Jiabs 19-1

Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies
Volume 19 Number 1 Summer 1996
JAMIE HUBBARD
Mo Fa, The Three Levels Movement, and the Theory of
the Three Periods 1
Go Mo BONGARD-LEVIN AND SHIN'ICHIRG HORI
A Fragment of the Larger Prajfiaparamita
from Central Asia 0
NIRMALA So SALGADO
Ways of Knowing and Transmitting Religious Knowledge:
19
Case Studies of Theravada Buddhist Nuns 61
GREGORY SCHOPEN
The Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the
Monk in MUlasarvastivadin Monasticism 81
CYRUS STEARNS
The Life and Tibetan Legacy of the Indian
Mahiipal)ita VibhUticandra
Books Received
127
173
e watermark
The Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies
(ISSN 0193-600XX) is the organ of
the International Association of
Buddhist Studies, Inc. It welcomes
scholarly contributions pertaining to
all facets of Buddhist Studies.
nABS is published twice yearly, in
the summer and winter.
Address manuscripts (two copies)
and books for review to Professor
Donald Lopez, Editor, nABS,
Department of Asian Languages
and Cultures, 3070 Frieze,
University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor MI 48109-1285 USA.
Address subscription orders and
dues, changes of address, and
business correspondence
(including advertising orders) to
Professor Joe B. Wilson, Treasurer
lABS, Department of Philosophy
and Religion, University of North
Carolina at Wilmington,
Wilmington NC 28403 USA
email: wilsonj@uncwil.edu
Subscriptions to nABS are $40
per year for individuals and $70
per year for libraries and other
institutions. For information on
membership in lABS, see back
cover.
1996 by the International
Association of Buddhist Studies,
Inc. The editor gratefully
acknowledges the support of the
Center for Chinese Studies and the
Department of Asian Languages
and Cultures of the University of
Michigan.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Donald S. Lopez, Ir.
Editor-in-Chief
Robert Buswell
Steven Collins
Collett Cox
Luis O. Gomez
Oskar von Hiniiber
Roger I ackson
Padmanabh S. Iaini
Shoryu Katsura
Alexander Macdonald
D. Seyfort Ruegg
Ernst Steinkellner
Erik Zurcher
Editorial Assistant
Alexander Vesey
Contributors to this issue:
G. M. BONGARD-LEVIN is Professor of Indian Studies, and Chah--
man of the Center for Indological and Buddhological Studies, Moscow
State University.
SHIN'ICHIRO HORI is a Ph. D. candidate at Albert-Ludwigs-
Universitat Freiburg im Breisgau.
JAMIE HUBBARD holds the Yehan Numata Chair in Buddhist Stud-
ies at Smith College. He is currently preparing books on Buddhist
heresies in Tang China and contemporary Japan.
NIRMALA S. SALGADO is Assistant Professor of Religion at
Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois. She completed her
doctoral dissertation at Northwestern University in 1992.
GREGORY SCHOPEN is Professor of Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Buddhist
Studies in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas
at Austin.
CYRUS STEARNS is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Asian
Languages and Literatures at the University of Washington, Seattle.
His research centers on the Sa skya sect of Tibetan Buddhism.
JAMIE HUBBARD
Mo Fa, The Three Levels Movement, .
and the Theory of the Three Periods
INTRODUCTION
Almost two and one-half millennia ago Aristotle identified "past fact" and
"future fact" as universal tapai of human dialectical reasoning, and the
time since would seem to bear out the truth of his observation. Among
the past and future "facts" that have particularly excited human imagination
and speculation we may count thinking on the beginnings and endings of
things, cosmology and eschatology. Although the Buddhist tradition is
usually seen within the context of a pan-Indian a-historical, "timeless," or
cyclical view of cosmology and eschatology, this is a rather limited approach
to the many and varied narratives of time and history, cosmos and community
found even within the documentary tradition, much less the numerous
other aspects of the tradition. The prophesied disappearance of the Buddha's
teachings from the world, for example, puts a doctrine of historical and
specific finitude (saddharnrna) into rhetorical tension with an otherwise
unbounded truth (dharmatii), ironically emphasizing the importance of
the former through its prophesied disappearance (Hubbard 1996). In East
Asia the disappearance of the dharma was understood as a slow, gradual
process of decay through three distinct time periods, culminating in a
prolonged period of difficulty and strife known as rna fa the "final
period of the dharma." Because of the great importance of the notion of
rna fa and the three periods of the dharma for East Asian literary production,
sectarian development, religious praxis, historiographical thinking, institu-
tional organization, and the like, the precise terms of this tradition and
their historical development have received a good deal of scholarly attention.
Thus it is generally accepted that the idea of three periods of dharma
ending in rna fa was based on a notion of the decline of the dharma that
originated in India and was later systematized in China as the three periods
of the True Dharma (saddharma. cheng fa the Semblance Dharma
(saddharrna pratiriipika, hsiang fa and the Final Dharma (rna fa).
Because this systematization took place during the latter half of the sixth
century it is also generally thought that it served to provide an important
motivation for the emerging Pure Land and San-chieh-chiao move-
1
JIABS 19.1 2
ments, the latter's very name seen to incorporate the idea of the three
periods of the dharma.
The San-chieh-chiao or "Teaching of the Three Levels" arose in China
during the Sui and T'ang periods, but, in spite of its popularity among the
powerful as well the poor, suffered a number of official suppressions and
eventually disappeared. As the name implies, the Three Levels movement
taught three distinct levels or capacities for realization, of which the third
level is characterized by complete degeneration. Beings at this level,
beset by attachments to the views of emptiness and existence, no longer
have the capacity to apprehend the truth. A correspondence between the
three periods and the three levels and particularly between the third level.
and rna fa, the third and final period of the dharma, has been assumed by
virtually all who have written on the subject of rna fa or the San-chieh-chiao
(including this author). Because this correspondence would indicate the
widespread diffusion of the concept of rna fa and the three periods during
the Sui and early T' ang, numerous studies have further used it as a reference
for the dating of texts, authors, and other traditions. Recently, however,
inspired by Jan Nattier's precise delineation of the terms of the decline
tradition (Nattier 1991), I reinvestigated the extant texts of the Three
Levels movement more carefully and discovered, rather to my chagrin,
that rna fa barely figures in their writings at all and the three periods of
the dharma not at all: the "three levels" have nothing at all to do with the
"three periods!" That is, although the tradition of decline clearly dominates
the Three Levels movement, the technical system of three periods of time
culminating in a final period of rno fa does not, even in writings assumed
to been have been composed after the three period schema was widely
reported by other Chinese Buddhists. In this brief paper I will present the
few occurrences of rna fa found in the Three Levels texts and their context
in order to demonstrate this thesis and then consider some of the implications
of this finding.
THE TEXTS: ARGUING FROM SILENCE
What do I mean by when I claim that rna fa barely figures at all in the
writings of the San-chieh-chiao? Simply that when we search through the
extant texts attributed to the San-chieh-chiao, amounting to nearly two-
hundred-thousand Chinese characters (roughly the equivalent of some
one-hundred-twenty pages of the printed Taish6 canon) we find but nine
occurrences of the term and not a single usage in the context of the last or
final of three periods or stages of the dharma's decline. There are, as
always, a number of difficulties with a project of searching a corpus for a
HUBBARD 3
particular term, and the first is the simple difficulty of arguing from
silence. Although we have for our investigation a good number of San-
chieh-chiao texts, because of the many suppressions of the movement and
the inclusion of their scriptures in the apocryphal sections of the siitra
catalogs (which determined the normative Buddhist canon in China), the
San-chieh-chiao has literally been excised from Chinese Buddhist history.
