https://www.encyclopedia.com/…/encyclopedias-almanacs-trans…
Sanskrit, Buddhist Literature in
Encyclopedia of Buddhism
COPYRIGHT 2004 The Gale Group Inc.
SANSKRIT, BUDDHIST LITERATURE IN

Buddhist literature in Sanskrit is a large and diverse category. It
consists of both canonical and noncanonical materials, the latter
ranging from anonymous narrative collections and ritual manuals through
technical treatises, poetry, and plays written by known individuals. Two
distinct languages are used in this category: Sanskrit and so-called
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the ancient prestige language of
Indian culture, first known through collections of hymns called Vedas
dating from the second millennium b.c.e., and later systematized in a
generative grammar by Pāṇini (fourth century b.c.e.). In brahmanical
Hindu religion, Sanskrit is seen as the natural language, that which
would be spoken by any person if not trained in a vernacular as a child,
and as such represents reality more closely than external phenomena
perceived through the senses. The ability to compose in
Sanskrit—requiring precise control of its complex inflectional system,
and in verse the capacity to reproduce artfully a variety of metrical
patterns—was seen as the epitome of educated civilization. Buddhist
Hybrid Sanskrit (hereafter BHS) is the language of a text called the
MahĀvastu and of most MahĀyĀna sūtras, that is, discourses attributed to
the Buddha. It has been denoted by this name since the publication of a
dictionary and grammar of the language by Franklin Edgerton, but has
also been called “Buddhist Sanskrit,” “mixed Sanskrit,” and “the gāthā
dialect” (reflecting the fact that it is most commonly found in the
verses, gāthā, of Mahāyāna discourses). The origin and nature of BHS is
disputed, Edgerton preferring to view it as the result of an incomplete
process of translation into Sanskrit of materials originally composed in
a vernacular, prakrit. This was not a formal attempt at translation but
a gradual process of influence reflecting the prestige of Sanskrit
proper in the broader community (Edgerton, sect. 1.34). BHS texts vary
in character, particularly in the degree to which they employ vernacular
grammatical forms. Later BHS texts are identified as such largely
through their vocabulary, their grammar being that of standard, if
simple, Sanskrit. In the eyes of traditionally trained paṇḍits and even
some Western scholars, BHS has appeared to be a highly incorrect, even
barbaric, language requiring correction. The work of defining BHS
continues, as texts are edited anew with greater sensitivity.
Canonical literature

Whereas for the mainstream Buddhist schools, the canon was defined in
terms of an exclusive tripiṭaka, both the Mahāyāna and VajrayĀna
traditions utilized a more flexible, inclusive concept of canon that
allowed, alongside the tripiṭaka, the incorporation of a large number of
texts claiming to be buddhavacana, (word of the Buddha). This is
indicated by their opening with the phrase evaṃ mayā śrutaṃ (”Thus have I
heard”), indicating that each text is understood to have been recited
by the Buddha’s disciple Ānanda at the First Council. Modern scholarship
situates these texts as new if anonymous compositions, the chronology
of which tracks the evolution of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, respectively.
The inclusiveness of later Indian Buddhism regarding canonicity also
means that it is difficult to know the precise total extent of the
literature. The Pāli canon by tradition has been fixed since the first
century b.c.e. and the exact content is well known, as revealed in the
fifth-century c.e. commentaries attributed to Buddhaghosa and others.
There is no comparable clarity for the Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna, and even
now there exists no comprehensive catalogue of works for either
tradition. The nearest we have are the ancient catalogues of scriptures
of the Chinese and Tibetan translated canons, none of which are
exhaustive. This situation makes it difficult to write with conclusive
authority on many aspects of this literature as a whole.

