern Dhivehi has a verb bindan “I break” (used in connection with long objects; information kindly provided by Mrs Naseema Mohamed,e-mail of 17.6.2003) which must represent a causative stem formation *bind-va-,quasi < *bhinda-paya-.
56
Cf. Pischel–Jha 1981: 260 (§ 320) for a list of attestations.
57
The loss of short vowels in word-initial open syllables must have occurred
early in the prehistory of Dhivehi; it is nevertheless astonishing that cases likeakālamṛtyu- were affected by this rule even though their initial vowel was functionally loaded (alpha privativum).
58
Cf. BHSG 602b s.v. suvarṇa.

102

Jost Gippert

Dhivehi dative ending -aʾ ← older aṭa represents Skt. arthāya “for thesake of”.59 In the given context, it is clear that we must expect a negative connotation of arthika- whose meaning is usually noted as “desireful, wanting”; possibly, it stands for “enemy, adversary” here which isnormally expressed by its compound, pratyarthika-.60
Similar problems are implied with the objects addressed, with highnumbers quantifying them,61 in § 2 of the inscription. Of the four terms
in question, only the last one, bhumikampa, can be identified with certainty, as representing Skt. bhūmikampa “earth-quake” which also appears in the STDh. lists of threatening evils.62 For caivaṇa (2:2-3), nosuch solution can be offered before-hand. It would be tempting to see
Skt. cyavana here, which with its primary meaning of “moving, shaking” became the name of a “demon causing diseases”.63 Given the shiftof meaning the root √cyu underwent in Buddhist (and Jainist) Hybrid
Sanskrit where it denotes “dying” in the sense of “to fall down fromany divine existence (so as to be re-born as a man)”64 rather than neutral “moving”, cyavana might also be understood as a denotation of“death” here, all the more since the term cutakarmma following in thesame passage is likely to contain the same root, as a Bahuvrīhi compound *cyuta-karma meaning something like “one whose karma has
fallen”. Nevertheless, the problem remains that the first syllable of theword in question seems to show an ai diphthong, which cannot be
explained on the basis of cyavana-, and the same holds true for the
retroflex nasal -ṇ- contained in it.
59

Cf. Fritz 2002: I/57f. for details.
Cf. BHSD 376a for the pair arthika-pratyarthika. *sarvapratyarthikebhyaḥ iscontained in a mantra passage of the Tibetan version of STDh. (T1, no. 229; Porció
2000: 18).
61
In the given constellation, navuti must stand for Skt. navati “90” (→ Dhiv.
navai; cf. Fritz 2002: 117), not nayuta, the BHS equivalent of older niyuta denoting
a much higher number (BHSD 291a s.v. nayuta gives “100,000,000,000”; MonierWilliams 1899: 552b s.v. ni-√2.yu notes “generally a million” for niyuta), because
90,000 fits well in the given sequence of 80,000, 66,000, and 100,000. Note that
the STDh. speaks of a number of 84,000 grahas to be annihilated by the goddess“with the white parasol” (caturaśītīnāṃ grahasahasrāṇāṃ vidhvaṃsanakarī: Turfan
ms. SHT 631, f1, Sander–Waldschmidt 1980: 276; KhA l. 31, Bailey 1963: 361;
KhB l. 39, ib., p. 369).
62
Note the use of dhāraṇī in the sense of “earth” instead of or in composition
with bhūmi in the STDh. versions.
63
Pāraskara-Gṛhyasūtra 1,16,23; cf. Monier-Williams 1899: 403b.
64
Monier-Williams 1899: 403b s.v. 2. cyu.; BHSD 234b s.v. cyavati.
60

103

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives

Another solution of the problem is suggested by the STDh. In one of
the mantra passages of the text, the enumeration of demons and evil
enemies contains, among others, several terms that are related to magic
and witchcraft. One of them is śramaṇa or śravaṇa,65 which normallymeans simply “monk” and which might also be concealed behind the<caivaṇa> of the Landhoo inscription:66
Reconstructed
text of STDh.