Until the discovery of a number of their texts at the begimiing of this
century in Tun-huang and Japan, almost all knowledge of the San-chieh-
chiao came from the mere titles of their texts listed in the old scripture
catalogs or the odd polemic directed at them by their contemporaries.
Although this changed dramatically when their texts turned up at Tun-huang,
we still cannot presume to possess all or even a major portion of their
. . 1
wntmgs.
A second problem that the researcher faces is the inordinate number of
complex questions of dating, authorship, reading, and, due to the fragmen-
tary and often damaged condition of the texts, even physical reconstruction
of the texts. Thus, for example, to attribute any given manuscript or
fragment to the Sui dynasty (or earlier) authorship of the founder (Hsin-hsing
540-594), is next to impossible at this point, thereby also rendering any
conclusions about internal development of their doctrines or comparisons
with other thinkers, schools, or texts problematic at best. Perhaps, however,
the most difficult problem in understanding the texts of the San-chieh-chiao
is working in a total vacuum of commentarial literature to aid in their
interpretation. Often the only way to understand a technical term or
phrase in the San-chieh-chiao materials is through its use in other traditions,
obviously as dangerous a practice as it is cumbersome, massively enlarging
the scope of one's research at the same time that it increases the already
enormous potential for misinterpretation. The problems of this approach
are well exemplified, I think, by my own and others' readiness to read the
three levels through the lens of the systematized teaching of rna fa and the
1. This study is based on a survey of the Three Levels texts from Tun-huang
and Japan edited by Yabuki (Yabuki 1927, appendix 1-415) and the scripture
catalogues found in the TaishO canon. There are other individual texts which
have been identified as from the Three Levels movement (e. g., the Chihfa JM
~ , Pelliot 2849, identified by Dan Stevenson) and there is also the corpus
recently discovered at Nanatsu-dera in Nagoya, Japan (at first look substantially
the same as the earlier discoveries of Three Levels manuscripts in Japan). For
this investigation I am indebted to Min Zhong, my research assistant who did
the initial survey of the texts, Smith College for providing research funds that
allowed the computer input of the Yabuki editions of Three Levels texts (enabling
a more thorough search of the corpus), and especially to Professor Lewis
Lancaster for facilitating that input process.
nABS 19.1 4
three periods; hopefully this paper will correct some of those errors while
not introducing too many more. Nonetheless, for all of these reasons,
although I am confidant of my conclusions, they remain qualified conclu-
sions. With these cautions, then, let us turn to the texts themselves?
Wu chin tsang fa liieh chi
Our first two occurrences of the term rno fa are found in the Wu chin
tsang fa liieh chi, a text from the Stein collection of Tun-huang manuscripts
(Stein #190) that describes the theory of the famous San-chieh-chiao char-
itable institution of the Inexhaustible Storehouse (Hubbard 1986, 213-217).
Theoretically based on the universalism of the bodhisattva' s
storehouse of merit" as taught in the Virnalakirti-nirdesa-satra and the
Avata1'}'!saka-satra, the institutional manifestation of the Inexhaustible Store-
house at the Hua-tu ssu in Ch'ang-an and Loyang also found sanction in
the vinaya literature governing "inexhaustible goods" and is even considered
the prototype of the pawnshop in East Asia (Hubbard 1986, 97-170). Mo
fa occurs towards the end of the text, when the Lotus Satra and the
Dasakacra are cited in connection with a discussion of evil and virtue?
The "Chapter on the Four Peaceful Practices" in the Lotus Satra [Chapter
Fourteen] teaches that after the Buddha has left the world, the preachers of
the latter dharma (rno fa) will explain many dharmas; within this the meaning
of avoiding evil [persons] and drawing near to [persons of] virtue is illuminated
most fully. In general this is as extensively taught in the various scriptures
and Vinaya works. The best illustration of how the common person (fan p 'u
}L;k, pp:agjana) of the latter dharma (rno fa) will study discarding the false
and entering the true nirvana, discarding the evil and entering the virtuous,
and discarding the small and entering the great is found in the Shih lun
+fftlri\1I. (W/.4 .9hin tsang fa liieh chi, 159;
ftilimi'!i'!. i X*i'!}L

Both of the scriptures mentioned here are often summoned to service as
proof texts in San-chieh-chiao literature, and both are also associated with
the rhetoric of the decline of the dharma.
4
The Lotus Satra in particular
2. All references to San-chieh-chiao texts are to the editions in the appendix
of Yabuki, 1927. Additional text -critical remarks may be found therein as well
as in Hubbard 1986, passim.
3. The last few lines of Wu chin tsang fa liieh chi, including those translated
here, are also found on another, damaged, fragment in the Stein collection
(Stein #2137); cf. Yabuki 1927, appendix, 3.
4. The Shih lun ching (DaSacakra) is often referred to in San-chieh-chiao
HUBBARD 5
has often been cited by scholars as the locus classicus of the three period
scheme, both because of its frequent allusions to the time when the "True
Dharma is in the process of destruction" (Skt. saddharma-vipralopa) and
its regular useof the two periods of True Dharma and Semblance Dharma.
In addition, the Chinese translation by KumaraJlva actually does use the
term rno fa in the same chapter cited by our text (T. #262, 9.37c), as does
the Shih lun ching (T. #410, 13.700b, T. #411, 13.777a). Now, although
the study of the tradition of decline in these texts is well beyond the scope
of the present essay, two important conclusions of that study are worth
noting. First, the Lotus Satra uses the two periods of True Dharma
(saddharma) and Semblance Dharma (saddharma-pratirapika) in an en-
tirely different context than the decline motif (saddharma-vipralopa). The
two are actually different to poi, with different origins and different rhetorical
functions: whereas the two periods are rhetorically linked to the theme of
the eternal lifetime of the Buddha and cyclical in nature, the topos of
decline is linked to the polemic of saddharma or the cult of the book
(Nattier 1991, 91-118; Hubbard 1986, 21-24). Secondly, in spite of
KumaraJlva's use of the expression rno fa (T. #262, 9.37c) in the chapter
cited by our text (Chapter 14, "Ease in Practice") and its appearance in the
Dasacakra there is no tripartite scheme of the dharma's duration presented
in either the Lotus or the Dasacakra. KumaraJlva's rno fa in the Lotus
simply denotes the "latter age" or "after years," that is, the period after the
Buddha's final nirvana; it is most likely a translation of pascirnakiile
(usually rendered rno shih *iIt or hou shih and not a third or fmal
time of the dharma (Nattier 1991, 90-94; Hubbard 1986, 21-22
n.19). The Da1acakra use of rno fa is likewise not part of a three-period
literature (more than twenty-five references in the two fragments of the San
chiehfo fa recovered from Tun-huang and more than 100 references in the four
chuan San chieh fo fa). There are two extant versions of the Shih lun ching,
one attributed to the Northern Liang (412-439; T. #410, translator unknown)
and one translated by Hsuan-tsang (651, T. #411). The San chiehfo fa uses the
earlier recension while later writings of the San-chieh-chiao (e. g., San chiehfo
fa mi chl) uses Hsuan-tsang's version (Yabuki 1927, appendix, 601). From the
general comments made here I have been unable to trace which version our
text used, although it fits well with the tenor of the earlier translation, especially
in terms of "avoiding evil persons and drawing close to virtuous person" (e. g.,
T. 13.700a-c, passim). Hsin-hsing is also reported to have written two
commentaries on this text, the Shih lun i i li ming in two chuan,
and the Shih lun lueh in one chuan (K'ai yuan shi chiao lu,
T.55.678c).