This
situation is further complicated in that the major portion of canonical
Buddhist literature in Sanskrit has been lost since the time of Muslim
depredations in northern India (eleventh through twelfth centuries c.e.)
and is now known only through ancient translations made into Tibetan,
Chinese, and other languages. The exceptions to this have come from two
sources: archaeological or antiquarian recovery of ancient manuscripts
or their active preservation through copying in Nepal. Notable among the
former are numerous manuscripts recovered from the oases of Central
Asia, the small library of about fifty texts found in Gilgit in the
1930s, Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana’s photographs made in the 1930s in Tibet of
very early Sanskrit manuscripts originally transported there in the
medieval period to assist translation work, and the recovery in the
1990s of very early manuscripts from Afghanistan, such as those in the
collection of Martin Schøyen in Oslo (Braarvig). Typical of the latter
category from Nepal are numerous manuscripts of nine canonical texts
called the navadharma (the nine teachings), along with a wide range of
tantric ritual texts. The bulk of Buddhist Sanskrit literature known
today has been preserved in Nepal (Mitra).

Āgama collections. The
āgama collections are the functional equivalents of the nikayas of the
Pāli canon—thus there were long (dīrgha), middling (madhyama), thematic
(saṃyukta), incremental (ekottara), and miscellaneous (kṣudraka)
collections in Sanskrit. The āgama collections contain Sanskrit versions
of many of the texts found in the Pāli collections, and are understood
to have been the śrāvaka canon as utilized on the Indian subcontinent by
śrāvaka lineages other than that of the TheravĀda school. Overall the
āgamas contained a larger number of texts than the nikāyas and arranged
them in a different sequence. Unlike other Buddhist literature in
Sanskrit that has no śrāvaka parallels, this category offers enormous
potential for comparative study to differentiate the ideas and concerns
of the śrāvaka schools. Regrettably, the āgamas do not survive in their
entirety and are largely known through translations of them made into
Chinese (Lamotte, pp. 153 f.). Until recently the only exceptions to
this were individual sūtras—for example, the MahĀparinirvĀṆasŪtra
(Waldschmidt) and fragments recovered from long abandoned Buddhist sites
in Central Asia—but this has changed with the discovery in Afghanistan
in the late 1990s of an almost complete manuscript of the Dīrghāgama,
probably belonging to the Mūlasarvāstivāda school (Hartmann).

Vinaya and abhidharma. Although there were seven canonical abhidharma
texts in Sanskrit belonging to the Sarvāstivāda school, these are now
lost in their original language. The Sanskrit vinaya collections have
fared better, and two works in particular warrant mention. The first of
these is the MŪlasarvĀstivĀdavinaya, which has mostly survived in a
single manuscript discovered at Gilgit. This massive text is a
compilation of narratives and case law offering numerous insights into
the preoccupations and realia of monastic life in medieval India
(Panglung). With this we can compare the Mahāvastu, a wonderful
collection of narratives and lore built around a biography of the Buddha
that describes itself as belonging to the vinaya of the Lokottaravāda
branch of the MĀhĀsĀṂghika school (Jones). This too contains interesting
and important parallels to material found in the Pāli canon.

Mahāyāna. Mahāyāna sūtras form a diverse body of literature produced
between the first century b.c.e. and the fifth century c.e. The earliest
examples are thought to be the perfection of wisdom texts,
Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā and Ratnaguṇasaṃcaya-gāthā, in prose and
verse, respectively. These expound a critique of the abhidharma and the
teaching of the real existence of dharmas and promote the bodhisattva as
the ideal Buddhist. While many Mahāyāna sūtras are now only known in
Tibetan and Chinese translations, we are well endowed with manuscripts
of the navadharma, which includes the following sītras:
Saddharmapuṇḍarīka (Lotus Sūtra), Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāparamitā,
LaṄkĀvatĀrasŪtra, Daśabhūmiśvara, Gaṇḍavyūha, Samādhirāja, and
SuvarṆaprabhĀsottamasŪtra; plus the Lalitavistara, a śrāvakayāna
biography of the Buddha that is built around guides to the main
pilgrimage sites of the Buddha’s life (Foucher), and the
Guhyasamāja-tantra, a Vajrayāna work. These texts and others express a
range of doctrinal views and a number of them were among those
considered authoritative and thus expounded by Mahāyāna doctrinal
traditions, such as the Madhyamaka school and the YogĀcĀra school.

