In the Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 21(1935) pp 21ff., Ràhula SaïkÔtyàyana described his second visit to Tibet in a search for Indian manuscripts in the summer of 1934. He lists among the MSS he saw at Ngor monastery a Dharmapada (34.1.159). It is not clear when he photographed this MS, but it was presumably during his next visit to Tibet, in 1936 (Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 23 (1937) pp 1ff.). Since the photographs were taken to Patna, where they are held by the K P Jayaswal Research Institute, I will refer to this MS as Patna. Editions of this MS have been made by N S Shukla (The Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dharmapada, Patna 1979), and G Roth (The Patna Dhammapada, in The Language of the Earliest Buddhist Tradition, Gottingen 1980, pp 93-135). My transcription is based on a photograph of the original photographs, made available to me through the kindness of Prof. Dr H Bechert, der Direktor des Seminars für Indologie und Buddhismuskunde der Universität Göttingen.

The script of Patna can be classed among those called by Bühler (Indian Palaeography, English edition, Bombay 1904, p 48) Proto-Bengali. He gives among his examples the Deopàra Inscription of Vijayasena (Table V, column XVIII; El 1 (1882) p 308), dated by Kielhorn in El 1 to the end of the eleventh century AD; and the Cambridge MSS Add.1699, 1-2 (Table VI, column X) dated 1198-9 AD. To these can be added the Gayà Inscription mentioning Govindapàla (El 35 (1963-4) p 238) dated 1175-6 AD. All three texts are in Sanskrit, and so contain for the most part different conjunct consonants from Patna.

A comparison of Patna with the Gayà Inscription shows a very close similarity between all the single akùaras found in both texts, with the exception of visarga. (No examples of initial i- and u-, single cha, jha, ta and óha occur in the Gayà Inscription.) The few conjuncts they have in common, eg sta, ùña, ùñha and ndra, are also very similar, but ku is different, Gayà retaining the basic shape of ka, while Patna does not. The inscription also begins with the same symbol (for siddhaü) as is found in Patna.

The Deopàra Inscription, although recognisably the same script, is not so closely related to Patna, but does confirm the signs for initial i- and u-, jha, ña and óha, and exhibits clearly such conjuncts as ÿca and ÿja. It agrees, however, with the Gayà Inscription against Patna in its signs for ku and visarga.

The Cambridge MSS Add.1699, 1-2 are in a more flamboyant hand, but basically the signs are very similar to Patna. In this case the similarity includes ku and visarga, but initial i- differs somewhat. The symbols used to number the leaves of Patna resemble closely those used in Cambridge MS Add.1699, 2.

The same type of script is used in the MS of the Bhikùuõã Vinaya (Bhã Vin) of the Mahasaïghikalokottaravàdins, also photographed in Tibet by SaïkÔtyàyana, and edited by G Roth (Patna 1970). Roth describes the MS and script in his introduction (pp XVIII-XXVII), and reproduces six leaves of the MS (facing p XXVI). A comparison of Patna with this photograph reveals a very close resemblance (the Bhã Vin MS is better and more clearly written). Again, as in the other examples of the script, the language of the Bhã Vin is basically Sanskrit, and so uses different conjunct consonants. The two scripts are not absolutely identical: Bhã Vin always uses for medial -i- sign above the akùara very similar to nàgarã -e, whereas Patna uses sometimes a vertical to the left arching over the akùara, and sometimes a simple arch. Bhã Vin's initial i- has not the right vertical found in Patna (and in the Deopàra Inscription). Bhã Vin's la and èa have a double arch (this is true of almost all the other examples discussed), while Patna èa is closer to ga, and la to nàgarã ta (in this Cambridge Add.1699, 1 agrees). The forms of ttha differ, Patna resembling the nàgarã form. None of these examples has -à written as a hook above the akùara as Patna has occasionally (cf eg the final syllable of vijàneyà, 3 A vi), but this practice can be seen in the Cambridge MS Add.1643 (1015 AD).

These comparisons suggest that Patna can be dated in the second half of the twelfth century AD.

The photograph of the MS is not easy to read. Some of the leaves are overlapped by others; drawing-pins obscure some lines; and some of the leaves are blurred. In addition, the script itself can be ambiguous: s and m are indistinguishable, as are v and h, t and bh, and tt and tu; p, y and d can also look very alike, as can è and g. Subscript r in tr is particularly hard to be sure of, and it will be seen that I accept its presence much more rarely than Roth or Shukla.

It is clear that disagreements over readings are very probable, especially when we have no exact parallel in another text. I have recorded all occasions where Roth and/or Shukla differ from my reading, even where their readings are obviously printing errors. Unless I comment otherwise, I am convinced of my reading, either because I believe the MS testimony is clear, or because a parallel supports one possible alternative rather than another.

I have transcribed what the MS has, as far as I can, without any editorial work of correcting, or making consistent, and supplying missing words or syllables (in square brackets) only if we can be certain of what they must have been. On a few occasions I have placed in round brackets possible alternative readings, or have added hyphens to make clear how I understand the text. I have also bracketed with <> obvious mistakes. Otherwise I say with the last Patna scribe: yathà drùñaü tathà likhitam iti panhàro 'yam asmadãyaþ.