Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

brill.com/iij

Charting ‘Wilderness’ (araṇya) in Brahmanical

and Buddhist Texts

Paolo Visigalli
World History, Shanghai Normal University
pvisigalli83@gmail.com

Abstract

The essay demonstrates the longevity and pervasiveness of Indic and Indic-derived
etymological analyses (nirvacana) across literary traditions, in Sanskrit, Pāli, and Chi-
nese. To exemplify different indigenous approaches to etymology, the essay explores
emic analyses of the word araṇya ‘wilderness’. It traces the analyses found in Chāndo-
gya Upaniṣad (8.5) and in the works of the etymologists (Nirukta) and grammarians
(vyākaraṇa; uṇādisūtra). It also considers Paramārtha’s nirvacana-inspired analysis of
Chinese alianruo 阿練若 (araṇya), and identifies a similar analysis in Aggavaṃsa’s
Saddanīti. The essay shows etymological analyses’ sophistication and variety of pur-
poses.

Keywords

araṇya – alianruo 阿練若 – Chāndogya Upaniṣad – emic linguistic analysis – nirukta/

nirvacana – Paramārtha (Zhendi 真諦) – vyākaraṇa – wilderness

1 Introduction

Indigenous or emic etymological analyses (nirvacana) played a considerable

role in Indic and Indic-influenced literary cultures. Such analyses abound in
Vedic literature, are codified in Yāska’s Nirukta as a discipline ancillary to the
study of the Veda (vedāṅga), but also are reflected in the translations of Indic
Buddhist texts into other languages like Tibetan and Chinese. To showcase and
exemplify the importance and longevity of nirvacana, I explore emic analy-
ses of the word araṇya. I first emphasize the sophistication of the analysis of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/15728536-06202002

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 163

araṇyāyana ‘going to the wilderness’ in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.5. Next, I trace

the analyses of araṇya and araṇa ‘foreign/strange’ in Yāska’s Nirukta and its
commentaries, and in the works of the Indian grammarians (vyākaraṇa and
uṇādisūtra). Then, I demonstrate the continuity of the etymological analyses
of the word araṇya in the Chinese Buddhist translation “workshop” of Para-
mārtha, and identify a parallel passage in the Pāli Saddanīti.
By outlining the uncharted history of emic analyses of araṇya ‘wilderness’,1
I aim to exemplify the pervasiveness of nirvacana across literary traditions in
Sanskrit, Pāli, and Chinese. I also want to draw attention to the complexity and
sophistication of nirvacana analyses and to the different purposes interpreters
put them to use.

2 ‘Going to the Wilderness’ (araṇyāyana)

In Chāndogya Upaniṣad (CU) 8.5 six words denoting religious practices are
explained so as to show that their actual referents is the institution of brahma-
carya ‘the life of the celibate student’. An etymological analysis occurs as part
of the explanation of each word. While previous scholarship has underempha-
sized the complexity of such etymologies,2 I want to show that they are in fact
sophisticated rhetorical devices used to persuade a certain audience of the cen-
trality of brahmacarya.
The six words are arranged in three groups of two words each: yajña ‘sac-
rifice’, iṣṭa ‘offering’ (8.5.1); sattrāyaṇa ‘long sacrificial course’, mauna ‘vow of
silence’ (8.5.2); anāśakāyana ‘fasting’, araṇyāyana ‘going to the wilderness’
(8.5.3). The first two words denote traditional acts of external religiosity, the

1 My rendition ‘wilderness’ picks up on the sense which the word araṇya has in Vedic, where
it does not only mean ‘forest’ as in later texts, but, more broadly, denotes the wild place lying
outside the village and the plough land. See, inter alia, Macdonell and Keith (1912: 33); Rau
(1957: 53); Thieme (1968: 391); Sprockhoff (1981: 34); Elizarenkova (1995: 39–41); (1999: 535) [on
ṚV 10.146]. On the notion of wilderness in early India, as opposed to the notion of village and
settlement (grāma), see Malamoud (1989 [1976]), Olivelle (2011 [1991]), and Thapar (2001).
See also Sprockhoff’s (1981; 1984; 1991) comprehensive study of the occurrences of araṇya and
related terms in early Brāhmanical literature.
2 For example, these etymologies have been called ‘neck-breaking’ (‘halsbrecheder’; Deussen
1921 [1897]: 188) and ‘etymological shenanigans’ (‘etymologischen Spielereien’; Ickler 1973:
125). Conversely, Radhakrishnan (1968 [1953]:499) calls them ‘ingenious etymological expla-
nations’, but does not elaborate. CU 8.5 is discussed in Sprockhoff (1981: 59–61). He (ibid. 59
n. 118) helpfully refers to a few analogous etymological analyses found elsewhere in Vedic
literature, mostly in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
164 visigalli

last two indicate ascetic practices, and the second group of words appears to
refer to religious practices that are somewhere in the middle.
The explanations of the first five words follow the same pattern. Each expla-
nation consists of (i) the proposition that each word (‘x’) is nothing else (eva)
than brahmacarya (y); (ii) and a reason in support of (i): for (hi) it is by means
of brahmacarya only (eva) that one gets/obtains (√vi(n)d/ anu-√vi(n)d) the self
(ātman) or something associated with it. (ii) contains the etymological analy-
ses of (‘x’). Below, I highlight such analyses in bold, and since (i) and the initial
part of (ii) are the same throughout, I refer to them with ‘…’.
(1) yajña ‘sacrifice’: (i) ‘Now what is called “yajña” is nothing else than (eva)
brahmacarya; (ii) for it is by means of brahmacarya only (eva) that one
who knows ( yo jñātā) gets (√vi(n)d) him (i.e. the self, ātman)’.
(2) iṣṭa ‘offering’: ‘(i) … “iṣṭa” …; (ii) … that one, having desired/sought (iṣṭvā),
obtains (anu-√vi(n)d) the self’.
(3) sattrāyaṇa ‘long sacrificial course’: ‘(i) … “sattrāyaṇa” …; (ii) … that one
gets protection (trāṇa) of the existent (sata), the self’.3
(4) mauna ‘vow of silence’: ‘(i) … “mauna” …; (ii) … that one, having obtained
the self, thinks (manute)’.
(5) anāśakāyana ‘fasting’: ‘(i) … “anāśakāyana” …; (ii) … that one obtains this
ātman that does not perish (na naśyati)’.4
What people commonly call (‘x-s’) are in fact nothing else than brahmacarya
(y). Etymologies serve to underscore this point. (‘x-s’) are reanalyzed to show
that they reference particular aspects of the brahmacarya-based process
whereby one obtains the self.
The explanation of the sixth word (araṇyāyana) differs from that of the
first five words. (i) is not followed by (ii), but by a description of the world of
brahman:

atha yad araṇyāyanam ity ācakṣate brahmacaryam eva tat | tat araś ca
ha vai ṇyaś cārṇavau brahmaloke tṛtīyasyām ito divi | tad airaṃmadīyaṃ

