OXFORD BIBLIOGRAPHIES IN BUDDHISM

EARLY MAHAYANA
by David Drewes
Oxford University Press
Not for distribution. For permissions, please email OxfordBibliographies@oup.com.
Introduction
General Overviews
Bibliographies
Early Scholarship
The Lay Origin Theory
Mahayana and the Nikyas
The Cult of the Book
Textual Practice
Forest/Ascetic Monks
Pure Land
Chinese Translations
Women in Mahayana
Sutra Translations
Epigraphical, Documentary, and Art Historical Evidence
Recent Manuscript Discoveries

Introduction

In recent decades the study of early Mahayana has witnessed significant upheaval.
Western scholars have abandoned the old theories that the Mahayana originated from a
lay reaction to the arhat ideal or from the Mahsghika nikka and advanced a range of
new ideas. Gregory Schopen suggested in 1975 that the Mahayana developed with the
creation of special shrines dedicated to the worship of Mahayana sutras. Following
Schopen, other scholars have argued that the shift from oral to written textuality enabled
or influenced the development of the Mahayana in various ways. In place of the lay
origin theory, most scholars now believe the exact opposite, that forest-dwelling or
ascetic monks were the Mahayanas primary agents. Several scholars in recent years have
shifted attention away from Sanskrit versions of Mahayana sutras to early Chinese
translations, which often preserve more primitive forms of these texts. A 1st-century
Prajpramit manuscript and a 1st- or 2nd-century manuscript of a previously
unknown Mahayana sutra have recently been discovered that promise to shed new light
on early Mahayana, the former manuscript now being the oldest datable evidence for
Mahayana that we possess.

General Overviews

General overviews of early Mahayana can be found in nearly every world religions
textbook and introductory text on Buddhism, but most have no merit, typically being
based on scholarship that is more than fifty years old. Schopen 2003 presents the
perspective of one of the most influential scholars in the field, though most of his views
have been contested in recent years. Williams 2008 is a revised version of the most
commonly used textbook on Mahayana. Its section on early Mahayana is good in many
ways, but falls heavily under the sway of the theory that forest ascetics played a central
role in early Mahayana (see Forest/Ascetic Monks). Drewes 2010 surveys the main issues
in current scholarship and provides a general overview of the movement. All three
publications are suitable for graduate and advanced undergraduate students.

Drewes, David. Early Indian Mahyna Buddhism. 2 parts. Religion Compass 4.2
(2010): 5565, 6674.

Surveys and evaluates recent Western scholarship on early Mahayana and

presents a broad new overview of the movement.

Schopen, Gregory. Mahyna. In Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Edited by Robert E.

Buswell Jr., 492499. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan, 2003.

Interesting presentation of the views of an influential scholar in the field.

Williams, Paul. Mahyna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. 2d ed. London:

Routledge, 2008.

Revised version of the standard textbook on Mahayana originally published in

1989.

Bibliographies

Though each of the following publications is out of date, Pfandt 1986 contains ample
references to Mahayana sutras translated into Western languages. Conze and Lancaster
1982 has a section with bibliography on Mahayana sutras in Asian and Western
languages. Nakamura 1996 provides a good bibliography on early Mahayana, editions of
Mahayana texts, and translations up to about 1980.

Conze, Edward, and Lewis R. Lancaster. Buddhist Scriptures: A Bibliography. New

York: Garland, 1982.

Contains a good bibliography on Mahayana sutras on pp. 4378.

Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. New Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1996.

Originally published in 1980. Though few of the perspectives presented in the

authors survey would be accepted today, the notes for chapter 4 contain a
substantial bibliography on Mahayana sutras and early Mahayana.

Pfandt, Peter. Mahyna Texts Translated into Western Languages: A Bibliographical

Guide. Rev. ed. with supplement. Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1986.
 Very good bibliography of full and partial Western language translations of
Mahayana texts. Also contains a good bibliography of other bibliographies on the
subject.

Early Scholarship

The development of scholarship on early Mahayana proceeded slowly and often on

tenuous evidentiary grounds. Several perspectives that developed in the first few decades
of the study of early Mahayana nevertheless exerted an influence on later work that
significantly outweighed their merit. Burnouf 2010 was the first to argue that the
Mahayana was a distinct school of Buddhism. The author was also the first to draw a
distinction between Mahayana sutras and what he called simple sutras, arguing that the
former were composed later. Vassilief 1865 surveyed Tibetan translations of many
Mahayana sutras and suggested for the first time that Mahayana allowed for increased lay
involvement, an idea that played a key role in the development of the lay origin theory
(see Lay Origin Theory). Rhys Davids 1881 was the first to suggest that the Mahayana
resulted from the emergence of a spirit of altruism, which led Buddhists to reject the
arhat ideal in favor of that of the bodhisattva. This problematic view immediately
became highly influential and remains so to this day.

Burnouf, Eugne. Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism. Translated by Katia

Buffetrille and Donald S. Lopez Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Originally published in French in 1844. First publication to distinguish between

Mahayana and non-Mahayana sutras, and the first to suggest that Mahayana
constituted a distinct school of Buddhism.

Rhys Davids, T. W. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by

Some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism. London: Williams and Norgate, 1881.