5. There is also a rather glaring inconsistency in the notion of a period of the
destruction of the dharma following the Buddha's extinction, given the Lotus
Sutra's insistence on the eternal lifetime of the Buddha. It is perhaps for this
reason that the Lotus does not seem to have been a major influence in the
JIABS 19.1 6
scheme but, as with .the Lotus, simply indicates the "latter time" of de-
cay-indeed, according to the Taishi5 indices, hsiang-fa or "semblance
dharma," the second period, does not even appear in either translatjon of
the text.
6
1t is important to remember, however, that although these texts
do not make use of a three period scheme of the dharma's decline, the
"latter age, after the Tathagata's extinction," whether called mo shih, hou
shih, or mo fa, is, in fact, rhetorically envisioned as the "time of the
destruction of the true dharma" (fa mieh saddharmavipralope var-
tamiina).7 In other words, I am not denying the connotative resonance
of mo fa (or mo shih) as "latter dharma" with mo fa as the "final dharma"
of three periods of the dharma, but more simply the presence of this latter
scheme within the texts of the Three Levels movement. '
Our concern, however, is not the use of mo fa in the Lotus or
Dasacakra but whether the San-chieh-chiao usage of mo fa indicates
awareness of an already existing scheme of three periods, uses it to create
such a scheme, or correlates it to its own third level. The answer must be
no: the Wu chin tsang fa liieh chi shows no awareness of a prior three
period scheme, nor does it contain a three part periodization of the duration
or decline of the dharma, nor does it attempt to construct one. It is also
not used in conjunction with the other two periods of True Dharma and
Semblance Dharma. In accord with the texts it cites, mo fa is used to
refer not to a particular period in a formal system of time periods but
simply the "after years," the generalized time following the Buddha's
final nirvana: "after the Buddha has left the world the preachers of the
latter dharma (mo fa) will explain many dharmas." To what purpose, then,
is such a usage in the Wu chin tsang fa liieh chi? It is used as an adjective
to describe the living beings of that time:. "dharma teachers of the latter
Chinese systematization of the tripartite scheme. The great encyclopedia of
Buddhist doctrine, the Fa yuan chu lin (668), for example, devotes one entire
section to the "extinction of the law" and, although it gives over fifteen references
to sources ranging from the Agama and the Vinaya to Mahayana sutras and
sastras, the Lotus SzUra is not mentioned (T. #2122,53.1005 ft); neither does
Chi-ts'ang mention it in his summary of the decline tradition (T. #1824, 42.17c-
18c), nor even Hui-ssu, the first to systematize the three periods and a patriarch
of the T'ien-t'ai (T. #1933, 46.786c), a school premised on the final truth of the
Lotus.
6. The Dasacakra-slitra is also not listed in the Fa yuan chu lin's summary
of texts that describe the destruction of the dharma (cf. note 5 above).
7. See, for example, T. #262, 9.38c ("In the later final age, at the time when
the dharma is about to perish" the later Sanskrit reads,
"tathiigatasyaparinirv.rtasya vartamiina" ("After
the extinction of the Tathiigata, at the time when the true dharma is in decay"),
Kern and Nanjio 1912,287.
HUBBARD 7
dharma," the "common person of the latter dharma." The focus is on the
beings living at such a time rather than the historical time in which they
live.
San chiehfofa'=..Fli!i1*'w', chiian 2
The third example of rno fa is found in another text in the Stein collection
(Stein #2137), a fragmentary manuscript of one of the seminal San-chieh-
chiao texts, the San chiehfo fa (Buddha-dharma of the Three Levels). A
text of this or similar title has been recorded in virtually every
catalogue since the Li tai san pao chi composed in 597, a scant three
years after the death of Hsin-hsing, the founder of the San-chieh-chiao
(Hubbard 1986, 172-173).8 In the context of the teachings for the "evil
world of the five corruptions, the sentient beings [attached to] the view of
emptiness and the view of existence, the most evil world, the evil time
and evil sentient beings," the San chieh fo fa cites the chapter on "Four
Peaceful Practices" of the Lotus Satra regarding the "latter, evil world,
after the Tathagata's extinction, in the latter dharma, at the time of the
extinction of the dharma" (San chieh
fo fa, 24). Again, however, in this as in the previous reference to the
Lotus Satra, there is no sense of rno fa as the third or fmal period of a
three period timetable, no mention of the periods of True Dharma or
Semblance Dharma, nor even any particular duration given for this time.
9
As in the case of the Wu chin tsang fa liieh chi discussed above, the San
chieh fo fa is using rno fa in exactly the way that it was used in the Lotus
Satra, that is, to refer to a generalized "evil time" of the "latter dharma"
following the extinction of the Buddha.
Tui ken ch'i hsing fa
Our next occurrence of rno fa is found in the Tui ken ch'i hsing fa (Stein
#2446), one of the most important texts of the San-chieh-chiao, and
one of the oldest as well (Kimura 1984, 175, Hubbard 1986, 207-213). 0
8. In addition to fragments of the San chieh fo fa discovered at Tun-huang,
a complete version of the text has been preserved in Japan, and manuscripts
have also been discovered recently at the Nanatsudera in Nagoya. The Tun-huang
versions do not match the Japanese versions, however, and there are numerous
other difficulties identifying these texts. Cf. Hubbard 1986, 193-201.
9. The two periods of cheng fa and hsiang fa are, however, mentioned
shortly afterwards in connection with the Lotus Satra chapter on the "Bodhisattva
Never Despise;" there is not, however, any attempt to correlate this with the
earlier use of mo fa.
10. Based on the match between Tun-huang manuscript (Stein #2446) and
the long testimonium in Chih-yen's (602-668) Hua yen wu shih yao wen ta (T.
JIABS 19.1 8
The Tui ken ch'i hsing fa describes the different practices
appropriate for each of the three levels and if there is any place that we
would expect to find a delineation of the three periods of the dharma or
identification of the Third Level with the period of rna fa it would be in
this text. Yet we find only a single use of the term buried among various
lists of sutras that teach of falsity, evil monks, perversions of the doctrine, .
and the like:
The seventh item is as taught in the Ta pan nieh p'an ching [Mahiiparinirvii1)a
-sutra]: in the age of the latter dharma the icchantika and [those who commit]
the five grievous offenses will be [everywhere] like the great earth. (Tui ken
ch 'i hsing fa, 135;
This portion of the Tui ken ch'i hsing fa quotes from a number of
different texts to support its contention about the pervasive evils of living
beings, including the Mahasaf!Lnipiitta, the Dasacakra, the Mahiimiiyii,
and other texts prominent in the decline tradition. The text cited here, the
MahiiparinirviilJa-sutra, is of course quite well-known for its strong sense
of foreboding and contains a number of the different elements of the
decline tradition (Mizutani 1960). Although I have not been able to find a
passage similar to that cited in the Tui ken ch'i hsing fa, there are numerous
places throughout the MahaparinirviilJa-sutra that mention the icchantika,
those who commit the five grievous offenses, and the like as a stylized
description of the latter age after the passing of the Buddha (pascirnakiila).l1
Still, there is no known example of its using the three period system or
even the word rna fa in any version of the text, leading me to assume that
either a) the Tui ken ch'i hsing fa is relying on some other, no longer
extant, recension of the MahaparinirviilJa-sutra, which seems unlikely
considering.the popularity that text had alieady achieved
in the North, or, more likely, b) the term rna fa, already accepted as a
variant of rna shih as discussed above, was used by the authors of the Tui
ken ch'i hsing fa in exactly that sense, that is, to simply designate the
"latter age," the time after the parinirviilJa of the Sakyamuni Buddha.
This, of course, should not surprise us in a scripture describing the Buddha's
last words before entering parinirviilJa.