3 Ickler (1973: 125) regards the syntactic relation between ‘the existent’ (sat) and ‘the self’
(ātman) as problematic, and suggests that the latter may be a gloss. I take ātman as the appo-
sition of sat. Comparison with the remainder of CU 8.5 suggests that ātman is part of the
original text.
4 atha yad yajña ity ācakṣate brahmacaryam eva tat | brahmacaryeṇa hy eva yo jñātā taṃ vindate
| atha yad iṣṭam ity ācakṣate brahmacaryam eva tat | brahmacaryeṇa hy eveṣṭvātmānam anu-
vindate || CU 8.5.1 || atha yat sattrāyaṇam ity ācakṣate brahmacaryam eva tat | brahmacaryeṇa
hy eva sata ātmanas trāṇaṃ vindate | atha yan maunam ity ācakṣate brahmacaryam eva tat
| brahmacaryeṇa hy evātmānam anuvidya manute || CU 8.5.2 || atha yad anāśakāyanam ity
ācakṣate brahmacaryam eva tat | eṣa hy ātmā na naśyati yaṃ brahmacaryeṇānuvindate … ||
CU 8.5.3 || Note that eva is missing after brahmacaryeṇa in (5 ii).

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 165

saraḥ | tad aśvatthaḥ somasavanaḥ | tad aparājitā pūr brahmaṇaḥ prabhu-

vimitaṃ hiraṇmayam || CU 8.5.3 ||

Then that which is called ‘going into the wilderness’ (araṇyāyana) is noth-
ing else than the life of the celibate student (brahmacarya) (i). There,
in the world of brahman, in the third heaven from here (i.e. this world)
there are Ara and Ṇya, the two seas. There, there is Airaṃmadīya,5 the
lake. There, there is the banyan tree Somasavana (‘Soma-pressing-place’).
There, there is Aparājitā (‘Unconquerable’), the fortress of brahman, the
Lord’s golden hall.6
CU 8.5.3

The landscape features of the brahma-world are presented in a way that sug-
gests a progressive approach towards its center, brahman. This is described as
a king residing inside his hall, which in turn is inside his fortress. The world of
brahman is explicitly located in the third heaven, yet the ‘fortress of brahman’
reminds one of the similar expression in CU 8.1.2 (brahmapure), where the
fortress is located in the space (ākāśa) within the heart.
It is apparent that the word araṇyāyana is analyzed as comprising Ara and
Ṇya, the two seas in the world of brahman. Yet, I think that there is more to
CU 8.5.3. The passage argues that araṇyāyana (‘x’) is identical with the insti-
tution of brahmacarya (y), by establishing a complete formal and semantic
identity between (‘x’) and the word brahmacarya (‘y’). Both words are analysed
as compounds consisting of two members (araṇya + ayana; brahma + carya),
with both first and second members being equivalent to each other (araṇya:
brahma = ayana: carya). While the first member refers to brahman, the goal,
the second refers to the act of approaching (√i; √car) it. In short, the iden-
tity between word (‘x’) and referent (y) is shown by revealing a one-on-one
correspondence between the two words (‘x’) and (‘y’). Their identity can be
represented schematically as follows: (ara + ṇya) [= brahma(loka)] + ayana ≈
brahma + carya.
I take CU 8.5 as an argument advanced by the brahmanical orthodoxy, whose
purpose it is to emphasize the importance of brahmacarya. From the six words
that are explained we infer that the intended audience includes practitioners
of traditional religious acts, like sacrifices and giving offering, but also ascetic
practitioners.

5 For a tentative interpretation of the meaning of this name, see Thieme (1949: 68).
6 Deussen (1921³ [1897]: 188) opines that the passage tad airaṃmadīyaṃ … hiraṇmayam is a
later addition.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
166 visigalli

While CU 8.5 addresses a varied audience of religious practitioners, it does

so on the assumption that the varied religious practices denoted by (‘x’-s) serve
one and the same purpose, namely to get/obtain the self (ātman). It is precisely
because they are supposed to share one common purpose that these religious
practices can then be shown to be in essence the same as brahmacarya, for it
is by means of the latter only that one gets/obtains the self.
While the explanations of the first five words reference the self, the latter
word’s explanation references the brahmaloka. This corresponds to the two
frame passages (8.4.3; 8.5.4) that introduce and conclude CU 8.5. Both passages
state that those who obtain the brahmaloka “by means of the brahmacarya pos-
sess the brahmaloka, and move in all worlds as they please”.7
CU 8.5 seeks to persuade its audience that the institution of brahmacarya
in fact subsumes the six religious practices denoted by (‘x’). In characteristic
Upaniṣadic fashion, CU 8.5 seeks to integrate a number of disparate items into
what is presented as a more fundamental and comprehensive unity. This pro-
cess of integration is achieved by reanalysing the words and their referents.
Etymologies are the means by which the words are manipulated rhetorically.

3 The Etymologists’ Wilderness

Yāska analyzes the word araṇya in Nirukta 9.29, where he comments on the
word araṇyānī (Nighaṇṭu 5.3.24):

araṇyāny araṇyasya patnī | araṇyam apārṇam grāmāt | aramaṇaṃ bha-

vatīti vā |

Lady of the wilderness is the wife of the wilderness. Wilderness (araṇya):

distant (apārṇa) from the village; or [wilderness:] non-delight (arama-
ṇa).8

What is the nature of the relation between the explanandum araṇya (‘x’) and
the two explanans apārṇa and aramaṇa (‘y’)? In my opinion, Yāska posits (‘y-
s’) as the morphologically transparent counterparts of the morphologically

7 … brahmacaryeṇānuvindanti teṣām evaiṣa brahmalokaḥ | teṣāṃ sarveṣu lokeṣu kāmacāro bha-

vati || CU 8.4.3 = 8.5.4 ||
8 I give the text in the Bhadkambar (1942: 934) edition; Sarup (1920–1927: 168) places a mislead-
ing daṇḍa after apārṇam. Sarup (1920–1927: 149) translates this passage as follows: “Wilder-
ness is the wife of the desert. Desert (araṇya) is (so called because) it is far (apa-arṇa) from
the village, or because it is dull (a-ramaṇa).”

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 167

opaque (‘x’). He analyzes (‘x’) by positing the intervention of a number of pho-

netic modifications operating on (‘y’). Yāska analyzes (‘x’) morphologically and
semantically by taking (‘y’) as its underlying form. His analysis of araṇya is con-
sistent with the so-called second principle of nirvacana analysis (Nirukta 2.1).9
It is appropriate to take a closer look at how Yāska analyzes araṇya morpho-
logically. It is hard to identify the implicit phonetic modifications Yāska saw at
work, for a number of reasons. First, the passage is terse. Further, though several
rules describing phonetic modifications occur in Nirukta 2.1–2, Yāska applies
such rules loosely and his actual analyses often presuppose other rules that are
not enunciated explicitly.10 Yāska’s analyses are not rule-bound, but respond
to the specifics of the word up for analysis. Moreover, Yāska’s etymologizing
is programmatically non-systematic and open-ended, his utmost concern is to
always be able to analyze words (Nirukta 2.1: na tv eva na nirbrūyāt “But never
should one not analyze”).
Bearing these cautionary remarks in mind, I propose that Yāska’s formal
analyses involve the following phonetic modifications (‘≈’ means ‘being equiv-
alent with’):

[i] a-raṇ-ya (‘x’) ≈ apa-arṇ-a (‘y’).