Vajrayāna. From the middle of the first millennium c.e. until the
demise of institutional Buddhism in India in the twelfth century, there
began to appear Buddhist tantric works, written in Sanskrit, employing
instrumental magic and ritual to achieve specific goals. Retrospectively
these have been assigned to four classes: kriyā or “action” tantras;
caryā or “conduct” tantras, dominated by the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi
Tantra (Tantra on the Perfect Awakening of Mahā-Vairocana); yoga or
“meditation” tantras, dominated by the Sarvatathāgatatattvasamgraha
(Compendium on the Essence of all the Tathāgatas); and the anuttarayoga
or “supreme meditation” tantras, among which is included the Guhyasamaja
Tantra (Tantra on the Secret Assembly). The last tantra composed in
India before the final demise of institutional Buddhism there was the
eleventh-century Kālacakra Tantra, a major work seeking not just
soteriological goals but also offering a defense against contemporary
Muslim domination. Texts in the higher classes of tantra tend toward
asserting feminine representations of the ideal, employing antinomian
practices (e.g., consumption of forbidden substances, sexual
transgression of monastic rules and caste boundaries), and, although
written in relatively normal Sanskrit, employ a secret or allusive
vocabulary called sandhyabhāṣā, in which actual referents are disguised
by euphemisms and elaborate symbolism. A minor example of this appears
in the opening phrase of the Guhyasamāja Tantra, which forgoes the
familiar formula and asserts instead that the Buddha delivered the
tantra while residing in the “vagina of the Vajra Lady,” which is
understood to mean “while residing in the wisdom of enlightenment.”

Commentaries. This entire body of canonical material inspired
commentarial literature usually composed by known historical
individuals, although this too has fared badly and relatively little
survives in its original language. There is no definitive catalogue of
Sanskrit commentaries, but it has been estimated in relation to the
Tibetan canon that, of 120 commentaries translated into Tibetan, only
ninety remain current; allowing for duplications, these offer comment on
only thirty-four, or 10 percent, of the sūtras extant in the same canon
(Schoening). Commentaries vary widely in length, from single folios to
several volumes, and some sūtras have attracted much more attention than
others—the Heart SŪtra, a short Perfection of Wisdom text, having seven
commentaries. There are also subcommentaries on primary commentaries,
the Abhisamayālaṃkāra apparently inspiring something in excess of
twenty.
Noncanonical literature

Canonical materials alone do
not exhaust Buddhist literature in Sanskrit. In fact, the larger part of
the field is made up of noncanonical materials, which are even more
diverse than their canonical counterparts. In the following survey, the
subcategories employed are by no means exclusive, merging in some cases
with each other and with canonical materials.

Narrative.
Narrative is a, if not the, dominant genre of Buddhist literature, and
happily many examples have survived into the present day. The canonical
literature already reviewed is replete with narrative materials that
were redacted to form new compilations of pure narrative, such as the
AvadĀnaŚataka (One Hundred Stories of Edifying Deeds) and the
DivyĀvadĀna (Divine Stories of Edifying Deeds), the latter probably
redacted from the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya. The Avadānaśataka
subsequently inspired further cycles of verse renderings of sets of its
stories, which were composed probably in the second half of the first
millennium c.e. These texts, clearly the result of a concerted attempt
to revise the entire Avadānaśataka by what was probably a tradition of
specialists in this kind of narrative literature, were termed mālā
(garlands), and typically employ a frame story involving a dialogue
between the emperor AŚoka and a monk named Upagupta (Strong).

Ritual texts. The Nepalese community has preserved a host of ritual
texts of a variety of kinds. Many of these are transmitted from Indian
originals and include compendia of meditation texts giving guidance on
the visualization and worship of buddhas, bodhisattvas, and various
tantric figures, such as the Sādhanamālā and Niṣpannayogāvalī. There are
also more miscellaneous collections covering a range of activities,
such as building monasteries (e.g., the Kriyāsaṃgraha).