Though most of the work deals with other topics, Appendix XI, The Key-note of
the Great Vehicle, for the first time identifies the Mahayanas core impulse as
the altruistic desire to save all beings, a problematic idea that remains widely
current.

Vassilief, V. Le Bouddisme, ses dogmes, son histoire et sa littrature. Translated by

G. A. La Comme. Paris: A. Durand, 1865.

Originally published in Russian in 1857. An influential, though now largely

forgotten, study of Indian Buddhism with a long chapter on the Mahayana. Author
presents brief summaries of many Mahayana sutras on the basis of Tibetan
translations. First publication to associate the Mahayana with increased lay
participation.
The Lay Origin Theory

Przyluski 1934 contains a good presentation of the original formulation of the lay origin
theory developed by the author. Essentially combining the idea that the Mahayana
allowed increased lay participation and the idea that it began as an altruistic reaction to
the arhat ideal (see Early Scholarship), he argued that the arhat ideal was specific to
Buddhist monasticism and that the compassionate reaction against it came specifically
from the laity. Though the author did not cite any actual evidence in support of his theory
it became dominant in Western scholarship for more than the next half-century. Lamotte
1954, Lamotte 1984, and Conze 1967 contain versions of Przyluskis theory presented by
two leading 20th-century scholars. Przyluskis theory is often incorrectly attributed to
Lamotte in scholarship. Hirakawa 1963 and Hirakawa 1990 present the authors
distinctive but problematic theory that Mahayana developed amidst groups of laypeople
who congregated at stpa sites. Though Hirakawas theory became highly influential in
Japan, apparently mainly because it appealed to Japanese religious sentiments, it did not
become influential in the West. Harrison 1987 questioned the lay origin theory, arguing
that Mahayana sutras that seem likely to be early show a clear monastic bias. This
publication was highly influential and quickly led to the abandonment of the lay origin
theory in Western scholarship. No Western scholars of early Mahayana now maintain this
theory.

Conze, Edward. Mahayana Buddhism. In Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected

Essays. By Edward Conze, 4886. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1967.

Originally published in 1959. Presents a modified version of Przyluskis theory,

according to which the Mahayana emerged largely as a result of lay pressure on
monks.

Harrison, Paul. Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among
the Followers of the Early Mahyna. Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies 10.1 (1987): 6789.

Questioned the lay origin theory, arguing that early Mahayana sutras show a
monastic bias. Quickly led to the abandonment of the lay origin theory in Western
scholarship.

Hirakawa, Akira. The Rise of Mahyna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship
of Stupas. Translated by Taitetsu Unno. Memoirs of the Research Department of the
Toyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57106.

Presents the authors signature theory that Mahayana developed amidst groups of
laypeople who congregated at stpa sites.
Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism: From kyamuni to Early Mahyna.
Edited and translated by Paul Groner. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.

Another publication that presents the authors theory that the Mahayana
developed from groups of laypeople who congregated at stpa sites.

Lamotte, tienne. Sur la formation du Mahyna. In Asiatica: Festschrift Friedrich

Weller zum 65. Edited by Johannes Schubert and Ulrich Schneider, 377396. Leipzig:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1954.

Influential publication in which the author presents the lay origin theory in much
the same terms as Przyluski 1934.

Lamotte, tienne. Mahyna Buddhism. In The World of Buddhism: Buddhist Monks

and Nuns in Society and Culture. Edited by Heinz Bechert and Richard Gombrich, 90
93. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1984.

Abridged English version of Lamotte 1954 that briefly presents the authors
version of the lay origin theory.

Przyluski, Jean. Origin and Developement of Buddhism. Translated by F. W. Thomas.

Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1934): 337351.

Presents the original lay origin theory in detail in English.

Mahayana and the Nikyas

One of the main issues in scholarship on the Mahayana has been the question of the
relationship between the Mahayana and the nikyas, or monastic lineages, or schools.
Kern 19011903 was apparently the first to suggest that the Mahayana emerged from the
Mahsghika nikya, an idea that, along with the lay origin theory (see Lay Origin
Theory), was influential through most of the 20th century. Bareau 1955 presents perhaps
the most in-depth argument in support of this theory, though the author is less committed
to it in Bareau 1966. Hirakawa 1963 argued against the Mahsghika origin theory, in
part by arguing that Sarvstivda doctrinal categories were adopted by several Mahyna
texts. Bechert 1973 is one of several publications in which the author argued that the
Mahayana was not separate from the nikyas and that Mahayana and non-Mahayana
monks could live together in the same monasteries. Silk 2002 focused attention on this
issue, drawing attention to the fact that several leading scholars of the late 19th and early
20th centuries advocated similar views. The author makes the strong point that there is no
evidence that there was ever any kind of Buddhist monk other than one associated with
a Sectarian [i.e., nikya] ordination lineage in Indian Buddhism. This perspective is now
generally accepted in Western scholarship.
Bareau, Andr. Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vhicule. Paris: cole franaise
dExtrme Orient, 1955.

Presents a complex argument in support of the Mahsghika origin theory by a

leading 20th-century scholar.

Bareau, Andr. Le Bouddhisme indien. In Les religions de lInde III: Bouddhisme,

Janisme, religions archaques. Edited by Andr Bareau, W. Schubring, and Christoph
von Frer-Haimendorf, 7246. Paris: Payot, 1966.