Whatever the MahiiparinirviilJa-sutra's usage denotes, and whether or
#1869, 45.532b-534c), Kimura feels that we may reliably assume this text to
have actually been composed by Hsin-hsing (540-594) as well as to preserve
the original form of the text (Kimura 1984, 175).
11. In general the San-chieh-chiao relies on the so-called "Northern" version
of the Mahaparinirvii1)a-sutra, translated by around 420.
HUBBARD 9
not rna ja actually appeared in the text used by our author, it is clear that
rna fa is not cited by the Tui ken ch' i hsing fa to indicate a particular time
span, nor as part of a tripartite scheme, nor even to systematize rna fa with
its own three levels. Cited as the seventh item of a list of eleven sutras
that teach of falsity and total perversion (which list is itself the seventh of
twelve such listings of texts that explain the "recognition of evil"), the
purpose is rather to create a basis of prooftexts that enumerate the evil
nature of living beings.
For our purposes what is important to note is simply that, although the
Tui ken ch'i hsing fa does in fact use the term rna fa, it is not in the
context of a historical period of particular duration, there is no mention
whatsoever of preceding periods in conjunction with rna fa, and it does
not even relate the term to its own third level, much less a third period.
The impression is that it is used in a thoroughly non-technical fashion and
refers simply to a world dominated by the icchantika and those that commit
the five grave offenses. Since the MahiiparinirviiIJa-sutra contains many
references to the difficult times after the Buddha's passing, the Tui ken
ch'i hsing fa's use of rna fa to describe its teaching is probably another
example of its referring simply to the "latter age" after the Buddha's
passing-that is, as a synonym for rna-shih. Especially when taken within
the overall context of building a foundation of proof texts for "recognizing
the evil nature of living beings" it is clear that the emphasis is not on any
particular timespan or periodization but on the capacity-or, rather, the
lack of capacity-of living beings, which is, after all, the focus of the Tui
ken ch'i hsing fa ("The Teaching and Practice that Arises in Accordance
with the Capacity").
San chieh fa fa rni chi
The San chieh fa fa rni chi is a fragmentary manuscript of a
on the San chieh chiao fa fa in the Pelliot collection (Pelliot #2412).1
Because the text quotes the Hstian-tsang translation of the Dasacakra-sutra
(completed in 651) rather than the earlier translation (ca. 412-439, translator
unknown) we can at least establish an earliest possible date of composition
12. Although there is no mention of this text in any of the scripture catalogues
contained in the Taish6, it is recorded in a catalogue of Three Stages texts
discovered at Tun-huang (Yabuki 1927,225). A comparison of the contents
with the extant manuscripts of the San chieh fa fa reveals it to correspond to
the fragments of the second and third chuan of the Tun-huang text rather than
the more complete Japanese manuscript. Unfortunately the part of the San
chieh fa fa that the Mi chi comments on is not contained within the extant
fragments.
nABS 19.1 10
of 651 (YabOO 1927, appendix p.60l). A late composition date is also
suggested by a more developed way of handling rna fa in comparison to
the above texts.
Interestingly, two of the three occurrences of rna fa in the San chieh fa
fa rni chi are found within the section that describe the teachings related to
the practices of "universal respect" and "recognizing evil" for beings of
the first level, the teachings for those sentient beings that have the capacity
for Ekayana (Yabuki appendix, p. 94); specifically, rna fa appears within
a list of eleven items explaining the cultivation of the practices of universal
respect and recognizing evil in the first level: 13
[There are seven items that explain how one enters the path because of the
practice of recognizing evil ... ] the third is because of seeing the Buddha
scold the dharma teachers of the latter dharma (rna fa) . .. " (San chieh fa fa
mi chi, p. 95;
Upon seeing that the people of the latter dharma (rna-fa) of the Third
Level, candala, and the like do not fear that they are destined to fall into hell
in the next world, [the sentient beings with the capacity for the First Level]
investigate the teachings in the scriptures, realize that they should immediately
fear their offenses and determine to obtain liberation; therefore they [realize
that they must take up the practice of] recognizing evil." (San chieh fa fa mi
chi, p .. 95;

The final occurrence of rna fa, near the end of the fragment, is in a
section explaining why now is the time that one should copy the scriptures:
Question: the scriptures say that one should not give others [copies of the
texts]; how so is it that in the latter dharma (rna fa) one should copy out [the
texts]? (Sa!", chieh fa fa mi chi, p. 106: F,,'mI
The pattern we have seen in the previous usages of rna fa holds for the
San chieh fa fa rni chi as well: there is no sense of rna fa as the third
period of a three-part timetable, it is not used in conjunction with any
actual timetables, nor is it used in conjunction with or contrast to the
periods of saddharma or saddharma pratirCipika.
14
Even this later text,
13. Two characteristic San-chieh-chiao practices of 1) universally recognizing
all sentient beings as Buddhas (based on the teachings of the Hua yen ching,
tathiigatagarbha, etc.) while at the same time 2) seeing oneself as only capable
of evil (cf. Hubbard 1990, 91-92).
14. Indeed, cheng fa (saddharma) only appears once in this fragment (in the
formulaic phrase "slandering the true dharma," p. 104) and hsiang fa (saddharma
pratirupika) but twice, both times citing the title of the apocryphal Hsiang fa
HUBBARD 11
then, maIces no use of the three-part timetable of True, Semblance, and
Latter Dharma.
I5
The one development in its usage of rna fa, however,
is its explicit linkage of rna fa with the Third Level, seen in the second
instance above (rna fa ti san chieh jen }..). Given that the
Third Level is'that of degenerate beings of the time of the destruction of
the true dharma (saddharrna vipralopa), a destruction that takes place in
the "latter age" after Sakyamuni's passing, this is not surprising. The
issue at hand is not whether the San-chieh-chiao considered the Third
Level to be equivalent to that described in the various texts they cite,
including those that characterize the time of rna shih I rna fa as the time of
the destruction of the true dharma, but whether or not that means that they
used or accepted the three-period scheme of True, Semblance, and Final
Dharma. Thus, when compared to the other usages, the San chieh fa fa rni
chi's seeming equation of the Third Level and rna fa perhaps is a new
development, though precisely because it links the Third Level to rna fa
while yet virtually ignoring the other two periods it is in fact further
evidence that this text was not using the three period scheme.
Sutra Catalogs
The last two occurrences of rna fa are found in the titles of San-chieh-chiao
texts recorded in several catalogs; unfortunatel, no manuscripts corre-
sponding to these titles has yet been discovered:
I
chueh i ching (Sutra on Resolving Doubts in the Semblance Dhanna).
15. This interpretation is further supported by the way that the San chieh fo fa
mi chi does assign timespans to the Three Levels without ever mentioning the
three periods of True Dharma, Semblance Dharma, and Final Dharma:
There are three separate divisions oftime: [1.] when the Buddha is in the world
the Buddha himself maintains and upholds the Buddha-dharma; this stage (wei
{:i'l.) is determined as the time of the First Level; [2.] up to 1,500 years after the
Buddha's extinction, when sages and commoners with the good roots for the
perfection of correct views maintain and uphold the Buddha-dharma-this stage
is determined as the time of the Second Level; [3.] from 1,500 years after the
Buddha's extinction, the morality, concentration, and wisdom of commoners
with good roots for particularistic understandings and particularistic practices
will all be entirely false-this corresponds to the time of the Third Level. (San
chiehfofa mi chi, 75-76)
16. These titles are taken from the len chi lu tu mu a
catalogue of San-chieh-chiao texts from the Pelliot collection of Tun-huang
MSS on the same roll as the San chiehfo fa mi chi (see above). Both texts are
also recorded (with abbreviated titles) in the Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu
lu (T. #2153, 55.474c), the K'ai yuan shi chiao lu (T. #2154, 55.678b) and the
Chen yuan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu (the San-chieh-chiao materials are not
actually recorded in the Taisho edition of this latter catalogue, though they are
recorded in the various versions transmitted in Japan, including the recently
JIABS 19.1 12
1. Ming shu ching chung tui gen ch'i hsing mo fa chung sheng wu fo fa
nei fei hsing so yu fa [The Teaching On the Reasons that the Living
Beings of the Latter Dharma Flourish and Decay (Rise and Fall) Within
the Buddha-dharma, Illuminated By the Scriptures According to Whether
the Capacity is Shallow or Deep]. One chtian, 16 leaves.