KhA

KhB

T944

T1

Items

sarva-devebhyaḥ sarvadevebya
phaṭ
phaṭa

232-1
sarvadevebhya 1sarvasarba debephaṭ
devebhyaḥ phaṭ bhyaḥ phaṭsarvasarva-nāgebyanāgebhyaḥ phaṭ phaṭa

2
sarvasarva-nāgenāgebhya phaṭ bhya(ḥ) phaṭ232-2
sarba nāgenāgas,bhyaḥ phaṭ7
sarva-asurebhya(ḥ) phaṭ230-8sarba asureasuras,bhyaḥ phaṭsarva-asurebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-aysuraibya sarva-asurephaṭa
bhya phaṭ

*sarva-mātṛgaṇ- sarva-māttraibya sarvamaṃtratebhya phaṭ
ebhyaḥ phaṭ (?) phaṭa
sarva-garuḍebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-garūṇḍaibya phaṭa

Crash to all(kinds of) devas,mātṛgaṇas (?),

sarva-garruḍe- 5sarva-garuḍebhya phaṭbhya(ḥ) phaṭ230-9
sarba garuḍebhyaḥ phaṭgaruḍas,232-5

sarba gansarva-gandhar- sarva-gadharvai- sarva-gandha- 6sarva-gandhardharbebhyaḥ
vebhyaḥ phaṭbya phaṭa
rvebhya phaṭ vebhya(ḥ) phaṭphaṭ

gandharvas

8
sarva-kinnare- 232-6sarba kinnakinnaras,bhya(ḥ) phaṭrebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-kinnarebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-kainarebya sarva-kiṃnaphaṭa
rebhya phaṭsarva-mahoragebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-mahārage- sarva-mahą̃r- 9sarva-mahora- 230-10sarba mahomahoragas,
bya phaṭa
gebhya phaṭ gebhya(ḥ) phaṭ ragebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-yakṣebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-yakṣebya
[x] phaṭa

sarva-rākṣasebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-rākṣasebya rāksasebhya
phaṭa
phaṭ

sarva-pretebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-prrattebya
phaṭasarva-pretebhya phaṭ232-7
sarba pretepretas,bhyaḥ phaṭsarva-piśācebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-paśācebya
phaṭasarva-pīśą̃ce- 11sarva-piśācebhya phaṭbhya(ḥ) phaṭ231-4

sarvabhūtebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-yakṣebhya phaṭsarva-bhutebhya phaṭ3

sarva-yakṣebhya(ḥ) phaṭ232-3

sarba yakṣeyakṣas,bhyaḥ phaṭ4sarva-rākṣase- 232-4sarba rākṣarākṣasas,bhya(ḥ) phaṭsebhyaḥ phaṭ10

sarva-bhūtebhya(ḥ) phaṭsarba pisātspiśācas,ebhyaḥ phaṭ232-8
sarba bhūtebhūtas,bhyaḥ phaṭ233-1 (/ 231-5)
sarba
sarva-kumbhāṇ- sarva-kūbaṇḍebya sarva-kumbha- 12sarva-kumbhākumbhāṇḍephaṭa
ḍebhya phaṭ ṇḍebhya(ḥ) phaṭḍebhyaḥ phaṭbhyaḥ phaṭ65

kumbhāṇḍas,The graphical inconsistency is well known “even in Skt.”, cf. BHSD 534b.
The passage in question is contained in the two Sanskrit manuscripts from
Khotan (KhA: Bailey 1963: 363,72ff.; KhB: p. 372,95ff.) and, as transcripts, in the
Chinese version in Taishō no. 944 (vol. 19, p. 101c, l. 10) and in no. 226ff. of the
Tibetan text (Porció 2000: 18). Only the most essential part will be given here.
66