All three elements in ‘x’ have their corresponding counterpart (≈) in ‘y’.
[i¹] a- ≈ apa-; it is relevant to note that a-privative is often glossed by San-
skrit commentators with apa-gata (‘gone away’ > ‘without’).
[i²] raṇ- ≈ arṇ-; this seems to be a case of metathesis, a rule recorded by
Yāska (Nir 2.1: ādyantaviparyāya).
[i³] -a ≈ -ya; both nominal suffixes, which are implicitly recognized by
Yāska (see Bhate 1968), seem to be regarded as being interchangeable.

[ii] a-raṇ-ya (‘x’) ≈ a-ram-aṇa (‘y’).

[ii¹] a- ≈ a-.
[ii²] raṇ- ≈ ram-; Deeg (1995: 95) regards this as a case of “change of
the [root’s] final sound” (“Veränderung des [Wurzel-]Auslautes”, ibid. 97),
one of the rules of phonetic modification enunciated by Yāska (Nir 2.1:
antavyāpattir).
[ii³] -a ≈ -ya; like in [i³] the two suffixes appear to be seen as equivalent.

9 For a more thorough discussion of the principles of nirvacana analyses which Yāska enun-
ciates in Nirukta 2.1, see Sarup (1920–1927: 57–58); Mehendale (1978); Bhate (1981); Deeg
(1995: 76–77); Kahrs (1998: 35–38); Bronkhorst (2001: 158–159); Cardona (2013: 52–55); and
Visigalli (2017: 1149ff.).
10 On such explicit and implicit rules, see Deeg (1995: 78–89).

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
168 visigalli

Yāska’s two analyses differ also semantically. The word araṇya is related to the
root √ṛ ‘to go’ in [i], but to √ram ‘to delight’ in [ii]. These analyses bring into
focus two semantic aspects of wilderness: it is ‘distant from’ (apārṇa) settle-
ments [i], and is a place with no delight [ii]. The latter is probably best under-
stood as a litotes: ‘no delight’ means positively frightful.
Indirectly, we can learn more about Yāska’s way of conceptualizing the
semantics of araṇya by considering Yāska’s analysis of the word araṇa ‘for-
eign/strange’ in Nirukta 3.2.11
In commenting on the word apatya (Nighaṇṭu 2.2.10), Yāska cites Ṛgveda
7.4.7. In Yāska’s interpretation of the verse, the poet implores Agni to secure
him his own (nitya) wealth and a son, as opposed to wealth that is borrowed and
a son that is someone else’s (araṇa).12 Yāska comments on araṇa thus: araṇo
’pārṇo bhavati. I take this terse comment as providing a formal and semantic
analysis of araṇa [iii], like [i] and [ii] do for araṇya.
Morphologically, Yāska’s analysis of araṇa ([iii] a-raṇ-a (‘x’) ≈ apa-arṇ-a
(‘y’)) matches that of araṇya [i]. Semantically, it displays interesting differ-
ences. It is tempting to follow Durga’s commentary, taking raṇa ≈ arṇa to
mean ‘water’, and interpret a-raṇa as meaning ‘without water’.13 What does
that mean? According to Rajavade (1940: 412), ‘without water’ denotes someone
to whose ancestors water libations are not offered. Therefore, ‘without water’
refers to someone who does not belong to one’s family, a stranger or outsider.
Yāska does not explicitly link araṇya and araṇa together. Nonetheless, the
fact that the rare word apārṇa14 is used in both words’ analyses suggests that

11 The word araṇa occurs as part of the compound araṇastha in Nirukta 1.18; its meaning
is unclear, however. Durga (1921: 109) and Skandasvāmin-Maheśvara (1934: 110) take it as
referring to wealth (artha).
12 On the opposition expressed by nitya and araṇa in Vedic, see Rajavade (1940: 414) and
Mayrhofer (1986–2001: 107 [araṇa]).
13 Durga (1921: 204): araṇasya-apagatārṇasya-apagatodakasaṃbandhasya parakulajasya
[variant reading: parakulajātasya] … | “of a stranger, i.e. of one who is without water
(arṇa), i.e. of one who is born to another family whose relationship is without water
(udaka).” Note that Durga posits the following string of correspondences: a-raṇa ≈ apa-
gata-arṇa ≈ apagata-udaka.
14 Visvha Bandhu (1935–1965) lists only three occurrences of apārṇa, all in the Nirukta. This
may suggest that Yāska made up the word for analytical purpose; cf. Kahrs (2002: 175) on
nouns in -ana attested only in the Nirukta. The third occurrence of apārṇa is less clear
(Nirukta 9.8): iriṇaṃ nirṛṇam ṛṇāter apārṇaṃ bhavati | aparatā asmād oṣadhaya iti vā |
“‘hollow in the ground’ (iriṇa; ‘x’): ‘without debts’ (nirṛna; ‘y’); [iriṇa] is of/from √ṛ ‘to go’,
i.e. ‘distant’ (apārṇa) [i]; or else plants are removed (aparata) from it [ii]”. In my under-
standing, Yāska relates iriṇa (‘x’) to its morphologically transparent counterpart nir-ṛṇa
(‘y’), and analyses it in two ways: [i] as deriving from √ṛ ‘to go’, [ii] or from √ram ‘to

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 169

Yāska regarded these words as sharing morphological and semantic affinities.

If we are allowed to conflate Yāska’s analyses of araṇya and araṇa, we see that
Yāska regarded ‘wilderness’ as a place that is distant from settlement ([i] apa-
√ṛ) and frightful ([ii] a-√ram), and which was conceived as lying outside the
socially codified world of human relations ([iii] a-raṇa).
Yāska uses etymology as a scholarly and hermeneutic tool to analyze the
morphology and semantics of the word araṇya. Yāska’s nirvacanas were not,
however, the only analytic tools available to Indian interpreters. Competing
analyses were advanced in the emic indigenous linguistic discipline of
vyākaraṇa or grammar.