Presents a vision of early Mahayana that places less emphasis on the

Mahsghikas than Bareau 1955.

Bechert, Heinz. Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of
Mahyna. In German Scholars on India. Edited by The Cultural Department of the
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, 618. Varanasi, India: Chowkhamba
Sanskrit Series Office, 1973.

One of several publications in which the author argues that the Mahayana was not
separate from the nikyas. Though several earlier scholars held this view, the
author was the only leading Western scholar to consistently do so in the second
half of the 20th century before it became generally accepted in the 1990s.

Hirakawa, Akira. The Rise of Mahyna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship
of Stupas. Translated by Taitetsu Unno. Memoirs of the Research Department of the
Toyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57106.

Argues against the Mahsghika origin theory, in part by arguing that many
Mahayana texts make use of Sarvstivdin doctrinal categories.

Kern, H. Histoire du bouddhisme dans lInde. 2 vols. Translated by Gdon Huet. Paris:
Ernest Leroux, 19011903.

Originally published in Dutch from 18821884. Author seems to have been the
first to suggest that the Mahayana emerged from the Mahsghika nikya.

Silk, Jonathan A. What, If Anything, Is Mahyna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions

and Classifications. Numen 49.4 (2002): 355405.

Draws attention to the fact that several leading scholars of the late 19th and early
20th centuries believed that the Mahayana was not separate from the nikyas.
Strongly suggests that all Mahayana monastics belonged to nikya lineages.
The Cult of the Book

Though scholars had recognized for more than a century that Mahayanists practiced book
worship, Schopen 2005b argued that this practice played a central role in the
development of early Mahayana and its institutional structure. On the basis of a creative
reading of a handful of cryptic passages from Mahayana sutras, the author argued, contra
Hirakawa (see Lay Origin Theory), that early Mahayanists rejected stpa worship and
established new cult sites where they enshrined and worshipped books. He argued that
these sites served as institutional bases for the new movement. Although Schopens
argument was tenuous, his views became widely accepted. Schopen 2005a modified the
conclusions of Schopen 2005b slightly, suggesting that the book cult was not part of the
origin of Mahayana but developed not . . . too much later. Drewes 2007 analyzes
Schopens cryptic passages in broader context and argues that they neither refer to actual
book shrines nor reflect a negative attitude toward stpa or relic worship. The author also
draws attention to the fact that, despite claims that have been made, there is no known
case in which an ancient Mahayana sutra manuscript has been found in a stpa. It is now
generally accepted that Schopens book shrines did not exist. Though Mahayanists
clearly worshipped books, non-Mahayana Buddhists also worshipped them, and there is
no reason to believe that book worship played any more central role in Mahayana than it
does in the many other Indian and world religious traditions that practice book worship,
for example, Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Drewes, David. Revisiting the Phrase sa pthivpradea caityabhto bhavet and the
Mahyna Cult of the Book. Indo-Iranian Journal 50.2 (2007): 101143.

Argues that Schopens theory of book shrines is based on a misreading of a

handful of passages in Mahayana sutras and points out that there is no
archaeological or other evidence for such shrines.

Schopen, Gregory. On Sending the Monks Back to Their Books: Cult and Conservatism
in Early Mahyna Buddhism. In Figments and Fragments of Mahyna Buddhism in
India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen,108153. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 2005a.

Modifies the conclusion of Schopen 2005b, suggesting that rather than being
involved in the origin of Mahayana, Mahayana book shrines probably developed a
short time afterward.

Schopen, Gregory. The phrase sa pthivpradea caityabhto bhavet in the

Vajracchedik: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahyna. In Figments and Fragments
of Mahyna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 2562.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005b.
 Originally published in 1975. Influential publication that argues that early
Mahayanists rejected stpa and relic worship and established cult sites where they
enshrined and worshipped books.

Textual Practice

Inspired primarily by Schopen 2005b (cited under the Cult of the Book) and theoretical
work on oral and written traditions, several scholars have argued that the use of
writing played an important role in the Mahayanas development. Gombrich 1990 argues
that the rise of the Mahayana is due to the use of writing in the sense that writing
enabled Mahayanists to preserve texts independently of traditional oral textual
transmission lineages. McMahan 2002, Harrison 2003, and Shimoda 2009 argue that the
use of writing played a key role in the development of Mahayana texts and ideas. Drewes
2010 mentions recent discoveries that make it clear that writing was used much earlier in
Buddhist tradition than was long thought and points out that Mahayana sutras make
significantly more frequent reference and attach higher prestige to mnemic/oral practices
than they do to written ones. The author argues that oral textuality remained dominant in
early Mahayana and that it is doubtful that writing was responsible for either the rise of
the Mahayana or its conceptual development. Scholars of Mahayana often go astray
because of a general lack of familiarity with Indian culture. Narayana Rao 1993 discusses
Indian textual practices associated with the puras, providing resources for better
understanding those of the Mahayana. The author argues that puric tradition was
characterized by a literate orality in which texts were typically composed and used
orally, but in which people were very proud . . . of their ability to possess a written text
of what they perform orally (p. 95). Drewes 2011 surveys the long neglected vast corpus
of Mahayana sutra material on figures called dharmabhakas, or preachers of dharma,
who composed, memorized, copied, and preached Mahayana sutras. The author argues
that these figures were the primary agents of the Mahayana movement.

