ON THE WORD “NAT.”

In a note on the Nats, the writer, having expressed the opinion that the word “Nat,” used by Burmans, was derived from the Sanscrit term Nath, which means lord, Major Phayre gave it as his decided opinion that the expression was a purely Burmese one, not at all derived from the Sanscrit. Leaving aside the etymological question, of which it may be said that adhuc sub judice lis est, we are happy to communicate to the reader the following reflections that have come from the pen of that distinguished scholar, who is so intimately acquainted with all that relates to Buddhism.

“The modern Burmans acknowledge the existence of certain beings which, for want of a better term, we will call ‘almost spiritual beings.’ They apply to them the name Nat. Now, according to Burmese notions, there are two distinct bodies or systems of these creatures. The one is a regularly constituted company, if I may say so, of which Thagya Meng is the chief. Most undoubtedly that body of ‘Nat’ was unknown to the Burmans until they became Buddhists. Those are the real Dewah or Dewata.

“But the other set of Nats are the creatures of the indigenous system, existing among all the wild tribes bordering on Burmah. The acknowledgment of these[325] beings constitutes their only worship. On these grounds I consider that the Burmese acknowledged and worshipped such beings before they were converted to Buddhism.

“Now, if they acknowledged such beings, they, no doubt, had a name for them, similar in general import to the ‘fairy, elf,’ and so on among the inhabitants of Britain for beings of a quasi-spiritual nature. I may observe there is a complete analogy in the state of Burmese belief in the existence of such beings and that which prevailed formerly in Europe, and some remnants of which may be found even now existing among the uneducated. I mean that before the Anglo-Saxon tribes were converted to Christianity the belief in fairies and elfs was universal. With Christianity came a belief in a different order of spiritual beings, and with that a new name derived from the Latin, angel. This is somewhat analogous to the state of things among the Burmese before and after their conversion to Buddhism.

“But to return to the Burmese. They, when they received Buddhism, appear to have generally retained their vernacular name for the beings called in Pali Dewa. Why this should be done is certainly not apparent. Why have the English and all Teutonic nations retained the ancient name Evil, and spirits, though they adopted with Christianity a new term for good spirits generally? I allude to the term Devil, which, there is no doubt, is philologically connected with that Pali word Dew-a or Dev-a.

字体大小

背景颜色