4 The Grammarians’ Wilderness

The grammarians’ analyses of araṇyānī (Aṣṭādhyāyī [A] 4.1.49) and araṇya

(Uṇādisūtra 3.95/3.102) differ from those advanced by Yāska.
A 4.1.49 (indravaruṇabhavaśarvarudramṛḍahimāraṇyayavayavanamatulā-
cāryānām ānuk) states: “indra, varuṇa, bhava, śarva, rudra, mṛḍa, hima, araṇya,
yava, yavana, matula, ācārya etc. receive the augment -ān- before accented -ī”.
Thus, for example, from indra we get indrānī,́ and from araṇya we get araṇyānī.́
In his first vārttika on A 4.1.49, Kātyāyana points out that -ānī ́ in himānī ́ and
araṇyānī ́ signifies ‘bigness’ (himāraṇyor mahattve). Patañjali glosses these
two words with ‘big winter’ (mahad dhimaṃ) and ‘big wilderness’ (mahad
araṇyam) respectively.15
This means that Kātyāyana and Patañjali differentiate between the seman-
tic functions of the suffix -ānī.́ While it means ‘wife of’ when it occurs after
the first six words listed in A 4.1.49, it means ‘big’ when it applies to hima and
araṇya. The word araṇyānī ́ does not, therefore, mean ‘wife of araṇya’, nor does
it denote a female deity, but means ‘big wilderness’.
The grammarians’ understanding of araṇyānī contrasts with that of the ety-
mologists. As we saw, Yāska glosses araṇyānī as the ‘wife of the wilderness’

dwell’. In both analyses, Yāska glosses the prefix nir(-ṛṇa) with apa-. Durga (1942: 906)
([i] upasargasyānyatvam eva kevalam | [ii] athavā apārṇam—apagatodakam) gives two
explanations of apārṇa: [i] it means the same as nirṛṇa ‘without debts’ (for Durga, this
means that debts incurred in dicing are not extended to one’s descendants; ibid. na hi
tatra putrapautrānugam ṛṇam bhavati); this is a case of change of upasarga (nir- ≈ apa-);
[ii] it means a place that water (arṇa) has gone away from.
15 Kielhorn vol. 2 (1883: 220). Here I am not concerned with ascertaining the exact sense of
himānī;́ Renou (1951: 7) translates it with ‘amas de neige’, Thieme (1968: 391) with ‘große
Winterzeit’.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
170 visigalli

(Nir 9.29: araṇyāny araṇyasya patnī). Durga (1942: 935) explains araṇyānī as
‘protecting deity’ (pālayitrī devatā). Later commentaries register the different
interpretations of araṇyānī advanced by grammarians and etymologists.16
Grammarians differ from etymologists also in their morphological analysis
of the word araṇya, as given in the Uṇādisūtra. In one sūtra (arter nicca),17
araṇya is analysed as deriving from √ṛ plus the suffix -anya: araṇya (< ar [<√ṛ]
+ anya).
The semantic aspect of this analysis is unclear. In Dhātupaṭha 1.983 (ṛ gati-
prāpaṇayoḥ) √ṛ is assigned the senses of ‘going/moving’ and ‘obtaining’.
Though they seem likewise to take √ṛ ‘going/moving’ as the word’s root, com-
mentators on Uṇādisūtra provide different semantic interpretations of araṇya.
Ujjvaladatta (12th–14th century CE) glosses araṇya with vipina ‘forest’.18 The lat-
ter word derives from √vip ‘to stir, tremble’. Comparison with a gloss on the
Amarakośa suggests that forest is called vipina because when people are in it
they tremble with fear.19 The fact that Ujjvaladatta glosses araṇya with vipina
might perhaps suggest that he saw a semantic link between trembling (√vip)
and the kind of movement expressed by √ṛ.
Śvetavanavāsin (10th–16th century?) glosses araṇya with kānana, a word for
forest supposed to derive from √kan (Dhātupaṭha 1.488 kānī dīptikāntigatiṣu)
in the sense of ‘going’ (gati). He elucidates araṇya as ‘[a place] that one goes
away from’ (aryate ’smād iti araṇyaṃ).20

16 See Skandasvāmin-Maheśvara (1934: 168 [on Nir 9.29–30]); Sāyaṇa (1946: 826 [on ṚV
10.146.1]); Devarājayajvan (1952: 464 [on Nighaṇṭu 5.3.24: araṇyānī]). Interestingly, mod-
ern debate about the sense of araṇyānī (goddess; genius of the forest; [poetic] personifi-
cation of the forest?) is partly reminiscent of the indigenous divergence of opinions. See
Thieme (1968) and Bodewitz (1982), with references.
17 It is sūtra 3.102 in Aufrecht’s (1859) edition with Ujjvaladatta’s commentary, and sūtra 3.95
in Chintamani’s (1992 [1933]: 122) edition with Śvetavanavāsin’s commentary.
18 For Ujjvaladatta’s dating, I follow Aufrecht (1859: xiv). On Śvetavanavāsin’s dating and the
relation between the two commentaries, see Chintamani’s (1992 [1933]: xi). Aufrecht (1859:
85): ṛ gatau || ato ’nyaḥ sa ca nidbhavati | araṇyaṃ vipinaṃ | himāraṇyayor mahāttve ḍī-
ṣānukau | mahāraṇyam araṇyānīty amaraḥ. “√ṛ is [in the sense] of going. [The suffix] anya
occurs after this [i.e. √ṛ], and it is nit [Uṇādisūtra 3.102: arter nicca < nit ca]. Wilderness
(araṇya) i.e., forest. [When added to the base forms hima and araṇya] the infix -ān- (ānuk)
and suffix -ī ́ (ḍīṣ) are [used in the sense] of big [i.e. himānī ́ ‘big snow/winter’ and araṇyānī ́
‘big forest’]. Wilderness [means] great forest according to Amara[kośa] 2.4.1”.
19 Amarakośa 2.4.1 lists a number of words for forest: aṭavyaraṇyaṃ vipinaṃ gahanaṃ
kānanaṃ vanam | mahāraṇyam araṇyānī gṛhāramās tu niṣkuṭāḥ. In his commentary, Kṣī-
rasvāmin (1913: 53) glosses vipina with vepante bhayenātra vipinam: “vipina ‘forest’: people
tremble (vip) with fear here”.
20 Chintamani (1992 [1933]: 122): arter anyapratyayo bhavati nicca | tenādyudāttaṃ padam |
aryate ’smād iti araṇyaṃ kānanam || Literally, aryate is a passive from √ṛ. An altogether

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 171

The analyses of araṇya given in the Uṇādisūtra and the Nirukta differ con-
siderably in terms of morphology, but appear to be closer in terms of semantics.
Both describe wilderness negatively as a fearful and hostile place.
However, a positive reference to wilderness can be gleaned from Kātyāyana’s
and Pātañjali’s comments on A.4.2.129. The sūtra (araṇyān manuṣye) states that
the affix -aka is added to the word araṇya to form the word āraṇyaka, which
refers to a man. We thus have āraṇyakaḥ [manuṣyaḥ] ‘the [man] of the wilder-
ness’, but āraṇyāḥ [paśavaḥ] ‘the [animals] of the wilderness’. What Pāṇini
meant with ‘man of the wilderness’, we do not know. However, later Pāṇinīyas
pointed out that the rule states too little, for āraṇyaka has other referents
besides ‘man’.21 Among such referents, they record āraṇyaka adhyāya ‘lesson
of the wilderness’, which seems to refer to the āraṇyaka texts.
This reference points out a positive relation between wilderness and reli-
gious practices. Such a relation, which we saw adumbrated in the analysis of
araṇyāyana (CU 8.5.3), was to be developed further by Buddhist interpreters.