+f\tJ
2. Ming shih chien wu cho wu shih chien mo fa wu shih shih wu chung
sheng fU te hsia hsing wu tz'u shih shu chu tsu jen chung wei tang san
ch'eng chijen i shu ta ch'eng ching fun hsueh ch'iu shan chi chih hsueh
fa p'u t'i hsin [Clarifying How, in Accordance with the Mahayana
SiItras and Commentaries, Among the Virtues and Inferior Practices' of
the Ten Types of Evil Sentient Beings of the Evil Time of the Latter
Dharma in the Age of the Five Corruptions, Those With the Capacity
for the Triyana Among the Four Types of Complete Persons Will Learn
To Seek Virtuous Friends and Arouse the Mind of Bodhi]. One chtian,
46 leaves.
JtJEA == A 12.91\
tJ
Unfortunately, with no extant text to go by, it is hard to know exactly
what these instances of mo fa refer to. Although it might be too much to
expect to find in the title itself a full reference to periods other than mo fa
even if it were being used as part of the three periods scheme, still, we
must note the absence of any such reference. The second title is somewhat
more interesting, bringing together as it does the age of mo fa and the
time of the five corruptions, ala Hui-ssu (515-577) and Tao-ch' 0 (562-645;
cf. Chappell 1980, 141-143). As with the former text, however, there is
little to conclude except to note the lack of any sense of temporal peri-
odization or three times associated with these usages of mo fa. Indeed,
looking at the other titles a two-part schema of shallow / deep capacity is
more noticeable than a three period scheme. The first text, for example, is
listed between a number of texts with somewhat similar titles, such as The
Teaching on the Arousing of Bodhicitta, Illuminated By the Scriptures
According to Whether the Capacity is Shallow or Deep
The Teaching on Reverence for the Three Jewels, Illuminated
by the Scriptures According to Whether the Practice is Shallow or Deep
The Teaching on the Similarities and
discovered Nanatsudera edition. Cf. Hubbard 1986, 180-188; Yabuki 1927,
appendix, 227).
HUBBARD 13
Differences, Illuminated by the Scriptures According to Whether the Ca-
pacity is Shallow or Deep indicating perhaps
that, simply denoting the "latter days" after the passing of the Buddha,
there would be both those with shallow capacities as well as those with a
"deep" capacity existing at the time of the "latter dharma." Similar binary
oppositions found in these titles include the "worldly" and "transcendental,"
"inferior" and "superior" capacities, "good persons" and "evil persons,"
and the like. One title even describes these opposites as the "two levels:"
The Teaching Within the Mahayiina Siitras that Clarifies the Similarities
and Differences in Arousing Bodhicitta for the Two Levels of Sattvas,
Worldly and Transcendental
This would seem to be a clear case in which levels (chieh
refers not to a temporal division but to a distinction of capacity (ken chi

TEMPORAL DIVISIONS AND THE THREE LEVELS
Although the three levels of the San-chieh-chiao are not related to the
formula of the three periods of the dharma, they occasionally are made to
fit the various timetables of decline in the translated and indigenous scrip-
tures available at that time.17 Even here, though, the lack of concern
given to systematizing these various sources seem to indicate that it was
not really a particular history or era that was at issue:
By way of these various illustrations it should be known that all of the sages
and sattvas with good roots for the true, the virtuous, and correct views will
be completely extinguished either [a] after the Buddha's extinction, or [b]
five-hundred years after the Buddha's extinction, or [c] one thousand years
after the Buddha's extinction (San chiehfo fa, p. 303).
As here, when San-chieh chiao texts do utilize the timetables of decline
they reflect the variety found in the scriptural sources. Thus the time of
the First Level is given variously as when Slikyamuni himself is in the
world (San chiehfo fa mi chi, p. 75), lasting five-hundred years following
his extinction (San chieh fa fa, p. 302), or lasting fifteen-hundred years
after his extinction (Tui ken ch'i hsing fa, p. 129). The Second Level is
likewise given various durations of five-hundred years (San chieh fa fa mi
chi, p. 75) or one-thousand years (San chieh fa fa, p. 302) after the
Buddha's extinction, though most often its duration is grouped together
17. Nishimoto (1992) sees the adaptation of the levels to a temporal scheme to
be a development in the San-chieh-chiao tradition, not evidenced in the earlier
writings.
JIABS 19.1 14
with that of the First Level. Thus too the Third Level is listed variously
as commencing one-thousand years after the Buddha's extinction (San
chieh fo fa, p. 302), sixteen-hundred years after (Tui ken ch 'i h s ~ n g fa, p.
129), or fifteen-hundred years after the parinirvQl}-a (San chieh fo fa rni
chi, 75_76).18 Most often, though, as seen in the text titles discussed
above, for the San-chieh-chiao there really was only one distinction, that
between the time when people of correct views could still be found and
the time when all living beings were ensnared by false views:
Clarifying the time when the superior and inferior people will appear in the
world according to the twelve types of scripture (dvadasilhga-sasana), there
are two times: 1) People of correct views will appear in the world while "the
Buddha lives in the world and for fifteen-hundred years after the Buddha's
final extinction. 2) People of false views will appear in the world sixteen-
hundred years after [the extinction of the Buddha]. (Tui ken ch'i hsing fa,
129)
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
With regards the San-chieh-chiao use of rno fa, then, we find that:
it does not indicate any awareness of a prior or commonly used three
part timetable of the dharma's decline;
it is not used in the San-chieh-chiao texts as part of such a three part
timetable of decline;
it is not used in conjunction with saddharma or saddharma pratirupika,
the other two components of the three period scheme;19
in fact rno fa is never used in the San-chieh-chiao texts with any
timetable of specific duration or to denote a specific term of the dharma's
duration / decline; I have also not found any example of a specific
duration for the third level: although there are several different times
18. Cf. Hubbard 1986, 49-69.
19. Indeed, when we look at the occurrences of cheng fa and hsiang fa in the
San-chieh-chiao texts we immediately see that they have nothing at all to do
with the occurrences of rno fa. Not only are they used in completely different
contexts, but, like rno fa, they are virtually never used with regard to specific
timespans for the duration of the dharma. Hsiang fa, for example, occurs
almost exclusively in the title of the Hsiang fa chiieh i ching, within its derivative
text, the Fo shuo shih so fan che yii ch'iehfa ching ching, or referring to the
Lotus Satra chapter on the Bodhisattva Sadaparibhuta, and only once with an
accompanying duration (Hsin-hsing k' ou chi chen ju shih kuan ch 'i hsu, Yabuki
1927, appendix, 198). This fits very well with Jan Nattier's conclusions about
the Indian usage of hsiang fa and rno fa (or the latter's variant rno shih; see
Nattier 1991,95-110).
HUBBARD 15
given to mark the beginning of the time when sentient beings with the
capacity of third level will dominate, there is nothing to indicate that
this is a period of fixed duration. Of course, with no duration given for
. the third level there is obviously no use of the 10,000 year motif (on
which see Nattier 1991, 61 n. 90), telling in a search for indications of
the three period scheme .