Drewes, David. Early Indian Mahyna Buddhism, Part 1. Religion Compass 4.2
(2010): 5565.

Suggests that oral/mnemic practices retained primary importance in Mahayana

and that writing played a less important role in the movement than has been
thought.

Drewes, David. Dharmabhakas in Early Mahyna. Indo-Iranian Journal 54.4

(2011): 331372.

Surveys the vast amount of material on dharmabhakas, or dharma preachers,

who composed, preached, and transmitted Mahayana sutras and claimed to be
advanced bodhisattvas.
Gombrich, R. How the Mahyna Began. In The Buddhist Forum. Vol. 1. Edited by
Tadeusz Skorupski, 2130. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990.

Originally published in 1988. Argues that the development of the use of writing
for the preservation of Buddhist texts was responsible for the development of the
Mahayana, making it possible for Buddhists to preserve texts outside of
traditional oral transmission lineages.

Harrison, Paul. Mediums and Messages: Reflections on the Production of Mahyna

Stras. Eastern Buddhist 35.12 (2003): 115151.

Suggests that Mahayana emerged from a convergence of meditation and textual

transmission in the forest environment stimulated by the advent of writing, and
that Mahayana sutras were originally composed in written form.

McMahan, David. Empty Vision: Metaphor and Visionary Imagery in Mahyna

Buddhism. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.

Argues that along with making it possible for Mahayanists to preserve and spread
their teachings, the use of writing was responsible for the development of ideas
and imagery found in Mahayana sutras.

Narayana Rao, Velcheru. Pura as Brahminic Ideology. In Pura Perennis:

Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts. Edited by Wendy Doniger,
85100. Albany: State University of New York, 1993.

Discusses the interplay between oral and written textual practices in Hindu
tradition in a manner that sheds interesting light on this issue in Mahayana.

Shimoda, Masahiro. The State of Research on Mahyna Buddhism: The Mahyna as

Seen in Developments in the Study of Mahyna Stras. Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 123.

Presents a convoluted argument that the Mahayanas use of writing enabled

Mahayana sutra authors to develop a far-ranging world going beyond that of past
traditions (p. 21).

Forest/Ascetic Monks

With the collapse of the lay origin theory (see Lay Origin Theory), the main theory that
has taken hold in Western scholarship is that forest-dwelling or ascetic monks were
primarily responsible for the emergence of the Mahyna. Schopen 1995 and Schopen
2005 suggest on the basis of criticisms of immorality and advocacy of ascetic practices
found in some Mahayana sutras that early Mahayana groups reacted against the settled,
landed, and ritual-focused monasticism evidenced by certain vinaya texts in favor of a
return to the supposed early Buddhist ideal of forest-dwelling asceticism. Harrison 1995
claims that the Mahayana sutras translated into Chinese by Lokakema in the 2nd
century, which at the time were the oldest datable Mahayana texts, place a strong,
positive emphasis on forest dwelling and ascetic practice. Ray 1994 argues that
nonmonastic forest renunciants have been the primary innovators in the history of
Buddhism and that they were responsible for Buddhisms initial development, the rise of
the Mahayana, and the development of Vajrayna. Nattier 2003 argues that the
Ugraparipr cch Stra represents the earliest or most primitive form of Mahayana that we
have access to and that it depicts the bodhisattva path as something adopted by strict
ascetics. Drewes 2010 draws attention to problems with these new theories and suggests
that it is unlikely that forest dwelling or ascetic practice played a significant role in the
Mahayana movement.

Drewes, David. Early Indian Mahyna Buddhism, Part 2. Religion Compass 4.2
(2010): 6674.

Points out that there is little evidence that forest dwellers or ascetics played a
significant role in the Mahayana and suggests that the theory is based on a
projection of an essentialized vision of Buddhism qua meditative quest for
enlightenment onto Mahayana texts.

Harrison, Paul. Searching for the Origins of the Mahyna: What Are We Looking
For? Eastern Buddhist 28.1 (1995): 4869.

Claims that the 2nd-century Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras linked to

Lokakema strongly emphasize forest dwelling and ascetic practice, though this
now seems incorrect.

Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra
(Ugraparipcch). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.

Argues that the Ugraparipr cch Stra represents the earliest or most primitive
form of Mahayana that we have access to and that it depicts the bodhisattva path
as something adopted by ascetic monks who sometimes practiced forest dwelling.

Ray, Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Argues on the basis of four mostly late texts that nonmonastic forest renunciants
were responsible for the rise of the Mahayana.
Schopen, Gregory. Deaths, Funerals, and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code.
In Buddhism in Practice. Edited by Donald S. Lopez Jr., 473502. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1995.

Suggests on the basis of a few likely rather late Mahayana sutras that advocate
ascetic practice and forest dwelling that early Mahayana groups reacted against
the settled, landed monasticism evidenced by the Mlasarvstivda Vinaya.

Schopen, Gregory. The Mahyna and the Middle Period in Indian Buddhism: Through
a Chinese Looking-Glass. In Figments and Fragments of Mahyna Buddhism in India:
More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 324. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 2005.