Treatises. Often attracting attention before the more extensive
narrative and ritual materials, there are important treatises, śāstras,
compiled by known historical individuals in order to expound specific
doctrinal positions, sometimes doctrines voiced in sūtra sources. Among
these we should note the encyclopedic AbhidharmakoŚabhĀṢya (Treasury of
Higher Teaching) of Vasubandhu, which sets out a survey of Sarvāstivāda
doctrine, which it then critiques from a SautrĀntika viewpoint in an
autocommentary. Some treatises offer exegeses of the work of earlier
scholiasts; thus CandrakĪrti’s Prasannapadā is effectively a commentary
on NĀgĀrjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakākarikā (Foundational Verses on the Middle
Way), both being core textual authorities in the exegesis of Madhyamaka
doctrine. By contrast, Vasubandhu’s Viṃśatikā and Triṃśikā (Twenty
Verses and Thirty Verses) expound doctrine de novo. ŚĀntideva’s
BodhicaryĀvatĀra (Introduction to the Conduct of a Bodhisattva)
systematically outlines in evocative poetry the nature of a
bodhisattva’s practice and exemplifies the crossover into material that
we might otherwise classify as purely poetic (Crosby and Skilton).

Poetry and drama. Sometimes undeservedly attracting less attention are
splendid works of self-consciously high literary merit. These include
AŚvaghoṢa’s second-century c.e.Buddhacarita, a verse biography of the
Buddha, and Saundarananda, the earliest examples of Sanskrit kāvya (high
poetry) that have survived. Regrettably we have lost Aśvaghoṣa’s
dramas, which included an account of the conversions of ŚĀriputra and
MahĀmaudgalyĀyana, and they are known now only through manuscript
fragments from Central Asia. Similar to these are the prose and verse
kāvya JĀtakamĀlĀ of ĀryaŚŪra (fourth century c.e.), a retelling of
thirty-four jātaka stories in elegant court style. His Pāramitāsamāsa
(Compendium of the Perfections) is an important parallel to Śāntideva’s
Bodhicaryāvatāra (Meadows). Another important work is the Nāgananda of
Harṣa, a seventh-century king, a complete drama that retells the story
of the bodhisattva as Jīmutavāhana. This last is notable in that its
author was not a Buddhist, a distinction shared with the
Avadā-nakalpalatā, a cycle of 108 Buddhist stories retold in verse by
the eleventh-century Kashmiri poet Kṣemendra. All these examples are
characterized by the reworking of existing narratives from canonical
sources, but this crossover can also be seen in the elegant kāvya meters
sometimes employed in the composition of some canonical literature.
Numerous original compositions in verse survive mainly in translation.
Often concerned with praise, they are called stotra (hymns), chief among
which must be the works of Mātṛceta (second century c.e.), two of which
were memorized by all monks in India, according to the Chinese pilgrim
Yijing (635–713).

Nepalese Buddhist literature in Sanskrit. While
the composition of Buddhist literature died out in India after the
Muslim conquests of the twelfth century c.e., it continued in Nepal,
where cultural continuity was retained and in fact heavily augmented by
refugees from the Buddhist homelands in northeastern India. Of later
composition in Nepal are various pārājika texts, describing ritual means
whereby one might avoid the negative consequences of various kinds of
killing, and demonstrating a Hindu-Buddhist syncretism. Of greater
literary merit are seven large verse compositions that retell materials
familiar from Indic sources, such as the Avadānaśataka and Mahāvastu,
but which also borrow heavily from śāstra-type material, such as the
Bodhicaryāvatāra. These include the Svayambhū-purāṇa, Bhadrakalpāvadana,
Vicitrakarṇikāvadāna, and the Guṇakāraṇḍavyūha. These all reuse the
frame story of Upagupta and Aśoka, familiar from the Indian
avadānamālās, but supplement it with a further framing device involving
two monks, Jināśrī and Jayaśrī. These texts also incorporate values of
Nepalese Buddhism, while the Svayambhūpurāṇa goes so far as to localize
the Buddhist sacred landscape and mythology in Nepal.

See also:Āgama/Nikāya; Languages; Pāli, Buddhist Literature in
Bibliography

Braarvig, Jens; Harrison, Paul; Hartmann, Jens-Uwe; Kazunobu Matsuda;
and Sander, Lore; eds. Buddhist Manuscripts of the Schøyen Collection, 2
vols. Oslo: Hermes, 2000 and 2002.

Crosby, Henrietta Kate, and Skilton, Andrew, trans. The Bodhicaryāvatāra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1954.