5 The Buddhists’ Wilderness

In Buddhist context, the notion of wilderness was reconceptualised. Some Bud-

dhists no longer saw wilderness, at least not pre-eminently, as a fearful place,
but associated it with the monastery. Wilderness came to be regarded posi-
tively as a quiet place removed from the hustle and bustle of city-life, a place
conducive to religious betterment.22 The reconceptualization of wilderness is
registered in etymological analyses of araṇya.
I first consider Paramārtha’s analysis of the Chinese word alianruo 阿練若
(araṇya), and then discuss its relation to a parallel analysis found in the Pāli
Saddanīti.
Paramārtha (Zhendi 真諦 499–569), whose name was Kulanātha Bhāra-
dvāja, was born to a Brahmin family in Ujjayinī, in the Avanti region of Western

analogous analysis of araṇya occurs in Durghasiṃha’s commentary on the Uṇādisūtra of

the Kātantra (3.2). Chintamani (1934: 29): arter anyaḥ. asmād anyapratyayo bhavati | “ṛ
gatau” aryate araṇyaṃ vanam “after this [i.e. ar- < √ṛ] there occurs the suffix anya; √ṛ is
in the sense of going—the wilderness, i.e. the forest is what one goes away from”. I thank
Shen Yiming for this reference.
21 Vasu (1891: 746) and Renou (1951: 36) regard the addition to be Kātyāyana’s vārttika; Kiel-
horn’s (1883 [vol. 2]: 299) edition takes it as part of Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya. (I could not
consult Kielhorn’s (1962–1972) third edition revised by K.V. Abhyankar.)
22 On the pertinent opposition between ‘wilderness monks’ (araññavāsī) and ‘village monks’
(gāmavāsī), see Karashima (2001: 149–162).

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
172 visigalli

India. After residing in Funan 扶南, approximately today’s Cambodia, he was

invited to China by Emperor Wu 武 of the Liang (464–549), and landed in Nan-
hai 南海 (modern Canton) on September 25, 546.23
As perceptively argued by Toru Funayama (2006; 2010), Paramārtha’s work
exhibits a unique “blend of Indian and Chinese cultures” (2010: 142). Such a
blend is most clearly visible in what Funayama (2010: 141) considers to be Para-
mārtha’s “oral commentaries”. These are citations of Paramārtha’s lost works
preserved in the works of Sui (581–618) and Tang dynasty’s (618–907) authors.
One such citation occurs in Woncheuk’s (Yuance 圓測 613–696) commentary
on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra. The citation contains an etymological analysis
of alianruo 阿練若 (araṇya):

真諦《釋》云，阿練若者，自有三義．一者離聲處，謂國邑音聲所不
至故．二者離斫伐處，謂採薪所不至故．三者離鬪諍處，謂一切煩惱
總能動亂善法，名為鬪諍．若住此處，能伏煩惱，故名離鬪諍也.24

Paramārtha’s commentary says: the term alianruo 阿練若 (araṇya) has three
meanings.
[1] The first [meaning] is ‘a place away (li 離) from noise’. For [alianruo]
means a place that is not reached by the sounds of the city.
[2] The second [meaning] is ‘a place away (li 離) from where [trees] are
hacked’. For [alianruo] means a place that is not reached by people col-
lecting wood.
[3] The third [meaning] is ‘a place away (li 離) from strife’. ‘Strife’ means all
defilements ( fannao 煩惱; Skt. kleṣa, Pāli: kilesa) that always disrupt good
actions. Those who live in such a place can subdue defilements, this is why
it is called ‘a place far from strife’.

23 For Paramārtha’s biography, see Paul (1982) and (1984: 11–37), and Funayama (2006), (2010:
144–145), and (2012).
24 Yuance’s Jie shenmi jing shu 解深密經疏 CBETA, X21, no. 369, p. 231, b11–18. The passage
continues as follows: 若薩婆多部解， 一拘盧舍五百弓． 依正量部解， 一拘盧舍
凡一千弓也． 一弓八尺， 凡八百丈地． 若准此間， 應成四里少許 “According
to the Sarvāstivāda school’s interpretation, one krośa is five-hundred dhanu (gong 弓).
According to the Saṃmitīya’s interpretation, on the other hand, one krośa is equal to one
thousand dhanu. Since one dhanu is equal to eight chi 尺, altogether it is a place eight-
hundred zhang 丈 distant. Based on the measurements of this land [i.e. China], it would
be a little over four li [from areas of disturbance].” Compare Buddhaghosa’s comment that
the distance between wilderness dwelling and the village must be of at least “five hundred
bow-length” (Visuddhimagga IV 183: āraññakaṃ nāma senāsanaṃ pañcadhanusatikaṃ
pacchimam); see also Samantapāsādikā vol. 2 (1969 [1927]: 407).

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 173

The three meanings ascribed to alianruo 阿練若 reflect three etymological

analyses of the underlying Indic word. For consistency’s sake with the rest of
the paper, I take the underlying word to be Sanskrit araṇya. However, Para-
mārtha ascribes alianruo 阿練若 meanings that are alien to Sanskrit araṇya (or
Pāli arañña), but are attested for (a)raṇa in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and Pāli.25
The underlying Indic word araṇya is analyzed as a-raṇya. The a-privative is
rendered with li 離 ‘away’.26 Three meanings are ascribed to raṇya: [1] noise; [2]
hacking; [3] strife (=defilements).
Commenting on this and other similar analyses ascribed to Paramārtha,
Funayama (2010: 156) suggests that “it is quite possible” that Paramārtha’s analy-
ses are “based on his knowledge of the nirvacana tradition”.27 However, he notes
(2010: 156 note 46) that Paramārtha’s analyses are not the same as the analyses
of the corresponding Indic words found in Indic texts.
The influence of the Indian nirvacana model on Paramārtha’s analysis of
alianruo 阿練若 is confirmed by a parallel Pāli passage that I have identified
in Aggavaṃsa’s Saddanīti.
In his mammoth Pāli grammar,28 the twelfth-century Burmese Buddhist
monk Aggavaṃsa analyzes the word raṇa as following:29

raṇasaddo “saraṇā dhammā araṇā dhammā” [Dhammasaṅgaṇī 1885: 7] ti

ādisu kilese[su] vattati, kilesā hi raṇanti kandanti etehī ti raṇā ti vuccante;
“dhanuggaho Asadiso rājaputto mahiddhiko … sabbāmitte raṇaṃ katvā
… saññamaṃ ajjhupāgami” [Asadisajātakaṃ 1879: 91]30 ti ettha yuddhe
vattati, raṇaṃ katvā ti hi yuddhaṃ katvā ti attho; “tiṇañ ca kaṭṭhañ ca
raṇam karontā dhāviṃsu te aṭṭha disā samantato” [Chaddantajātakam
1891: 49]31 ti ettha cuṇṇa(vicuṇṇa)karaṇe vattati, raṇaṃ karontā ti hi
cuṇṇavicuṇṇaṃ karontā ti attho.s