. rna fa is not used by the San-chieh-chiao to create a three-part timetable
or schema of their own;
. it is not even used to identify its own third level, with the single
exception of the later commentarial work, the San chieh fa fa rni chi.
We must conclude, then, that the San-chieh-chiao is not based on or
even related to the "three periods of the dharma," in spite of the latter's
having been systematized in Northern China at roughly the same time as
the San-chieh-chiao took shape. This in tum has a number of implications
for our study and understanding of the development of this important
doctrine, first and foremost of which is simply that at this time the system
of the three periods of the dharma was perhaps not as widely accepted as
previously thought, perhaps not widely known at all. Hence, the dating of
the widespread acceptance of this system even in China should be recon-
sidered. Inasmuch as the dating of many translations (e. g., those of
Narendrayasas) indigenous scriptures (e. g., the Hsiang fa chiieh i ching),
and historical figures and their writings (e. g. Hui-ssu) are often tied to the
dating of the advent of this scheme, much of this will need to be rethought
if my conclusions are correct. For these reasons as well as to shift our
association of the San-chieh-chiao with the three time periods I have also
chosen to translate San-chieh-chiao as "the Teaching of the Three Levels"
rather than "Three Stages," and to use "latter dharma" to translate their
use of rna fa, reserving "final dharma" or "final period of the dharma" for
rna fa used as part of the three periods scheme.
On another level this conclusion raises a host of questions about the role
of time and history in the Chinese Buddhist tradition and by implication
in the Indian tradition as well. This is so because, in a way, of course,
nothing has really changed-the Three Levels movement is still focussed
on the rhetoric of decline. If, however, this decline is not concerned with
time periods (and by extension historical thinking), just what is it concerned
with? At this point I would answer that the primary meaning of each of
the three levels is to be found in terms of levels of capacity of living
beings and the dharma that is appropriate for each of those levels. Hence
the appropriate framework for the three levels is not Buddhist historical
JIABS 19.1 16
thinking per se but rather Chinese pan chiao systems, systems of grading
the teachings according to the principle of upaya, a principle itself most
fully expressed as a polemic or apologetic notion of capacity and reaching.
This fits very well with the Three Levels' rhetoric of a "universal dharma"
uniquely suited for beings with the capacity of the third level, or, as the
Three Levels' texts put it, the "teaching and practice that arises in accordance
with the capacity" (tui ken ch'i hsingfa). And this in turn fits extremely
well with what I take to be the fundamental thrust of the decline tradition
even in India, to wit, not a lamentation of the passing of the Buddha's
dharma or an expression of naive historical awareness but rather a sophis-
ticated polemic of orthodoxy (saddharma) later married to the equally
polemic hermeneutic of upaya. Finally, I see a development in the deciine
tradition that seems to take place around this time, a development that,
premised on the notion of the lowered or nil capacity of living beings to
practice and realize the dharma, leads towards the dispensationalism indi-
cated in the phrase tui ken ch'i hsing fa and so well known in the Pure
Land traditions. Thus new doctrine and new practices in tune with the
lowered capacity of living beings were not merely legitimized, but required.
Both the tendency to see sentient beings as inherently lacking the capacity
for realization and the soteriological imperative to a new orthodoxy /
orthopraxy thus engendered had an immense impact on East Asian Bud-
dhism. These, however, are topics for yet another time.
REFERENCES
Chappell, David W. 1980. "Early Forebodings of the Death of Buddhism."
Numen 27: 122-155.
Hubbard, Jamie. 1986. Salvation in the Final Period of the Dharma: The
Inexhaustible Storehouse of the San-chieh-chiao. Diss. University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
----. '1991. "Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood-The Universal
Buddha of the San-chieh-chiao." Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor of
Minoru Kiyota. Eds. Paul Griffiths and John Keenan. Reno: Buddhist Books
International.
----.1996. Arguing the Universal: Aspects ofa Chinese Buddhist Heresy.
Forthcoming, Nanzan University Series on Asian Religions and Culture.
Kern, H. and Nanjio, B., eds. 1912. Bibliotheca Buddhica
10. St. Petersburg: Bibliotheca Buddhica.
Kimura, Kiyotaka. 1984. "Shingya no jikikan to sono igi." Nihon bukkyo
gakkai nenpo 49: 167-183.
Mizutani Kosho. 1960. "Daijonehankyatengun ni arawaretaru kiki shisa." Buk-
kyo daigaku kenkyu kiyo 37: 9-46.
Nattier, Jan. 1991. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy
HUBBARD 17
of Decline. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.
Nishimoto, Teruma. 1992. "Sangaikyotenseki ni Ookeru 'kai' no yohO." Indo-
gaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 40.2: 86-89.
Yabuki, Keiki. 1927. Sangaikyo no kenkyii.. Tokyo: Iwanarni. Rpt. 1973.
G. M. Bongard-Levin and Shin'ichiro Hori
A Fragment of the
Larger Prajiiaparamita from Central Asia
INTRODUCTION
In the Central Asian Collection of the Manuscript Fund of the St. Petersburg
Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of
Sciences! there are aPfroximately 40 fragments belonging to the Pra-
jfiaparamita literature. They were unearthed somewhere in Central
Asia and sent to Academician S. F. Oldenburg in St. Petersburg mainly by
N. F. Petrovsky, the Russian consul in Kashgar. On the basis of the
transliterations made by G. M. Bongard-Levin many of the fragments
were identified by Takayasu Kimura, Shin'ichir6 Hori and ShOgo Watanabe
as belonging to the Larger Prajiiaparamita.
3
This identification opens
up new possibilities in the study of this sutra and the Prajiiiiparamita
literature in general.
The whole Skt text of the PaficavirpSatisahasrikii Prajnaparamitii (hence-
forth: P) is preserved in late Nepalese manuscripts:
4
Besides the complete
manuscripts from Nepal, various fragments from Eastern Turkestan,S
We wish to express our cordial thanks to Professor Dr. Oskai: von Hiniiber
for reading through a draft of this paper and making a number of valuable
suggestions.
1. See G. M. Bongard-Levin and M. I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, Indian
Texts from Central Asia (Leningrad Manuscript Collection), Bibliographia Philo-
logica Buddhica: Series Minor V (Tokyo, 1986).
2. See G. M. Bongard-Levin and M. I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, Pamyatniki
indiiskoi pis'mennosti iz Tsentral'noi Azii [Texts in Indian Writings from Central
Asia], vol. 2, Bibliotheca Buddhica XXXIV, (Moscow: 1990) 261.
3. For this term see the section "the relationship of various versions," p. 8
below.
4. Conze, PL 36.
5. Kaikyoku Watanabe, "Uten hakken no Daibon-hannya danpen [Fragments
of the Larger Prajfiiiparamitiisutra from Khotan]," Shakyokai 8.6 (1912); reprt.
in Kogetsu Zenshii, vol. I (Tokyo: 1977) 539-549. In this article 17 fragments
from the Stein-Hoemle Collection are identified as belonging to the Pafica-
Watanabe 167-172. Sh6go Watanabe, "Chua
ajia shutsudo no Hannyakyo bonbun dankan 1: PV dairoku genkan wo megutte"
[A Sanskrit Fragment of the Prajfiiiparamitii from Central Asia 1], Toyogaku
19
JIABS 19.1 20
Gilgit
6
and Sri Lanka? are known so far. Central Asian fragments of
the sutra are of particular interest and importance for the textual history of
the Larger Prajiiapararnita, because they often reflect older versions than
the text from Nepal. This can be illustrated by comparison with the other
Skt., the Tib. and the Chin. versions.