Foucher, Alfred. La vie du Bouddha, d’après les textes et les monuments de l’Inde (1949). Paris: Maisonneuve, 1987.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe. “Further Remarks on the New Manuscript of the
Dīrghāgama.” Journal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist
Studies 5 (2002): 98–117.

Hodge, Stephen, trans. The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003.

Jones, J. J., trans. The Mahāvastu, 3 vols. London: Luzac, 1949–1956.

Lamotte, Étienne. History of Indian Buddhism from the Origins to the
Śaka Era (1958), tr. Sara Webb-Boin. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters Press,
1988.

Meadows, Carol. Ārya-Śūra’s Compendium of the Perfections:
Text, Translation, and Analysis of the Pāramitāsamāsa. Bonn, Germany:
Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1986.

Mitra, Rajendralal. The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal (1882). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981.

Panglung, Jampa L. Die Erzälstoffe des Mūlasarvāstivada-Vinaya
Analysiert auf grund der Tibetischen Übersetzung. Tokyo: Reiyukai
Library, 1981.

Schoening, Jeffrey D. “Sūtra Commentaries in
Tibetan Translation.” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, ed. José
I. Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1996.

Skorupski, Tadeusz. Kriyasamgraha: Compendium of Buddhist Rituals. Tring, UK: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2002.

Strong, John. “The Buddhist Avadānists and the Elder Upagupta.” Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 22 (1985): 862–881.

Waldschmidt, Ernst. Das Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, 3 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1950–1951.

Wayman, Alex. Yoga of the Guhyasamājatantra: The Arcane Lore of Forty
Verses, a Buddhist Tantra Commentary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977.
Reprint, 1991.

Winternitz, Maurice. A History of Indian
Literature (1933), Vol. 2: Buddhist and Jain Literature, tr. V.
Srinivasa Sarma. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983. Reprint, 1999.

Andrew Skilton

डो नोत् बेलिएवे इन् अन्य्थिन्ग् सिम्प्ल्य् बेचौसे योउ हवे हेअर्द् इत्.
डो नोत् बेलिएवे इन् अन्य्थिन्ग् सिम्प्ल्य् बेचौसे इत् इस् स्पोकेन् अन्द्
रुमोरेद् ब्य् मन्य्. डो नोत् बेलिएवे इन् अन्य्थिन्ग् सिम्प्ल्य् बेचौसे
इत् इस् fओउन्द् wरित्तेन् इन् योउर् रेलिगिओउस् बोओक्स्. डो नोत् बेलिएवे
इन् अन्य्थिन्ग् मेरेल्य् ओन् थे औथोरित्य् ओf योउर् तेअच्हेर्स् अन्द्
एल्देर्स्. डो नोत् बेलिएवे इन् त्रदितिओन्स् बेचौसे थेय् हवे बेएन्
हन्देद् दोwन् fओर् मन्य् गेनेरतिओन्स्. Bउत् अfतेर् ओब्सेर्वतिओन् अन्द्
अनल्य्सिस्, wहेन् योउ fइन्द् थत् अन्य्थिन्ग् अग्रेएस् wइथ् रेअसोन् अन्द्
इस् चोन्दुचिवे तो थे गोओद् अन्द् बेनेfइत् ओf ओने अन्द् अल्ल्, थेन्
अच्चेप्त् इत् अन्द् लिवे उप् तो इत्.

ञुस्त् अस् त्रेअसुरेस्
अरे उन्चोवेरेद् fरोम् थे एअर्थ्, सो विर्तुए अप्पेअर्स् fरोम् गोओद्
देएद्स्, अन्द् wइस्दोम् अप्पेअर्स् fरोम् अ पुरे अन्द् पेअचेfउल् मिन्द्.
टो wअल्क् सfएल्य् थ्रोउघ् थे मशे ओf हुमन् लिfए, ओने नेएद्स् थे लिघ्त् ओf
wइस्दोम् अन्द् थे गुइदन्चे ओf विर्तुए.

ठे wइसे ओनेस् fअस्हिओनेद् स्पेएच्ह् wइथ् थेइर् थोउघ्त्, सिfतिन्ग् इत् अस् ग्रैन् इस् सिfतेद् थ्रोउघ् अ सिएवे.