25 See below note 33. According to Pulleyblank (1991), alianruo 阿練若 was pronounced as
?alianʰɲia’, [’ = rising tone; ʰ = departing tone] in Early Middle Chinese. See also Nattier’s
(2003: 303 note 641) remark that some Prakrits do not distinguish between intervocalic
-ṇ- and -ṇy-.
26 This seems to be consistent with an analysis of the Indic original a-(raṇya) as apagata.
27 Paramārtha’s analysis of alianruo 阿練若 is also discussed in Funayama (2012: 33–35). I
thank one of the reviewers for this reference.
28 On Aggavaṃsa and the Saddanīti, seee Kahrs (1992: 2).
29 I reproduce the text in Helmer Smith’s (1929) edition, vol. 2 p. 357, lines 14–25. I add in
brackets the references to the canonical passages cited by Aggavaṃsa.
30 Fausbøll’s edition reads mahabbalo instead of mahiddhiko.
31 Fausbøll’s edition reads cuṇṇaṃ instead of raṇam. The variant reading ranam is given in
apparatus.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
174 visigalli

[1] The word raṇa means defilement[s] (kilesa) [in passages such as]
“dhammas with raṇa, dhammas without raṇa”. For with “raṇa” is
meant the means by which the defilements bewail (raṇanti), i.e.
lament.
[2] “Brandishing the bow, Peerless, the prince, powerful … having done
raṇa among all his enemies32 … he obtained self-restraint”. Here
[the word raṇa means] battle, for “having done raṇa” means “hav-
ing done battle”.
[3] “Making grass and woods into raṇa, they [the elephants] rushed in
from all the eight directions”. Here [the word raṇa means] crushing
to bits, for “making into raṇa” means crushing to bits.

Aggavaṃsa identifies three meanings of raṇa, and illustrates each of them with
a citation from the Pāli canon:
[1] raṇa means ‘defilement[s]’ (kilesa). Aggavaṃsa gives a kārakavyutpatti,
an analysis of the grammatical relation between the word raṇa and its
underlying verbal root √raṇ. √raṇ is glossed with √kan ‘lament’, and raṇa
is explained as the means by which one laments.
[2] raṇa means ‘battle’ ( yuddha).
[3] raṇa means ‘crushing to bits’ (cuṇṇavicuṇṇakaraṇa).
Despite their vast gap in terms of place, time, and language, there are noticeable
similarities between Paramārtha’s [P] analysis of alianruo 阿練若 (≈ a-raṇya)
and Aggavaṃsa’s [A] analysis of raṇa. Specifically, in both analyses the word
raṇ( y)a is given the following meanings:
(i) ‘defilements’; [P3] says that raṇya means fannao 煩惱, a word that is
commonly used to translate kleṣa/kilesa. [A1] says that raṇa means ki-
lesa.
(ii) ‘noise’; [P1] takes raṇya to mean the noise of the city. [A1] derives raṇa
from the root √raṇ in the sense of ‘to lament’ (√kan).
(iii) ‘strife/battle’; [P3] takes raṇya in the sense of strife. [A2] takes raṇa to
mean military battle.

32 I tentatively take sabbāmitte as a locative. If it is accusative plural, the gerund katvā

would govern two accusatives and the sentence should be translated as “having made all
his enemies into raṇa”. While this interpretation parallels [3] (“making grass and woods
into raṇa”), it does not fit well with the gloss “having done battle” ( yuddhaṃ katvā). It is
however possible that Aggavaṃsa regarded [2] and [3] as parallel, since in both citations
from the Pāli canon the word raṇa is construed with the verb √kṛ.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 175

While these three meanings are recorded in the entries of (a)raṇa in Pali
English Dictionary (1921–1925), Critical Pali Dictionary (1925), and Buddhist
Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (1953),33 the following meaning is not:
(iv) ‘hacking/crushing’. [P2] takes raṇya as referring to the hacking (kanfa
斫伐) of wood. [A3] takes raṇa as indicating the crushing of ‘grass and
woods’ (tiṇañ ca kaṭṭhañ) caused by the rushing elephants.
Paramārtha’s analysis exemplifies the long-lasting vitality of Indian etymolo-
gizing and the role it played in the transmission process of Indic Buddhist texts
into Chinese. Max Deeg (2010) has persuasively argued that Indic nirvacana
analyses underlie a large number of Chinese Buddhist terms.34 However, while
the Chinese terms constitute the end-products of such analyses, “there is little
direct evidence of a discussion of the theoretical and practical considerations
involved” (2010: 86) in the process of creating Chinese Buddhist terminology.
In this respect, Paramārtha’s analysis is unique. Recording Paramārtha’s “oral
commentaries” (Funayama 2010: 141), this analysis is a rare window enabling
us to glimpse the role Indic-derived nirvacana analysis played in the process of
elucidating Indic words to a Chinese audience.35

33 I cite from the relevant entries, adding in brackets the number corresponding to the three
meanings identified in Paramārtha’s and Aggavaṃsa’s analyses. PED [raṇa] refers to Pāli
Dhātupāṭha for root ran meaning ‘sound’ (ii), and identifies two basic senses for raṇa:
‘fight, battle’ (iii) and ‘intoxication, desire, sin, fault’ (i). See the whole entry with refer-
ences to pāli commentaries and modern translations. See also the entry araṇa ‘quietude,
peace’. CPD [a-raṇa] takes raṇa as meaning “‘(sensual) enjoyment” and “battle” (iii), but in
pāli tradition = kilesa’ (i). References are given to the passage in the Saddanīti discussed in
this paper and to La Vallée Poussin’s (1923: vol. I p. 14) translation of Abhidharmakośa. The
word a-raṇa is rendered as ‘free from passion (beyond strife)’. BHSD [raṇa] identifies two
meanings, ‘passion, sin, depravity = kleśa’ (i) and ‘sound’ (ii). See also entry raṇaṃjaha,
where ‘contamination with raṇa, battle’ (iii) is proposed.
34 Cf. also Karashima (2016) and (2017).
35 As noted above, Paramārtha’s analysis of alianruo (≈ a-raṇya) appears to reflect a contam-
ination between two underlying Indic words, a-raṇya and a-raṇa. While the etymological
analysis of a-raṇa underlies the widely attested Chinese Buddhist term wuzheng 無諍
‘without strife’, it yet needs to be determined whether a-raṇya ‘wilderness’ was likewise
ever rendered etymologically in a way that would reflect Paramārtha’s analysis. The Hôbô-
girin (1927: vol. I p. 34) [entry arannya] records the semantic translations wuzheng 無諍
‘without strife’ and wuzhengshen 無諍聲 ‘without strife [and] noise’, both based on the
etymological analysis a-raṇ(y)a. However, the only sources cited by Hoborigin for these
translations are lexicographical works, 一切經音義 T2128, and the 新譯大方廣佛華嚴
經音義. As one of the reviewers pointed out ‘Neither of these works, on their own, allow
us to conclude that either term was ever actually in circulation as a “translation”—they
could equally be lexicographical calques produced precisely to aid in a type of etymologi-
cal analysis similar to that undertaken by some of the Indian scholars discussed earlier in