104
Reconstructed
text of STDh.

sarva-pūtanebhyaḥ phaṭJost Gippert
KhA

KhB

T944

sarva-puttanebyaphaṭa {sarvautpādebya phaṭa sarva-putane- 13sarva-pūtanebhya(ḥ) phaṭsarva-chāyebya bhya phaṭphaṭa sarva-skadhebya phaṭa}

T1

Items

233-2

sarba pūtanepūtanas,bhyaḥ phaṭsarva-kaṭapūta- sarva-kaṭaputtanebhyaḥ phaṭnebya phaṭa

233-3
sarba kaʿṭasarva-kaṭapu- 14sarva-kaṭapūtakaṭapūtanas,
pūtanebhyaḥ
tanebhya phaṭ nebhya(ḥ) phaṭphaṭsarva-skandebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-skąndhebhya phaṭsarba skandebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-mārutebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-marutebhya phaṭ231-3
sarba mārumaruts,
tebhyaḥ phaṭ233-4

skandas,sarva-utpādebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-utpādebya
phaṭasarva-utpādebhya phaṭ233-5 (/ 229-6)
sarbonbad omens,mādabhyaḥ phaṭsarva-chāyebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-chāyebyaphaṭasarva-chāyebhya phaṭ229-7

sarba tstshanightmares,
yebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-apasmā- sarva-apasamārebhyaḥ phaṭrebya phaṭa

sarva-apasmā- 18sarva-apasmā- 227-12sarba apasapasmāras,rebhya phaṭrebhya(ḥ) phaṭ mārebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-austārasarva-ostārake- kebya phaṭa
bhyaḥ phaṭsarva-austārakebya phaṭa

sarva-āstārakebhya phaṭsarva-durlaṅghitebhyaḥ
phaṭ

15
227-1
sarva-dursarba dursarva-duralaṃghatebhya laṅghitebhya(ḥ) laṃghitebhyaḥ
phaṭ
phaṭ
phaṭ

sarva-dūralagattebya phaṭa

227-13sarba ostāostārakas,
rakebhyaḥ phaṭhostile magic,

sarva-duṣprekṣ- sarva-dūṣprrasarva-dupsrak- 16sarva-duṣpre- 227-10sarba dupreevil eye,itebhyaḥ phaṭkṣaittaibya phaṭa ṣatebhya phaṭ kṣitebhya(ḥ) phaṭ kṣitebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-jvarebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-jurebya
phaṭasarva-jvarebhya phaṭ17
sarva-jvarebhya(ḥ) phaṭ227-11sarba dzwafever,rebhyaḥ phaṭ...
sarva-tīrthikebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-ttarukebya sarva-tīrthake- 20sarva-tīrthiphaṭa
bhya phaṭ
kebhya(ḥ) phaṭsarva-unmādebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-udmādebhya phaṭ21
sarva-unmādebhya(ḥ) phaṭ229-5

sarba tīrthiheretics,
kebhyaḥ phaṭ229-6

sarbonmādebhyaḥ phaṭinsanity-causing
demons,sarva-śramaṇe- sarva-śramaṇebya sarva-śrama- 19sarva-śramaṇe- 229-3sarba ʿshraʿmonks,phaṭaṇebhya phaṭ bhya(ḥ) phaṭbhyaḥ phaṭmaṇebhyaḥ phaṭsarva-vidyāsarva-vidyādha- sarva-vaidyādhadharebhya
rebhyaḥ phaṭrebya phaṭa
phat

22

sarva-vidyādharebhya(ḥ)
phaṭ

229-8

sarba bidyāmagicians ...
dharebhyaḥ phaṭIt will be clear from this list that śramaṇa must be understood with apejorative meaning here, similar to tīrthika “heretic” occurring in thesame context. This assumption is supported by a passage immediately
preceding, which is about the destruction of magic caused by a nagna-