Originally published in 2000. Expands on the argument in Schopen 1995 that

early Mahayanists were forest dwellers, but allows, likely following Nattier 2003,
that some also lived in monasteries.

Pure Land

Devotion to the Buddha Amitbha with the aim of being born in his pure land,
Sukhvat, which became important in East Asian Buddhism, was long thought to be a
central aspect of Indian Mahayana. Schopen 2005 draws attention to passages in a
significant number of Mahayana sutras that promise rebirth in Sukhvat for a range of
standard Buddhist and Mahayana practices that have nothing to do with Amitbha. The
author deduced that rebirth in Sukhvat quickly became dissociated from the cult of
Amitbha, where it developed, to become a religious goal of the Mahayana in general.
Silk 1993 makes the point that there is no evidence that there was ever a specific cult of
Amitbha in India and suggests that rebirth in Sukhvat began as a generalized
Mahayana religious goal. Schopen 2005, in an appended note, argues that this suggestion
is inconsistent with the early date of the [larger] Sukhvatvyha, but ignores the fact that
this text does not seem to be aware of a specific Amitbha cult. Nattier 2000 is a study of
the Akobhyavyha Stra, which deals with the Buddha Akobhya and his land Abhirati.
The author makes the useful suggestion that we extend the category of pure land to
include this sutra and other sutras dedicated to so-called celestial Buddhas. Following the
generally accepted view, she argues that the Akobhyavyha represents a more primitive
version of pure land thought than the Sukhvatvyha. The author claims that the
Akobhyavyha represents acts of strenuous self-denial as being necessary to attain
Buddhahood, though the text presents several easy ways to be born in Abhirati where one
is said to be able to progress toward Buddhahood with ease. Nattier 2003 presents the
same basic ideas, but includes a discussion of the Chinese translations of the larger
Sukhvatvyha that is absent in Nattier 2000. Fussman 1999 contains a valuable, wide-
ranging discussion of the place of Amitbha and Sukhvat in Indian Buddhism. The
author argues that rather than a paradise intended for the masses, Sukhvat was
originally understood as being accessible only to advanced bodhisattvas. Schopen 2005,
in the appended note, concurs, suggesting that Sukhvat was originally seen as a
destination for religious virtuoso[s]. Both authors unfortunately ignore the fact that
Mahayana sutras consistently claim that everyone who accepts their authenticity is an
advanced bodhisattva. Ducor 2004 is a good response to Fussman 1999 but projects later
scholastic concerns onto the Sukhvatvyha stras that undoubtedly would have been
foreign to their authors.

Ducor, Jrme. Les sources de la Sukhvat, autour dune tude rcente de G. Fussman.
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27.2 (2004): 357410.

Useful response to Fussman 1999 but projects later scholastic concerns onto the
Sukhvatvyha texts.

Fussman, Grard. La place des Sukhvat-vyha dans le bouddhisme indien. Journal

Asiatique 287.2 (1999): 523586.

Broad, in-depth discussion of Sukhvat and Amitbha in Indian Buddhism.

Argues that rather than a paradise for the masses, Sukhvat was originally
understood as a place where only advanced bodhisattvas could be born.

Nattier, Jan. The Realm of Akobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land
Buddhism. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23.1 (2000):
71102.

Argues that the Akobhyavyha Stra represents an earlier stage of pure land
thought than the larger Sukhvatvyha Stra. Depicts the text as requiring
difficult practice to obtain rebirth in Abhirati, the pure land of the Buddha
Akobhya, though it does not actually do so.

Nattier, Jan. The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest
Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhvatvyha. Pacific World 3rd ser., 5 (2003): 179
201.

Presents many of the same ideas as Nattier 2000, but discusses the Chinese
translations of the larger Sukhvatvyha that were neglected by this earlier
publication.

Schopen, Gregory. Sukhvat as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahyna

Stra Literature. In Figments and Fragments of Mahyna Buddhism in India: More
Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 154189. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 2005.

Originally published in 1977. Draws attention to passages in many Mahayana

sutras that promise rebirth in Sukhvat for various practices that have nothing to
 do with Amitbha. Argues that the idea of rebirth in Sukhvat quickly became
dissociated from the specific cult of Amitbha where it supposedly originated.

Silk, Jonathan A. The Virtues of Amitbha: A Tibetan Poem from Dunhuang. Bulletin
of Institute of Buddhist Cultural Studies, Ryukoku University 32 (1993): 1109.

Briefly makes the important suggestion, contra Schopen 2005, that a specific cult
of Amitbha was not found in Indian Mahayana and first developed in East Asia.