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
176 visigalli

6 Conclusion

The above exploration of emic etymological analyses of the word araṇya has
highlighted the longevity and pervasiveness of nirvacana analyses in Indic and
Indic-influenced literary cultures. It has also displayed the variety of purposes
served by such analyses. The Upaniṣadic author deployed them in CU 8.5 as
rhetorical or argumentative tools to emphasize the centrality of the institution
of brahmacarya. Etymologists and grammarians employed them as a means
to elucidating the words’ morphology and semantics. Etymological analyses
also underlie Paramārtha’s analysis whereby he explained the Indic notion of
araṇya to a Chinese Buddhist audience.
We also saw that authors deployed etymological analyses as a means to
redefining the notion of wilderness. From denoting a fearful place situated
outside the human ecumene, ‘wilderness’ came to mean an environment that
is conducive to religious betterment. Outlining the uncharted story of emic
analyses of araṇya allows us to appreciate the hermeneutic strategies whereby
interpreters resituated the changing concept of wilderness within their own
worldview or perspective.

Acknowledgments

It is my pleasure to acknowledge the help of the following people. Alastair Gor-

nall and Jens-Uwe Hartmann gave valuable comments on an early draft; Frank
Köhler kindly provided me with publications to which I had no access; Toru
Funayama shared his knowledge on nirvacanas in Chinese. Special thanks to
Stephanie Jamison for incisive comments on an early version of the paper. I
am also thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

References

Asadisajātakaṃ = Fausbøll 1879.

Aufrecht, Th. (ed.). 1859. Ujjvaladatta’s commentary on the uṇādisūtras, edited from a
manuscript in the library of the East India House. Bonn: Adolph Marcus.

the paper’. I thank the reviewer for this important clarification. Future research aimed at
clarifying the renditions of (a-)raṇ(y)a into Chinese should also consider the word araṇā;
see BHSD [a-raṇa].

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 177

Bhadkamkar, R.G. (ed.). 1942. The Nirukta of Yāska (With Nighaṇṭu) edited with Durga’s
commentary. Vol. II Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series No. LXXXV.
Bhate, Saroja. 1968. Some primary and secondary suffixes known to Yāska. Pune: Center
of advanced study in Sanskrit.
Bhate, Saroja. 1981. “Pāṇini and Yāska: Principles of Derivation.” Annals of the Bhan-
darkar Oriental Research Institute 62: 235–241.
BHSD = Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary
(vol. 2 Dictionary). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bodewitz, Henk. 1982. “Ṛgveda 10.146.” In Dr D.N. Shastri Felicitation Volume, edited by
Keshav Ram Pal, 3–15. Ghaziabad: Vimal Prakashan.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2001. “Etymology and Magic: Yāska’s Nirukta, Plato’s Cratylus,
and the Riddle of Semantic Etymologies.” Numen 48: 147–203.
Cardona, George. 2013. “Theoretical arguments concerning etymological explanations
in Yāska’s Nirukta.” In Idem Indological Research Different standpoints, edited by
P.C. Muraleemadhavan, 51–98. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation.
Chaddantajātakam = Fausbøll 1891.
Chintamani, T.R. (ed.). 1934. The Uṇādisūtras of Bhoja with the vṛtti of Daṇḍanātha
Nārāyaṇa and the Uṇādisūtras of the Kātantra school with the vṛtti of Durgasiṃha.
University of Madras.
Chintamani, T.R. 1992 [1933]. The Uṇādisūtra in various recensions. Part I. The Uṇādisū-
tras with the vṛtti of Svetavanavāsin. New Delhi: Navrang.
CPD = A Critical Pāli Dictionary. A Critical Pali Dictionary, begun by V. Trenckner, revised,
continued and edited by D. Andersen, H. Smith et al., Vol. 1. Copenhagen 1924.
Deeg, Max. 1995. Die altindische Etymologie nach dem Verständnis Yāska’s und seiner Vor-
gänger: eine Untersuchung über ihre Praktiken, ihre literarische Verbreitung und ihr
Verhältnis zur dichterischen Gestaltung und Sprachmagie. Dettelbach: Joseph H. Röll.
Deeg, Max. 2010. “Creating religious terminology—A comparative approach to early
Chinese Buddhist translations.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 31.1–2: 83–118.
Deussen, Paul, tr. 1921³ [1897]. Sechzig Upanishads des Veda, aus dem Sanskrit über-
setzt und mit Einleitungen und Anmerkungen Versehen von Dr. Paul Deussen. Leipzig
F.A. Brockhaus.
Devarājayajvan. 1952. Niruktam (Nighaṇṭu) by Maharshi Yaskacharya with a commen-
tary by Pandit Deveraja Yajvan. Vol. 1. Calcutta. Curumdal Series No. X.
Dhammasaṅgaṇī = Müller 1885.
Durga 1921 = Rajavade 1921
Durga 1942 = Bhadkamkar 1942.
Elizarenkova, T.Y. 1995. Words and Things in the Ṛgveda. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute.
Elizarenkova, T.Y. (trans.). 1999. Rigveda: mandaly IX–X. Moscow: Nauka.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
178 visigalli

Fausbøll, Vigo (ed). 1879. The Jātakas together with its commentary being tales of the ante-
rior births of Gotama Buddha. For the first time edited in the original Pāli by V. Fausbøll
and translated by T.W. Rhys Davids. Text. Vol. II. London: Trübner & Co.
Fausbøll, Vigo (ed.). 1891. The Jātakas together with its commentary being tales of the
anterior births of Gotama Buddha. For the first time edited in the original Pāli by
V. Fausbøll, Vol. V. London: Trübner & Co.
Funayama, Toru. 2006. “Masquerading as Translation: Examples of Chinese Lectures
by Indian Scholar-Monks in the Six Dynasties Period.” Asia Major 19.1/2: 39–55.
Funayama, Toru. 2010. “The Work of Paramārtha: An Example of Sino-Indian Cross-
Cultural Exchange.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31:
141–183.
Funayama, Toru. (2012). Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the
Works and Influence of Paramartha]. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo
/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.
Hôbôgirin dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et
japonaises; publié sous le haut patronage de l’Académie imperiale du Japon, et sous
la direction de Sylvain Lévi et J. Takakusu; rédacteur en chef, Paul Demiéville. Vol. I.
1929.
Ickler, I. 1973. Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung und Syntax der Chandogyopanisad.
Goppingen: Verlag Alfred Kummerle.
Kahrs, Evind. 1992. “Exploring the Saddaniti.” Journal of the Pali Text Society 17: 1–212.
Kahrs, Evind. 1998. Indian Semantic Analysis: the Nirvacana Tradition. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Kahrs, Evind. 2002. “Playing with Words: Nighantava and the Problem of Multiple
Explanations in Yaska’s Nirukta.” In Subhasini: Prof. Dr. Saroja Bhate Felicitation Vol-
ume, edited by G.U. Thite, 174–186. Pune: Prof. Dr. Saroja Bhate Felicitation Commit-
tee.
Karashima, Seishi. 2001. “Who composed the Lotus Sūtra? Antagonism between wilder-
ness and village monks.” Annual Report of the International Research Institute for
Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 4: 143–179.
Karashima, Seishi. 2016. “Indian Folk Etymologies and their Reflections in Chinese
Translations—brāhmaṇa, śramaṇa and Vaiśramaṇa.” Annual Report of the Interna-
tional Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 19: 101–123.
Karashima, Seishi. 2017. “On Avalokitasvara and Avalokiteśvara.” Annual Report of the
International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 20: 139–
165.
Kielhorn, Franz and K.V. Abhyankar. 1880–1885. The Vyākaraṇamahābhāṣya of Pata-
ñjali. 3 vols. Bombay. [1962–1972. Third edition revised and furnished with additional
readings, references, and select critical notes by K.V. Abhyankar. Vols. I, II, III. Pune:
Bhandarkar Institute Press, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (non vidi)]