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives105śramaṇa, thus indicating that a special group of ‘naked’ monks wasenvisaged here. Of the Sanskrit manuscripts, only KhB has thispassage;67 it reads <nagna-śravaṇa-kṛtāṃ vidyāṃ cchidayąm
̃ e kīlayąm
̃ e>,i.e., nagna-śramaṇa-kṛtāṃ vidyāṃ chidayāmi kīlayāmi “I cut off andnail down the magic performed by a ‘naked monk’”.68 In a similar way,other terms denoting “heretics” obviously refer to magicians in thesame formula; this is true, e.g., for parivrājakas, i.e., “wandering
ascetics”, and arhats, i.e. “followers of Jaina doctrines”.69
A similar solution might then be sought for mulaka or the like we read in
2:3 in the Landhoo inscription. Of the word forms that may be seen here,
the feminine mūlikā might well fit with the meaning “root used in magic”
attested for it in the Pañcatantra and elsewhere.70 On the other hand, this
could be one more term denoting a special group of (heretic) monks, viz.
mūlikas, i.e., people “living on roots (as an ascetic practice)”.71
For two further terms of the Landhoo inscription, the STDh. may givea decisive hint again as to their understanding, viz. gila and vica (2:6).
If the latter word stands for Skt. viṣa “poison”, gila may be identified
with gira which we find combined with viṣa in the compound viṣayoga-gira-khākhordaṃ in the STDh.72 Taking gira and gila as equivalent derivatives of √gṝ “to swallow”,73 we arrive at “poisonous drink”
as a possible interpretation for them.
67

Lines 88-89 (Bailey 1963: 371); cp. no. 214 in the Tibetan version T1 (Porció
2000: 16). The Chinese transcripts (no. 944 and 945) confirm the reading (vol. 19,
p. 101b, l. 21 f.; p. 140b, l. 21 f.).
68
The Tibetan text of T1 adds a corresponding formula where the śramaṇa is“shaved-headed” (no. 220; Porció 2000: 115).
69
Cf. Porció (2000: 112, n. 232 and 114, n. 225). The passages in question are inlines 61 and 68 of KhA and lines 80 and 89 of KhB (Bailey 1963: 362 / 371); they
are also contained in the Chinese versions (no. 944: vol. 19, p. 101b, l. 5f. and l. 23f.;
no. 945: vol. 19, p. 140b, l. 4f. and l. 23f.) and in nos. 191 and 215 of the Tibetan
version T1.
70
Monier-Williams 1899: 827a s.v. mūlaka.
71
Monier-Williams 1899: 827a s.v. mūlika; BHSD, 437a.
72vaṣa yāga gaura khākhaurrda KhA, l. 103; viṣa yauga gira khākhaurrdaṃ
KhB, l. 134 (Bailey 1963: 365/373). The Tibetan text T1 has, besides the corresponding phrase (no. 313-315), a similar quotation in a mantra passage (no. 228:
sarba garebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarba biṣebhyaḥ phaṭ | sarba yogebhyaḥ phaṭ; Porció 2000:
18); the Chinese transcripts (no. 944, vol. 19, p. 102b, l. 28 and no. 945, vol.19,
p. 141b, l. 3) seem to have only viṣayoga. As against Porció (2000: 123, n. 339), theevidence for gara is not better than for gira.
73
For the development of the l cf. Werba 1997: 283f.

106

Jost Gippert

The question remains what the purpose of the Landhoo monument
might have been. Given that the brick-shaped stone is inscribed on all
four sides, it can hardly have been used in the construction of a building if the inscription was intended to be readable. A different proposal issuggested by A. Ghosh’s account of a stone-slab from India bearing
another Buddhist text, which was found in a chaitya.74 According to theauthor, “we have archaeological evidence that this practice of enshrining
sacred texts was followed all over India. At Nālandā, for instance,
besides some bricks inscribed with the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra or its
shorter version yē dharmā, etc., there have been found a large numberof terracotta tablets bearing on them the text of some dhāraṇī.” Thesame is reported for the STDh. whose mantras “— along with otherdhāraṇīs — have ... served as dharmakāya relics to be placed in a
stūpa or statue”. 75 The present inscription may well have served asimilar purpose.

