Primera aplicación de NIIF (Cont.) Explicaciones de los ajustes

The Apadāna bears a close similarity to the Anavataptagāthā, a text preserved in Tibetan, Chinese and, partially, in Sanskrit and Gāndhārī. The title of this work, Anavataptagāthā, “Verse[s] of [Lake] Anavatapta”, refers to the frame story in which the Buddha and his disciples describe their own karmic biographies, in verse, at Lake Anavatapta in the Himalayas. Due to the nature of its content, Bechert (1961: 10) understood the Anavataptagāthā to belong to the avadāna genre. However, as pointed out by Salomon (2008: 16), the text itself does not contain the word avadāna. In the version of this text found in the Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya, individual stories are instead titled karmaploti, “fabric of action”, and it seems likely that, in Gandhāra at least, the work was considered a canonical sūtra (Salomon 2008: 15–18).

A typical Anavataptagāthā story is structured in the following manner: (1) one or more stories of the past concerning either a meritorious or a bad deed, (2) a description of karmic fruits in subsequent rebirths and (3) a story of the present, often with mention of the protagonist’s attainment of arhatship (Salomon 2008: 8). A concluding statement of each story is made by an unnamed narrator in the third person. It is evident that this narrative structure is very similar to that of the apadānas, as described in § 2.1.1. Regarding the frequent mention of the protagonists’ attainment of arhatship, Salomon (2008: 8) stated, “This is technically significant, because it is through the power of jātismara, the recollection of past lives, one of the six supernormal powers (abhijñā) of an arhat, that the disciples are able to recall and reveal their own karmic histories”. However, in Pāli literature at least, not all arahats are said to have realised the six supernormal knowledges (Nyanatiloka 2007 s.v. abhiññā). At S I 191,21–23, for example, the Buddha states that of the 500 nearby arahats, only sixty had realised the six supernormal

knowledges. To the best of my knowledge, the Anavataptagāthā mentions the attainment of the six supernormal knowledges in only one story (Anav Gil XX.319).

Besides the narrative structure of its stories, the content of the Anavataptagāthā also has a great deal in common with the Apadāna. The Anavataptagāthā is primarily concerned with demonstrating that karma will eventually bear its fruit, even after an immense period of time. The concept of the field of merit plays a significant role in these narratives, with excellent fields of merit being common recipients of meritorious deeds, particularly the stūpas of past buddhas (e.g. Anav Gil V.61–63, VII.87–88, XII.163–164). Indeed, at Anav Gil IV.57, stūpas of the conqueror are explicitly declared to be the best field of merit. In numerous Anavataptagāthā stories, the protagonist generates faith at the very moment he performs a meritorious deed (e.g. Anav Gil II.19, IV.45, XIV.195). These deeds eventually yield great fruit, implying that faith is able to amplify karmic fruit. Indeed, the text explicitly mentions the causal role that faith plays in this process, stating, “For the gift of one with faith in their mind is not small [when given] to either an awakened Tathāgata or the buddhas’ disciples” (na hi cittaprasādasya svalpā bhavati dakṣiṇā / tathāgate ca saṃbuddhe buddhānāṃ śrāvakeṣu vā, Anav Gil V.69; cf. Anav Gil IV.58). Successful fervent aspirations are made in a number of stories (e.g. Anav Gil II.21–22, VI.76–77, XIV.197–202); however, instead of praṇidhāna, which is the term favoured in both the Avadānaśataka and Divyāvadāna, the Anavataptagāthā much more often uses praṇidhi. As demonstrated in §§ 2.1.3–4, the field of merit, faith and fervent aspiration all play an important role in both Sanskrit avadānas and Pāli apadānas.

However, there are a number of important differences between the content of the Apadāna and Anavataptagāthā. One of these is that, with very few exceptions,28 _{the former narrates only meritorious deeds, while the latter narrates} both meritorious and bad deeds. Approximately one third of Anavataptagāthā stories are primarily concerned with the results of a bad deed (Salomon 2008: 6).

28 _{The most obvious exception is the Pubbakammapiloti, which, as will be explained, was directly}

One example is the story pertaining to Nandika, which describes that in a past rebirth he gave food cooked in horse’s urine29 _{to an ascetic (Anav Gil X.130). The} result of this bad deed is rebirth in hells for a long time, followed by rebirth as a sick human (Anav Gil X.131–132). The Gāndhārī version adds that, with the remaining karma, wherever he is subsequently born he starves to death (Salomon 2008: 307–308). This story also serves to illustrate another difference between the Anavataptagāthā and Apadāna. While the remainder of action (karmāvaśeṣa) is an important and recurring concept in the Anavataptagāthā (Salomon 2008: 7), the equivalent Pāli term (kammāvasesa) is mentioned only seven times in the Apadāna across six stories (Ap 108,15, 144,1, 298,10, 299,13, 299,19, 330,18, 487,11).30 Three of these occurrences come from passages directly borrowed from the Anavataptagāthā (Ap 298,10, 299,13, 299,19).

As has already been noted in § 1.4, there are three passages in the Apadāna which have parallels in the Anavataptagāthā31 _{and it is almost certain that in two of} these instances the author(s) or compiler(s) of the former text directly borrowed from the latter text.32 _{The main supporting evidence for this claim is that the} distinctive concluding statements of both Anavataptagāthā stories are reproduced in the Apadāna. These verses are very much out of context in their new environment since they are composed in the third person, which is very uncharacteristic for Apadāna verse material, and because they mention Lake Anavatapta (P. Anotatta), a place not referred to elsewhere in the Apadāna.33 _{The stories of Koṭīviṃśa and} Mahākāśyapa have survived in Gāndhārī, Pāli and Sanskrit.34 _{Salomon (2008: 64–} 74) compared the wording of these different versions and concluded that the Pāli

29 _{Or, depending upon how one analyses the sandhi, dog’s urine.} 30 _{In addition, the term kammasesa is mentioned at Ap 610,15.}

31 _{The apadāna of Pabhaṅkara (Ap 269–270) is a parallel to the Anavataptagāthā story of Prabhākara}

(Anav XXXV), the apadāna of Soṇa Koṭivīsa (Ap 298) is a parallel to the Anavataptagāthā story of Koṭīviṃśa (Anav VI) and the Pubbakammapiloti (Ap 299–301) is a parallel to the Anavataptagāthā story of the Tathāgata (Anav XXXVII).

32 _{Namely, the apadāna of Soṇa Koṭivīsa and the Pubbakammapiloti.}

33 _{With the exception of the first verse of the Pubbakammapiloti (Ap 299,2–3).} 34 _{The Pāli parallel of the latter story may be found at Nett 141,12–142,5.}

text is closer to the Gāndhārī than to the Sanskrit. Due to the existence and nature of these parallels, Salomon (2008: 31–32) believed it is plausible that there once existed a Pāli version of the Anavataptagāthā that bore a reasonably close relationship with the Gāndhārī version and that, at some point in time before it became lost, was quoted in the Apadāna and Nettippakaraṇa.35 _{It may even be that} this lost Pāli Anavataptagāthā also provided the structural basis and thematic inspiration for the Apadāna, though naturally such a hypothesis is highly speculative.