ठे विर्तुएस्, लिके थे ंउसेस्, अरे अल्wअय्स् सेएन् इन् ग्रोउप्स्. आ
गोओद् प्रिन्चिप्ले wअस् नेवेर् fओउन्द् सोलितर्य् इन् अन्य् ब्रेअस्त्.

Qउओतेस् Bय् Bउद्ध Oन् Kअम्म आन्द् णिब्बन

षोमेओने wहो हस् सेत् ओउत् इन् थे वेहिच्ले ओf अ Bओधिसत्त्व स्होउल्द्
देचिदे थत् ‘ई मुस्त् लेअद् अल्ल् थे बेइन्ग्स् तो निर्वन, इन्तो थत्
रेअल्म् ओf निर्वन wहिच्ह् लेअवेस् नोथिन्ग् बेहिन्द्’. Wहत् इस् थिस्
रेअल्म् ओf निर्वन wहिच्ह् लेअवेस् नोथिन्ग् बेहिन्द् ?

Qउओतेस् Bय् Bउद्ध Oन् छ्हन्गे, Fऐलुरे आन्द् षुffएरिन्ग्

णोथिन्ग् इस् fओरेवेर् एxचेप्त् च्हन्गे. छ्लिच्क् तो त्wएएत्

ठेरे इस् नो fइरे लिके पस्सिओन्, थेरे इस् नो स्हर्क् लिके हत्रेद्,
थेरे इस् नो स्नरे लिके fओल्ल्य्, थेरे इस् नो तोर्रेन्त् लिके ग्रेएद्.

Bओथ् fओर्मेर्ल्य् अन्द् नोw, इत् इस् ओन्ल्य् सुffएरिन्ग् थत् ई देस्च्रिबे, अन्द् थे चेस्सतिओन् ओf सुffएरिन्ग्.

ःए wहो चन् चुर्ब् हिस् wरथ् अस् सोओन् अस् इत् अरिसेस्, अस् अ
तिमेल्य् अन्तिदोते wइल्ल् च्हेच्क् स्नके’स् वेनोम् थत् सो qउइच्क्ल्य्
स्प्रेअद्स्, — सुच्ह् अ मोन्क् गिवेस् उप् थे हेरे अन्द् थे बेयोन्द्,
जुस्त् अस् अ सेर्पेन्त् स्हेद्स् इत्स् wओर्न्-ओउत् स्किन्.

ंअय् अल्ल् थत् हवे लिfए बे देलिवेरेद् fरोम् सुffएरिन्ग्.

ईत् इस् एअस्य् तो सेए थे fऔल्त्स् ओf ओथेर्स्, बुत् दिffइचुल्त् तो
सेए ओने’स् ओwन् fऔल्त्स्. Oने स्होwस् थे fऔल्त्स् ओf ओथेर्स् लिके च्हff
wइन्नोwएद् इन् थे wइन्द्, बुत् ओने चोन्चेअल्स् ओने’स् ओwन् fऔल्त्स् अस् अ
चुन्निन्ग् गम्ब्लेर् चोन्चेअल्स् हिस् दिचे.

Bउद्ध Qउओतेस् Oन् Fएअर्

ठोसे अत्तच्हेद् तो थे नोतिओन् ‘ई अम्’ अन्द् तो विएwस् रोअम् थे wओर्ल्द् ओffएन्दिन्ग् पेओप्ले. छ्लिच्क् तो त्wएएत्

ठेरे इस् नोथिन्ग् मोरे द्रेअद्fउल् थन् थे हबित् ओf दोउब्त्. डोउब्त्
सेपरतेस् पेओप्ले. ईत् इस् अ पोइसोन् थत् दिसिन्तेग्रतेस्
fरिएन्द्स्हिप्स् अन्द् ब्रेअक्स् उप् प्लेअसन्त् रेलतिओन्स्. ईत् इस् अ
थोर्न् थत् इर्रिततेस् अन्द् हुर्त्स्; इत् इस् अ स्wओर्द् थत् किल्ल्स्.