Bibliography and Abbreviations
ĀpŚS
AVP
AV(Ś)
Bailey 1963
Berger 1992

BHS
BHSD/G
CBETA

Dasgupta 1974
Dutt 198474
75

Āpastamba-Śrautasūtra(Atharvaveda-)Paippalāda-Saṃhitā
Atharvaveda-Saṃhitā (Śaunakīya)
Harold Walter Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, Being Khotanese Texts, Volume V. Cambridge 1963.
Hermann Berger, Modern Indo-Aryan. In: J. Gvozdanović(ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Berlin – New York 1992,
p. 243-287.
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit
Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary /Grammar. New Haven 1953 (repr. Delhi 1985).
Chinese Electronic Tripitaka Series. Taisho Tripitaka Vol.
1-55 & 85. CD-ROM version of the Chinese Buddhist
Electronic Text Association. Taipei 2002.
Shashi Bhushan Dasgupta, An Introduction to Tāntric Buddhism. Calcutta 31974.
Nalinaksha Dutt (ed.), Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. I. [Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica, 14]. Delhi 21984.

EI 26 (1941-1942 [1952]) 171.
Porció 2000: xix with reference to Scherrer-Schaub 1994: 719 with n. 114.

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives
EWA

107

Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg 1986-1996.
Fritz 2002
Sonja Fritz, The Dhivehi Language. [I] A Descriptive andHistorical Grammar of Maldivian and Its Dialects. – II. Material. [Beiträge zur Südasienforschung, 191]. Heidelberg 2002.
Fritz–Gippert 2000
Sonja Fritz – Jost Gippert, Towards a Historical Phonologyof Maldivian. In: Manuela Ofitsch / Christian Zinko (ed.),125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Graz 2000, p. 139-152.
Gippert 1996
Jost Gippert, Paläographische Untersuchungen mit dem
Computer. In: Studia Iranica, Mesopotamica et Anatolica 2(1996) 77-100.
Gippert 2003
Id., Early New Persian as a Medium of Spreading Islam. In:
Ludwig Paul (ed.), Persian Origins. Early Judaeo-Persianand the Emergence of New Persian. Collected Papers of the
Symposium, Göttingen 1999. Wiesbaden 2003, p. 31-47.
Gippert 2005
Id., Schriftgebrauch zwischen Kontinuität und Wandel. Zur
Wechselwirkung zwischen Sprachgeschichte und Schriftlichkeit. To appear in: Die Sprache 44,2 (2004[2005]).
Hillebrandt 1897
Alfred Hillebrandt, Rituallitteratur. Vedische Opfer undZauber. [Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie undAltertumskunde, III/2]. Straßburg 1897.
Hoffmann 1939
Helmut Hoffmann (ed.), Bruchstücke des Āṭānāṭikasūtra aus
dem zentralasiatischen Sanskritkanon der Buddhisten.
[Kleinere Sanskrit-Texte, 5]. Leipzig 1939.
Kale 1982
M.R. Kale (ed.), Pañcatantra of Viṣṇuśarman. Delhi 31982.
KauśSKauśika-Sūtra
KEWA
Manfred Mayrhofer, Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen / A Concise Etymological Sanskrit
Dictionary. Heidelberg 1956-1976.
Lin 1999
Lin Kuang-Ming (Tony K. Lin), Fanzi xitan jumen. An
Introduction to Siddham. Taibei 1999.
Maniku 1988
Hasan Ahmed Maniku, Dhevi. Vanavaru 1 (1988) 1-38.
Maniku–WijayaId. – G.D. Wijayawardhana, Isdhoo Loamaafaanu. Colombo
wardhana 1986
1986.
Meisezahl 1962
R.O. Meisezahl, The Amoghapāśahṛdaya-dhāraṇī. The Early
Sanskrit Manuscript of the Reiunji. Monumenta Nipponica
17 (1962) 265-328.
Monier-Williams 1899 Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary.
New Edition. Oxford 1899 (repr. 1951).
Müller 1911
F.W.K. Müller, Uigurica II. [Abhandlungen der Königlich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jg. 1910].
Berlin 1911.