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool
charting ‘wilderness’ in brahmanical and buddhist texts 179

Kṣīrasvāmin 1913 = The nāmaliṅgānuśāsana (Amarakośa) of Amarasiṃha with the com-

mentary (Amarakośodghāṭana) of Kṣīrasvāmin, edited by Krishnaji Govind Oka.
Poona.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de. 1923–1931. L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu. Paris: Geuth-
ner. (Reprint: Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 16, Bruselles: Institut Belge des hautes
Études Chinoises, 1971).
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony, and Arthur Berriedale Keith. 1912. Vedic Index of Names
and Subjects. London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, W.
Malamoud, Charles. 1989 [1976]. “Village et foret dans l’ ideologie de l’ Inde Brah-
manique.” Idem. 1989. Cuire le monde. Rite et pensée dans l’ Inde ancienne, 93–114.
Paris: La Découverte. [English translation 1996. Cooking the World: Ritual and
Thought in Ancient India. Oxford University Press].
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Hei-
delberg: Carl Winter.
Mehendale, Madhukar Anant. 1978. “Yāska’s Second Rule of Derivation.” In Nirukta
Notes. Series II, 57–62. Poona: Deccan College.
Müller, Edward (ed.). 1885 The Dhammasaṅgaṇī, published for the Pali Text Society, by
H. Frowde in London [reprint 1978].
Nattier, Jan. 2003. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of
Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā): a Study and Translation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Olivelle, Patrick. 2011 [1991]. “Village vs Wildernss: Ascetic Ideals and the Hindu World.”
Idem. Ascetics and Brahmins: Studies in Ideologies and Institutions, 43–62. London,
New York, Delhi: Anthem Press.
Paul, Diana Y. 1982. “The Life and Times of Paramartha (499–569).” The Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies 5.1: 37–69.
Paul, Diana Y. 1984. Philosophy of Mind in Sixth-Century China: Paramārtha’s “Evolution
of Consciousness”. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
PED = The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary, edited by T.W. Rhys Davids and
William Stede. 1921–1925.
Pulleyblank, Edwin. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chi-
nese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press.
Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli (ed. and transl.). (1968 [1953]). The Principal Upaniṣads,
edited with introduction, text, translation, and notes. London: George Allen & Unwin
LTD.
Rajavade, V.K. (ed.). 1921. Durgācarya’s commentary on the Nirukta. Durgācāryakṛta-
vṛttisametam Niruktam (Ānandāśramasaṃskṛtagranthāvaliḥ 88).
Rajavade, V.K. 1940. Yāska’s Nirukta, Volume I: Introduction. Full Texts of Nighaṇṭu and
Nirukta. Cursory Examination of Nighaṇṭu. Notes on chapters I–III of Nirukta. Pune:
Bhandarkar Oriental Institute.

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180 Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM

via University of Liverpool
180 visigalli

Rau, Wilhelm. 1957. Staat und Gessellschaft im alten Indien nach den Brāhmaṇa-Texten
dargestellt.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Renou, Louis (trans.). 1951. La Grammarire de Pāṇini, traduite du Sanskrit avec des
extraits des commentaires indigènes. Fascicule 2 Adhyāya IV. V et VI 1.1–157. Paris:
Libraire Klincksieck.
Samantapāsādika = Vol. II (1969 [1927]), edited by J. Takakusu and M. Nagai. London:
Pali Text Society.
Sāyaṇa. 1946. Sontakke, N.S. and C.G. Kashikar (eds.) Ṛgvedasaṃhitā with the commen-
tary of Sāyaṇācārya (vol. 4). Pune: Vaidika Saṃśodhana Maṇḍala.
Sarup, Lakshman (ed., trans.). 1920–1927. The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta, the oldest
Indian treatise on etymology, philology, and semantics. London, New York: Oxford
University Press [Reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967, 1984].
Sarup, Lakshman (ed.). 1934. Commentary of Skandasvāmin and Maheśvara on the
Nirukta vols III & IV chapters VII–XIII, critically edited for the first time from origi-
nal manuscripts with an introduction, indices and appendices. Lahore: University of
the Panjab.
Skandasvāmin-Maheśvara 1934 = Sarup 1934.
Smith, Helmer (ed.). 1929. Saddanīti, la grammaire Palie d’ Aggavaṃsa. Vol. 2 Dhatumālā
(pariccheda xv–xix). Lund: Gleerup.
Sprockhoff, Joachim Friedrich. 1981, 1984, 1991. “Āraṇyaka und Vānaprastha in der vedis-
chen Literatur. Neue Erwägungen zu einer alten Legende und ihren Problemen I, II,
III.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für Indische Philosophie 25:
19–90; 28: 5–43; 35: 5–46.
Thapar, Romila. 2001. “Perceiving the Forest: Early India.” Studies in History 17.1: 1–16.
Thieme, Paul. 1949. Untersuchungen zur Wortkunde und Auslegung des Rigvedas. Halle:
Max Nieme Verlag.
Thieme, Paul. 1968. “RV 10.146.2 āghāṭibhir iva dhāvayan.” Pratidānam: Indian, Iranian,
and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on His
Sixtieth Birthday, edited by G.H. Schokker, V.I. Subramoniam and J.C. Heesterman,
383–392. The Hague-Paris: Mouton.
Vasu, Ś. C. (ed., trans.). 1891. The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
[reprint 1962].
Vishva Bandhu, Shastri. 1935–1965. A Vedic Word Concordance. In collaboration with
Bhim Dev, R. and A. Nath (5 sections in 16 parts). Lahore and Hoshiarpur: Vishvesh-
varanand Vedic Research Institute.
Visigalli, P. 2017. “Words in and out of history: Indian semantic derivation (nirvacana)
and modern etymology in dialog.” Philosophy East and West 67.4: 1143–1190.
Visuddhimagga = ed. C.A.F. Rhys Davids, 2 volumes, 1920, 1921. London: Pali Text Society
[reprinted as one vol. 1975].

Indo-Iranian Journal 62 (2019) 162–180

Downloaded from Brill.com11/13/2020 10:35:26PM
via University of Liverpool