Chinese Translations

Harrison 1987 initiated a significant Sinological shift in Western scholarship on

Mahayana by arguing that the earliest Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras, a group
of roughly a dozen texts dating to the late 2nd century, were the best evidence we
possessed for early Mahayana. The author briefly presents information on each of the
early translations and makes several significant observations about their content. Harrison
1993 surveys the 2nd-century translations in more detail. Nattier 2003 is a translation and
study of the Ugraparipr cch Stra, which was translated into Chinese in the 2nd century.
Some of the authors arguments, including the very early date that she assigns to the text
and her suggestions about the general course of the Mahayanas development, have not
been accepted by other scholars. Boucher 2008 is a translation and study of the
Rraplaparipr cch Stra, which was translated into Chinese by Dharmaraka in the
late 3rd or early 4th century. The author presents the text as additional evidence that
forest dwellers played a central role in early Mahayana (see Forest/Ascetic Monks), but
there is no evidence to suggest that this sutra was especially early. Harrison 1998 is a
translation of Lokakemas 2nd-century translation of the Pratyutpanna Stra. Weller
1987 is a translation of Lokakemas translation of the Kyapaparivarta Stra. Nattier
2008 contains a great deal of valuable textual information on the early Chinese
translations of Mahayana texts.

Boucher, Daniel. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahyna: A
Study and Translation of the Rraplaparipcch-stra. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 2008.

Study and translation of the Rraplaparipr cch Stra, a Mahayana sutra

translated into Chinese in the late 3rd or early 4th century.

Harrison, Paul. Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among
the Followers of the Early Mahyna. Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies 10.1 (1987): 6789.

Seminal article that initiated a significant Sinological shift in the field. Surveys
the 2nd-century Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras and presents several new
perspectives on the movement that are now generally accepted.
Harrison, Paul. The Earliest Chinese Translations of Mahyna Buddhist Stras: Some
Notes on the Works of Lokakema. Buddhist Studies Review 10.2 (1993): 135177.

Surveys the translations linked to Lokakema in more detail than Harrison 1987.

Harrison, Paul, trans. The Pratyutpanna Samdhi Sutra. In The Pratyutpanna Samdhi
Sutra; The ragama Samdhi Sutra. Edited by Paul Harrison and John McRae, 1116.
Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1998.

Translation of a revised version of Lokakemas 2nd-century translation of an

important sutra.

Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra
(Ugraparipcch). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.

Study and translation of the Ugraparipr cch Stra, a Mahayana sutra translated
into Chinese during the 2nd century.

Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the
Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods. Tokyo: The International
Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008.

Valuable, painstakingly researched, textual survey of Buddhist texts translated

into Chinese from the mid-2nd to late 3rd century.

Weller, Friedrich, trans. Kyapaparivarta: Nach der Han-Fassung verdeutscht. In

Friedrich Weller: Kleine Schriften. Vol. 2. Edited by Wilhelm Rau, 11361304. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 1987.

Originally published in 1970. German translation of Lokakemas 2nd-century

Chinese translation of the Kyapaparivarta Stra.

Women in Mahayana

Some scholars, for example, Paul 1979, have argued that the Mahayana opened up
increased opportunities for women. Harrison 1987 argues that in the early Chinese
translations women are represented as participants in the Mahayana but depicted in a
strong unfavorable light. This is true not only of the early Chinese translations but also of
Mahayana sutras in general. Nattier 2003 goes further to suggest that early Mahayanists
had an especially strong masculine orientation and developed a more negative attitude
toward women than other Buddhists, though this seems unlikely. The status of women
actually seems not to have been an issue for Mahayana authors, who seem to have
uncritically accepted the complex, generally negative attitudes toward women current in
their day.

Harrison, Paul. Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among
the Followers of the Early Mahyna. Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies 10.1 (1987): 6789.

Draws attention to the fact that the early Chinese translations represent women as
participants in the Mahayana but depict them in a negative light.

Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra
(Ugraparipcch). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.

Goes beyond Harrison 1987 to suggest that early Mahayanists had a strong
masculine orientation and developed a more negative attitude toward women than
other Buddhists.

Paul, Diana Y. Women in Buddhism: Images of the Feminine in the Mahyna Tradition.
Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1979.

Perhaps the most noteworthy of several older publications that dubiously claimed
that the Mahayana had a more positive attitude toward women and a greater
concern for their needs than earlier forms of Buddhism.

Sutra Translations

Mahayana sutras are virtually our sole source of evidence for early Mahayana. Dozens of
the hundreds of surviving Mahayana sutras have been translated into English and other
Western languages. Chang 1983 contains abridged English translations of twenty-two
Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras, including the Akobhyavyha (chapter 17) and
Kyapaparivarta (chapter 20), which were first translated into Chinese in the 2nd
century. Conze 1973 is a translation of the Sanskrit text of the Aashasrik
Prajpramit, which seems to have been the most important early Mahayana sutra.
The translation is abridged and somewhat idiosyncratic, but still very valuable. Gomez
1996 contains translations of the Sanskrit versions of two of the most important pure land
sutras, the smaller and larger Sukhvatvyha sutras, as well as translations of Chinese
translations of the same texts. Unfortunately the author does not translate the Chinese
translation of the larger sutra recently linked to Lokakema, which is most relevant to the
study of early Mahayana. Harrison 1990 is a translation of the Tibetan translation of the
Pratyutpanna Stra and Harrison 1998 is a translation of Lokakemas 2nd-century
Chinese translation of the same text, making interesting comparisons between the two
versions possible. Kern 1909 is the only published English translation of the Sanskrit
version of the Saddharmapuarka, or Lotus Stra. Lamotte 1994 is the most technical
of several English translations of the Vimalakrtinirdea Stra, one of the most beautiful
Mahayana sutras. It is based on the Tibetan and Chinese translations but unfortunately
was published before the recent discovery of a Sanskrit manuscript of the text. Lamotte
1998 is a translation of the ragamasamdhi Stra on the basis of its Chinese and
Tibetan translations. The sutra was first translated into Chinese by Lokakema in the 2nd
century, but Lokakemas translation is lost.