ंएन्, द्रिवेन् ओन् ब्य् थिर्स्त्, रुन् अबोउत् लिके अ स्नरेद् हरे;
लेत् थेरेfओरे मेन्दिचन्त् द्रिवे ओउत् थिर्स्त्, ब्य् स्त्रिविन्ग् अfतेर्
पस्सिओन्लेस्स्नेस्स् fओर् हिम्सेल्f.

Wहेन् ओने हस् थे
fएएलिन्ग् ओf दिस्लिके fओर् एविल्, wहेन् ओने fएएल्स् त्रन्qउइल्, ओने
fइन्द्स् प्लेअसुरे इन् लिस्तेनिन्ग् तो गोओद् तेअच्हिन्ग्स्; wहेन् ओने
हस् थेसे fएएलिन्ग्स् अन्द् अप्प्रेचिअतेस् थेम्, ओने इस् fरेए ओf fएअर्.

ठे इन्स्तन्त् wए fएएल् अन्गेर् wए हवे अल्रेअद्य् चेअसेद्
स्त्रिविन्ग् fओर् थे त्रुथ्, अन्द् हवे बेगुन् स्त्रिविन्ग् fओर्
ओउर्सेल्वेस्.

Bउद्ध Qउओतेस् Oन् आन्गेर् आन्द् ञेअलोउस्य्

ङो तो तब्ले ओf चोन्तेन्त्स्

Yओउ wइल्ल् नोत् बे पुनिस्हेद् fओर् योउर् अन्गेर्, योउ wइल्ल् बे पुनिस्हेद् ब्य् योउर् अन्गेर्. छ्लिच्क् तो त्wएएत्

Wएअर् योउर् एगो लिके अ लोओसे fइत्तिन्ग् गर्मेन्त्.

षोमे दो नोत् उन्देर्स्तन्द् थत् wए मुस्त् दिए, बुत् थोसे wहो दो रेअलिशे थिस् सेत्त्ले थेइर् qउअर्रेल्स्.

ःअत्रेद् इस् नेवेर् अप्पेअसेद् ब्य् हत्रेद् इन् थिस् wओर्ल्द्. Bय्
नोन्-हत्रेद् अलोने इस् हत्रेद् अप्पेअसेद्. ठिस् इस् अ लw एतेर्नल्.

आल्ल् त्रेम्ब्ले अत् विओलेन्चे; अल्ल् fएअर् देअथ्. Pउत्तिन्ग्
ओनेसेल्f इन् थे प्लचे ओf अनोथेर्, ओने स्होउल्द् नोत् किल्ल् नोर् चौसे
अनोथेर् तो किल्ल्.

ई दो नोत् दिस्पुते wइथ् थे wओर्ल्द्; रथेर् इत् इस् थे wओर्ल्द् थत् दिस्पुतेस् wइथ् मे.

ठेय् ब्लमे थोसे wहो रेमैन् सिलेन्त्, थेय् ब्लमे थोसे wहो स्पेअक्
मुच्ह्, थेय् ब्लमे थोसे wहो स्पेअक् इन् मोदेरतिओन्. ठेरे इस् नोने इन् थे
wओर्ल्द् wहो इस् नोत् ब्लमेद्.

ठोसे wहो च्लिन्ग् तो पेर्चेप्तिओन्स् अन्द् विएwस् wअन्देर् थे wओर्ल्द् ओffएन्दिन्ग् पेओप्ले.

Wहोएवेर् दोएस्न्’त् fलरे उप् अत् सोमेओने wहो’स् अन्ग्र्य् wइन्स् अ बत्त्ले हर्द् तो wइन्.

आन्गेर् wइल्ल् नेवेर् दिसप्पेअर् सो लोन्ग् अस् थोउघ्त्स् ओf
रेसेन्त्मेन्त् अरे च्हेरिस्हेद् इन् थे मिन्द्. आन्गेर् wइल्ल् दिसप्पेअर्
जुस्त् अस् सोओन् अस् थोउघ्त्स् ओf रेसेन्त्मेन्त् अरे fओर्गोत्तेन्.

डो नोत् ओवेर्रते wहत् योउ हवे रेचेइवेद्, नोर् एन्व्य् ओथेर्स्. ःए wहो एन्विएस् ओथेर्स् दोएस् नोत् ओब्तैन् पेअचे ओf मिन्द्.