The present writers discovered independently that the fragment presented
here to the scholarly world (henceforth: Pe) corresponds to the Crosby
fragment 2541255 (henceforth: Cr) and to the Skt. text of P from Nepal
(henceforth: PN). It is registered as SI P/19(3) in the N. E. Petrovsky
Collection.
The condition of the fragment
Only the right part of one folio is extant. The fragment, which measures
17 x 16.8 em, preserves part of the right-hand margin and part of the
upper edge of the folio (seen from the recto). Twelve lines are preserved
on each side, including the first line of the recto and the last line of the
verso. The text is written in Indian ink on light brown paper. Comparison
with the other versions proves that a large section of text is missing
between the last line of the recto and the first line of the verso. On the
basis of the Gilgit manuscript of P (henceforth: PG) and of Cr, which are
closer to Pe than the other Skt. versions, we estimate that a complete folio
bore probably 17-18 lines of writing on each side. The longest lines (a7,
a8 and b7) contain 19 With the help of PG we calculate that
there would originally have been 65-70 to the line. From the
Kenkyu 30 (1993): 41-67. In both articles he gives a transliteration of a Petrovsky
fragment SI P/19a(1), which is identified as belonging to the Larger
PrajfHiparamita. Levin published the text and the photo of the same Petrovsky
fragment in.';A Fragment of the PaficaviY[lsatisahasrika Prajiiii-piiramita-sutra
from Eastern Turkestan," Journal of the American Oriental Society 114.3 (1994):
383-385. One fragment from the Stein Collection OMPB Or. 82121174
(Kha.i.220) (see Zwalf 57, no. 61) was identified by G. M. Bongard-Levin as
belonging to the Paficavirp.satisahasrika Prajfiaparamita. An article on this
fragment "A Fragment of the Paficavi1J'lsatisiihasrikii Prajfiii-piiramitiisutra from
A. Stein Collection" by G. M. Bongard-Levin was published in the Annals of
the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Arn.rtamahotsava Volume) 72-73
(1991-1992): 715-717.
6. GBM(FacEd) parts 3-5. See also von Hintiber, Erforschung, 345-346 and
Conze, PL, 34-35.
7. S. Paranavitana, Copper Plaques," Epigraphia Zeylanica 3
(1931): 199-212. Oskar von Hintiber, "Sieben Goldblatter einer Paficavirp.-
satisahasrika Prajfiapararnita aus Anuradhapura," Nachrichten der Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, l. Philologisch-Historische Klasse (1983):
187-207. See also Conze, PL 35.
BONGARD-LEVIN AND HORI 21
facts mentioned above, the size of the entire folio may be calculated as
having originally been roughly 60 x 25 cm. Hence about two thirds from
the left-hand edge and about one third of the lower part seem to have been
lost. It must be noted that three fifths of the left-hand break are as straight
as the right-hand edge. The left edge of the verso is blank, where the first
one or two a k ~ a r a s of lines 6-12 are not preserved. One explanation for
this peculiarity may be that the entire folio was made of more than one
patched-together sheet of paper and the blank is a margin for applying
8
paste.
The folio number is lost. In line 2 of the recto a part of a colophon is
preserved, which indicates the end of Chap. 30. After the colophon a
circle marking the end of a chapter is drawn. A part of a miniature
9
is
preserved in the circle. We can see a lotus throne drawn in the lower part.
The script and the date
The script of the fragment is that called the "Early Turkestan BrahmI,
type b" by Lore Sander.
lO
According to Sander the manuscripts in this
script may be dated to the 5th to 6th century A. D.l1 In the fragment -e
and -ai are mostly written in their Central Asian form, where the point is
bent to the upper right side, whereas the Indian -e and -ai with their point
turned to the lower left side are only rarely used, e.g. in b7 -miilena and
a5 ciirl}ehi. Neither visarga nor punctuation marks are found in Pe.
The language
The language of the fragment is BHS. Pe shows a number of Middle-
Indicisms in phonology and morphology, shared with Cr, although the
text is in prose,12 whereas the parallel texts of PG, PN and SN are written
8. As for Chinese scrolls and folding books, it is common to stick sheets of
paper together. See Annemarie von Gabain, "Die Drucke der Turfan-Sammlung,"
Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse
for Sprachen. Literatur und Kunst (1967) p. 7 (on scrolls), p. 9 (on block
prints), p. 13 (on folding books) and p. 18 (on Uigur folding books). We are
indebted to Dr. Lore Sander for informing us about the article above. She
kindly investigated larger pothi leaves belonging to the Turfan Collection in
Berlin and informed us by letter that she could not find any example of pothi
leaves patched together.
9. On illustrated manuscripts from Central Asia see Zwalf 57.
10. Sander, Brahmz Scripts 167. Cf. Plates 15, 16, 17. In Sander, Paliio-
graphisches 181-182, Tafel 29-40, the same type is called the "Friihe Turk-
istanische Brahmi (Schrifttypus IV, Alphabet s)."
11. Sander, Brahmf Scriptsl67.
12. A Petrovsky fragment SI PI19a(l) belonging to the Larger PrajiHipiiramita
JIABS 19.1 22
in almost regular Skt. The only extant Prajfiapararnita in BHS known so
far is the PrajfiapararnitaratnaguI).asarp.cayagatha,13 which is, however,
composed solely in verse. Almost all the texts of Prajfiapararnita 1iterature
in prose as yet published are comparatively free from recognizable Middle
Indic influence, as those of PG, PN and SN, whose transcription is given
in this article. Hence Franklin Edgerton classified the
Prajfiapararnita and the Satasahasrika Prajfiapararnita under his third class
of Buddhist Skt. texts, i. e. the class in which both the verses and the
prose parts are Sanskritized.
14
The discovery of a prose text of the
Prajfiapararnita in BHS, Pe and Cr, is important in regard to the study of
the formation of Prajfiapararnita literature as a whole as well as the study
of BHS. Besides many Prakritisms, an influence of Khotanese can be
traced (see the note to Pe alO). These linguistic features are discussed in
the notes to the text of Pe.
The relatonship between Pe and SIPJ19a(l)
The two Petrovsky fragments, Pe (SI P/19(3)) that this article deals with
and SI P/19a(1), a photo of which was published in Bongard-Levin p.
385, have some points in common. These are: 1. The presumed number of
lines and the length of Pe correspond nearly completely with those of SI
P/19a(1). It is estimated that the original complete folio of Pe had probably
17-18 lines and a length of 24 cm. (See "The condition of the fragment"
above and Bongard-Levin p. 383.) 2. The script of both the fragments
belongs to the same type, namely the Early Turkestan Brahml, type b, and
the forms of the respective look very similar. (See Fig. and
Bongard-Levin p. 385, Fig. 1.) 3. The two fragments share many linguistic
peculiarities. (See note 12 above.) On these grounds it is very probable
that the twq fragments belong to one and the same manuscript of the
Larger Prajfiapararnita.
Corresponding texts
We have consulted the following 13 versions, which correspond to Pe.
also shows many Middle-Indicisms and some linguistic features common to Pe
and Cr, although the text is in prose. See Watanabe 168-170, and Bongard-Levin
384-385.
13. Akira Yuyama, A Grammar of the Prajn.a-paramita-ratna-gUlJ.a-sa1J"!caya-
gatha (Sanskrit Recension A)(Canberra: 1973); id. ed., Prajiia-paramita-ratna-
gUlJ.a-sa1J"!caya-gatha (Sanskrit Recension A)(Cambridge: 1976).
14. BHSG, p. xxv.
(1) Cr = the Crosby fragment 2541255.