Chang, C. C., ed. A Treasury of Mahyna Stras: Selections from the Mahratnaka
Stra. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983.

Contains abridged English translations of twenty-two sutras on the basis of 6th-

century Chinese translations.

Conze, Edward, trans. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines and Its Verse
Summary. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973.

Abridged translation of the Sanskrit version of the Aashasrik Prajpramit

Stra, the Mahayana sutra for which we now have the oldest datable documentary
evidence.

Gmez, Luis O., trans. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless
Light; Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhvatvyha Sutras. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press, 1996.

Contains translations of the smaller and larger Sukhvatvyha sutras from both
the Sanskrit and Chinese.

Harrison, Paul, trans. The Samdhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present:
An Annotated English Translation of the Tibetan Version of the Pratyutpanna-buddha-
samukhvasthita-samdhi-stra. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies,
1990.

Translation of the Tibetan translation of the Pratyutpanna Stra, made around the
beginning of the 9th century, which can be fruitfully compared with Harrison
1998.

Harrison, Paul, trans. The Pratyutpanna Samdhi Sutra. In The Pratyutpanna Samdhi
Sutra; The ragama Samdhi Sutra. Edited by Paul Harrison and John McRae, 1116.
Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1998.

Translation of the 2nd-century Chinese translation of the Pratyutpanna Stra.

Kern, H., trans. The Saddharma-pundarka; or, The Lotus of the True Law. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1909.
 Originally published in 1884. Only published English translation of the
Saddharmapuarka Stra (or Lotus Stra) from Sanskrit.

Lamotte, tienne, trans. The Teaching of Vimalakrti (Vimalakrtinirdea). Translated by

Sara Boin. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1994.

Originally published in French in 1962. Translation of the beautiful

Vimalakrtinirdea Stra, produced on the basis of translations and fragments of
the text in Chinese, Tibetan, and Sanskrit, that was unfortunately published before
the recent discovery of a complete Sanskrit manuscript of the text.

Lamotte, tienne, trans. ragamasamdhistra: The Concentration of Heroic

Progress; An Early Mahyna Buddhist Scripture. Translated by Sara Boin-Webb.
Richmond, UK: Curzon, 1998.

Originally published in French in 1965. Translation of the ragamasamdhi

Stra from a 5th-century Chinese and c. early-9th-century Tibetan translation and
some Sanskrit fragments. This text was reportedly translated by Lokakema in the
2nd century, but this translation is lost.

Epigraphical, Documentary, and Art Historical Evidence

Schopen 2005b and Schopen 2005a draw attention to the important fact that there was
only one known epigraph that could be linked to the early Mahayana: an inscription on a
pedestal that identifies the image associated with it, now lost except for its feet, as the
Buddha Amitbha, which dates to about 153 CE. Salomon 1999 presents a 3rd-century
inscription from Central Asia discovered after the original publication of Schopen 2005b
and Schopen 2005a that apparently makes reference to a king who had set out on the
Mahyna. This publication also draws attention to a 3rd-century letter, also from
Central Asia, which makes reference to a magistrate who had also set out on the
Mahyna. Fussman 1999, following an earlier publication by John Brough (Amitbha
and Avalokitevara in an Inscribed Gandhran Sculpture, published in 1982), reads an
inscription on a Gandhran sculpture dating to about the 2nd century as identifying the
figures it depicts as Amitbha and Avalokitevara, but Salomon and Schopen 2002
disputes this reading, arguing that the inscription does not actually mention either figure.
Allon and Salomon 2010 revisits this issue, suggesting that the inscription may mention
Avalokitevara, though it is doubtful that it mentions Amitbha. Several scholars, for
example, Fussman 1999 and Harrison and Luczanits 2012, have argued that certain early
and somewhat later Gandhran sculptures depict known Mahayana figures, such as
Amitbha, Avalokitevara, and Majur, but these identifications remain uncertain.
Focusing primarily on the figure of Avalokitevara, Boucher 2008 argues that there is no
evidence for the Mahayana in early Gandhran art.
Allon, Mark, and Richard Salomon. New Evidence for Mahyna in Early Gandhra.
Eastern Buddhist 41.1 (2010): 122.

Contains a brief survey of the early inscriptional evidence for Mahayana. Revisits
the 2nd-century inscription discussed in Salomon and Schopen 2002, suggesting
that it may refer to Avalokitevara.

Boucher, Daniel. Is There an Early Gandhran Source for the Cult of Avalokitevara?
Journal Asiatique 296.2 (2008): 297330.

Argues against the widespread tendency to identify Gandhran sculptures as

depictions of Avalokitevara and other Mahayana figures.

Fussman, Grard. La place des Sukhvat-vyha dans le bouddhisme indien. Journal

Asiatique 287.2 (1999): 523586.

Discusses several sculptures that the author identifies as depicting Amitbha and
other Mahayana figures, but apart from the Amitbha image discussed in Schopen
2005a, the authors identifications are speculative.