108
Mylius 1983

Jost Gippert

Klaus Mylius, Geschichte der Literatur im Alten Indien.
Leipzig 1983.
Nanjio 1923
Bunjio Nanjio (ed.), The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. [Bibliotheca
Otaniensis, 1]. Kyōtō 1923.
Naseema 1999
Naseema Mohamed, Dhivehi Writing Systems. Male:
National Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research 1999.
Pischel–Jha 1981
Richard Pischel, A Grammar of Prākrit Languages. Translated by Subhadra Jhā. Delhi 21981.
Porció 2000
Tibor Porció, The One with the White Parasol. Doctoral
Thesis, University of Vienna 2000.
PW
Otto Böhtlingk – Rudolph Roth (ed.), Sanskrit-Wörterbuch.
St. Petersburg 1855-1875 (repr. Delhi 1990).
Sander–WaldLore Sander – Ernst Waldschmidt (ed.): Sanskrithandschrifschmidt 1980
ten aus den Turfanfunden. Teil 4. [Verzeichnis derorientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland X,4]. Wiesbaden 1980.
ŚBK
Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa (Kāṇvīya recension)ŚBMŚatapatha-Brāhmaṇa (Mādhyandinīya recension)Scherrer-Schaub 1994 C.A. Scherrer-Schaub, Some Dhāraṇī Written on Paper
Functioning as Dharmakāya Relics. A Tentative Approach
to PT 350. In: P. Kvaerne (ed.), Tibetan studies. Proceedingsof the 6th Seminar of the International Association for
Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992. Oslo 1994, p. 711-727.
Sharma 1964
B.R. Sharma (ed.), Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa with Vedārthaprakāśa of Sāyaṇa and Padārthamātravivṛti. [Kendriya
Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series, 1]. Tirupati 1964.
SHT
Sanskrit-Handschriften aus Turfan (Berlin collection)
STDh.
Sitātapatrādhāraṇī
Sutherland 1991
Gail Hinich Sutherland, The Disguises of the Demon. The
Development of the Yakṣa in Hinduism and Buddhism.
[SUNY series in Hindu studies]. Albany, N.Y. 1991.
Suzuki 1932
Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (tr.), The Lankavatara Sutra. A
Mahayana Text. London 1932.
TA
Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka
Tholal 2002
Ahmed Tholal, The National Museum. Male: National
Centre for Linguistic and Historical Research 2002.
Turner 1966
R.L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan
Languages. London 1966.
Vaidya 1960
P.L. Vaidya (ed.), Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. [Buddhist
Sanskrit Texts, 6]. Darbhanga 1960.
VS
Vājasaneyi-Saṃhitā

A Glimpse into the Buddhist Past of the Maldives
Waldschmidt 1971

Werba 1997
Winternitz 1920

Yamada 1981

109

Ernst Waldschmidt (ed.): Sanskrithandschriften aus den
Turfanfunden. Teil 3. Unter Mitarbeit von Walter Clawiterund Lore Sander-Holzmann. [Verzeichnis der orientalischen
Handschriften in Deutschland X,3]. Wiesbaden 1971.
Chlodwig H. Werba, Verba indoarica. Pars I. Wien 1997.
Moriz Winternitz, Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur. 2.
Bd.: Die buddhistische Litteratur und die heiligen Texte derJainas. Leipzig 1920.
Isshi Yamada (ed.), Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṅgraha nāma
mahāyāna-sūtra. [Śata-piṭaka Series 262]. New Delhi 1981.

Side 1, with extra fragment inserted

Side 2

Side 3

Side 4

Jost Gippert

Digital unterschrieben von Jost Gippert
DN: cn=Jost Gippert, o=Universität Frankfurt,
ou=Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft,email=gippert@em.uni-frankfurt.de, c=DE
Datum: 2011.12.28 01:04:20 +01'00'