Harrison, Paul, and Christian Luczanits. New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari
Stele. In Special International Symposium on Pure Land Buddhism, 69127, 197207.
Kyoto: BARC Research Center for Buddhist Cultures in Asia, 2012.

Discusses a large number of interesting complex steles, likely dating from the
mid-3rd to early 5th centuries, that depict complex, difficult-to-interpret scenes of
Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Argues inconclusively that these steles constitute
evidence for the Mahayana and that many of them depict Amitbha,
Avalokitevara, and Sukhvat.

Salomon, Richard. A Stone Inscription in Central Asian Gndhar from Endere

(Xinjiang). Bulletin of the Asia Institute 13 (1999): 113.

Presents a 3rd-century inscription from Central Asia discovered after the initial
publication of Schopen 2005b and Schopen 2005a that seems to refer to a king
who had set out on the Mahayana. Also draws attention to a 3rd-century letter
from Central Asia, which makes reference to a magistrate who had done the same.

Salomon, Richard, and Gregory Schopen. On an Alleged Reference to Amitbha in a

Kharoh Inscription on a Gandhran Relief. Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies 25.12 (2002): 331.
 Argues that an inscription on a 2nd-century sculpture that Fussman 1999 reads as
identifying the figures it represents as Amitbha and Avalokitevara does not
actually do so.

Schopen, Gregory. The Inscription on the Kun Image of Amitbha and the Character
of Early Mahyna in India. In Figments and Fragments of Mahyna Buddhism in
India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 247277. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 2005a.

Originally published in 1987. Discusses and edits an inscription found on a stone

image pedestal discovered in 1977, dated 153 CE, that identifies the image
associated with it, now lost except for its feet, as the Buddha Amitbha.

Schopen, Gregory. Mahyna in Indian Inscriptions. In Figments and Fragments of

Mahyna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 223246.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005b.

Originally published in 1979. Draws attention to the important fact that the early
Mahayana left virtually no inscriptional evidence of its existence. The authors
assertion that the terms kyabhiku and paramopsaka refer to Mahayanists has
been rejected by several scholars.

Recent Manuscript Discoveries

In recent years fragments of several early Mahayana sutra manuscripts have come to
light. Braarvig 20002006 contains transcriptions, translations, and studies of several
Mahayana sutra manuscript fragments from Afghanistan dating from roughly the 2nd or
3rd to 8th century. A group of manuscripts now known as the Split Collection was
recently discovered in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region and contains part of a
Prajpramit manuscript dating to the 1st century CE that corresponds to the first and
fifth chapters of the Aashasrik. This is now the oldest datable evidence for the
Mahayana. Falk 2011 provides a general description of the Split Collection and Falk and
Karashima 2012 provides a detailed discussion of the Prajpramit manuscript in this
collection and a transcription of the first half of the text. Strauch 2008 provides a general
survey of the Bajaur Collection, a group of manuscripts which came to light in 1999 that
includes a long, incomplete, 1st- or 2nd-century manuscript of a previously unknown
Mahayana sutra related to the Akobhyavha. Strauch 2010 discusses the contents of this
manuscript, though a transcription remains an urgent desideratum. Allon and Salomon
2010 provides a useful overview of recent Gandhran Mahayana sutra manuscript
discoveries and notices some fragments that have not yet been published.

Allon, Mark, and Richard Salomon. New Evidence for Mahyna in Early Gandhra.
Eastern Buddhist 41.1 (2010): 122.
 Useful overview of the recent early Mahayana manuscript discoveries. Notices
several unpublished Gandhran Mahayana sutra manuscript fragments.

Braarvig, Jens, ed. Manuscripts in the Schyen Collection: Buddhist Manuscripts. 3 vols.
Oslo, Norway: Hermes, 20002006.

Contains transcriptions, translations, and studies of recently discovered Mahayana

sutra manuscript fragments from Afghanistan dating from roughly the 3rd to 8th
century.

Falk, Harry. The Split Collection of Kharoh Texts. Annual Report of the
International Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 14 (2011): 1323.

Discusses the Split Collection of Buddhist manuscripts, which contains part of a

1st-century Prajpramit manuscript.

Falk, Harry, and Seishi Karashima. A First-Century Prajpramit Manuscript from

Gandhra: Parivarta 1 (Texts from the Split Collection 1). Annual Report of the
International Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 15 (2012): 1961.

Contains a transcription of the first half of the Prajpramit manuscript from

the Split Collection, which is now the oldest datable evidence for the Mahayana
and plates.

Strauch, Ingo. The Bajaur Collection of Kharoh Manuscripts: A Preliminary Survey.

Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 25 (2008): 103136.

General survey of the Bajaur Collection of mostly Buddhist manuscripts, which

came to light in 1999 and includes a lengthy incomplete manuscript of a
previously unknown sutra related to the Akobhyavyha.

Strauch, Ingo. More Missing Pieces of Early Pure Land Buddhism: New Evidence for
Akobhya and Abhirati in an Early Mahayana Sutra from Gandhra. Eastern Buddhist
41.1 (2010): 2366.

Discusses the contents of the manuscript of the sutra related to the Akobhyavyha
in the Bajaur Collection.