15
Cr was acquired in Khotan by
Oscar Terry in 1903 and is now kept in the Library of Congress,
Washington D. C. 6 The script belongs to the same type as that of Pe,
namely the Early Turkestan Brahm!, type b. The complete folios of Cr
and Pe seem to have covered almost the same extent of text, but both are
very fragmentary and overlap with each other in only 6 lines (Cr a2=Pe
a3, Cr a3=Pe a4, Cr a5=Pe a7, Cr a6=Pe a8, Cr a7=Pe a9 and Cr blO=Pe
b3).
(2) PG = the Sanskrit manuscript of the PaficaviII1satisahasrika Prajfia-
paramita from Gilgit. Serial No. 24 in the Delhi Collection of the Gilgit
manuscripts.
17
Reproduced in GBM(FacEd) pt. 5, pp. 458-460 (fols.
145bll-146b12). Pe covers part of Chap. 18-19 in PG. The script is the
round Gupta (Gilgit I Bamiyan Type 1).18 The photographs in GBM(FacEd)
are in parts so blurred that the text is not always easy to decipher.
(3) PN = the Sanskrit text of the PaficaviII1satisahasrika Prajfiaparamita
from Nepal. Kimura's edition, p. 67, 1. 13-p. 70, 1. 15, a part of Chap. 2.
The manuscripts used by Kimura are all much newer (probably not before
the 18th century) than all the versions consulted here. We have also
consulted two manuscripts of this version kept in the General Library of
the University of Tokyo,19 Matsunami No. 234, fols. 177a2-178bl and
Matsunami No. 235, fols. 208a2-209b2, which Kimura also used in his
edition. PN is a version of the PaficaviII1satisahasrika
which was rearranged to conform to the AbhisamayalaIikara, 0 cf. a
15. Before we treated Pe, Shin'ichir6 Hori had succeeded in the identification
of Cr. He is now preparing for the publication of this fragment and of one more
fragment of the Larger Prajfiaparamita belonging to the Crosby Collection
(260/261).
16. For the Crosby Collection see Ronald E. Emmerick, "Another Fragment
of the Sanskrit SumukhadharaI,lI," Deyadharma: Studies in Memory of Dr. D.
C. Sircar, ed. G. Bhattacharya (Delhi: 1986) 165; id.: "The Historical Importance
of the Khotanese Manuscripts," Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of
Pre-Islamic Central Asia, ed. by J. Harmatta (Budapest: 1979) 175-177; id.:
"Notes on the Crosby Collection," Medioiranica: Proceedings of the Inter-
national Colloquium organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the
21st to the 23rd of May 1990, ed. by Wojciech Skalmowski and Alois van
Tongerloo (Leuven: 1993) 57-59.
17. See von Hintiber, Eiforschung 345-346.
18. For this type of script see Sander, Paliiographisches 123-130.
19. Matsunami 90 and 200-201.
20. Dutt v; Conze, PL 36-39; Lethcoe.
JIABS 19.1 24
colophon of PN: bhagavatyaY[l prajiia-
paramitayam abhisamayaZankiira.nusarelJ-a saY[lsadhitayO:f!l ... 21
(4) SN = the Sanskrit text of the Satasahasrika Prajfiapararnita from NepaL
The part corresponding to Pe has not yet been published. Therefore, we
have consulted two manuscripts kept in the General Library of the University
n .
of Tokyo, Matsunami No. 382-B (henceforth: SNTa) fols. 227a7-229b8
and Matsunami No. 383 (henceforth: SNTb) fols. 286b7-289aI2. Both
are modern Nepalese manuscripts, but SNTb is better than SNTa, as
Matsunarni indicates.
23
Therefore, we have given a diplomatic transcription
of SNTb, while SNTa is used to correct errors in SNTb. Pe covers paJt of
Chap. 18-19 in SN.
(5) PTk = the Tibetan version of the PaficaviIpsatisahasrika Prajfiaparamita,
included in the Kanjur, and entitled Ses rab kyi pha roZ tu phyin pa stan
phrag iii su ina pa (= PaiieaviY[lsatisahasrikii Prajiiaparamita). The
following manuscript and edition have been consulted: sTog No. 12, VoL
42, Kha 233a7-237b2; Peking No. 731, Ser phyin Ti 172b6-175b3 (= VoL
18, pp. 231.2.6-232.3.3)(Chap. 18-19).
(6) PTt = the Tibetan version of the Paiicavirpsatisahasrika Prajfiapararnita,
included in the Tanjur, attributed to Sen ge bzan po (Haribhadra), translated
by Zi ba bzan po (Santibhadra) and Tshul khrims rgyal ba, and entitled
Ses rab kyi pha roZ tu phyin pa stan phrag iii su Ina pa (= PaiieaviY[lsati-
sahasrika Prajiiaparamita). We have consulted Peking No. 5188, rnDo
'grel (Ser phyin) Na 75b8-78b7 (= VoL 89, pp. 78.3.8-79.4.7) and sDe
dge No. 3790, Ser phyin Na 65b2-68a3 (= Vol. 63, pp. 417.1660.2-
418.1665.3) (Chap. 2). This is a Tibetan translation of a revised version
similar to PN, cf. a colophon ofPTt, e. g. Peking Ca 258a8-258bl: 'phags
pa beam ldan ' das ma ses rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stan phrag iii su Ina
ba miwn par rtags pa brgyan gyi rjes su 'brans nas dag par gtugs pa las
(7) AT = the Tibetan version of the Prajfiapararnita,
translated by Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Ye ses sde and others
24
probably
21. Matsunami 90; Dutt 269; Kimura 164 and 185.
22. Matsunami 136-138 and 210.
23. Matsunami 138.
24. See the colophon of AT in the sTog Palace Kanjur, Skorupski 70. Conze
PL (p. 40) assumes that AT was probably translated by Yes ses sde, but gives
in the early 9th century A. D., entitled 'Phags pa ses rab kyi pha rol tu
phyin pa khri brgyad stan pa ies bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo (= Arya-
nama mahayanasutra). sTog No. 13,
Vol. 46, Kha 48a7-52a3; Peking No. 732, Ser phyin Ni 276a3-278a8 (=
Vol. 19, pp. 316.4.3-317.3.8)(Chap. 27-28).
(8) ST = the Tibetan version of the Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita, translated
by Khams pa Go cha, sBas Mafijusn, Nan Indravaro, Lo chen Vairotsana,
Nan, ICe Khyi 'brug, Ye ses sde and others, revised by rNog, and entitled
Ses rab kyi pha rol tu ph in pa stan ph rag brgya pa (= Satasahasrika
Prajfiaparamita). sTog No.9, Vol. 19, Ja 138a3-146b3; Peking No. 730,
Ser phyin A 206b8-213a8 (= Vol. 14, pp. 124.5.8-127.3.8)(Chap. 19-20).
(9) PM = the Chinese version of the Paficavirpsatisahasrika Prajfiaparamita,
translated by in A. D. 291, and entitled Fiingguang
banruo bolu6mz Fng :Q)cYC!iJ)t;f!fY1UllBtff& (Prajfiaparamitasl1tra "The Emis-
sion ofUght"). TaishONo. 221, Vol. 8, 47c13-48b14 (Chap. 33-35). The
original text of this translation is said to have been brought from Khotan?5
(10) PK = the Chinese version of the Paficavirpsatisahasrika Prajfiaparamita,
translated by Kumarajlva during A. D. 403-404, and entitled M6ke banruo
bi5lu6mi jfng (Mahaprajfiaparamitasl1tra). TaishO No.
223, Vol. 8, 285c20-286b28 (Chap. 32-34).
(11) PX = the Chinese version of the Paficavirpsatisahasrika Prajfiaparamita,
translated by Xuanzang during A. D. 659-663, and entitled Dii banruo
bi5lu6miduo Fng (Dier hui) m-=jr(Mahaprajfia-
paramitasl1tra, the Second Section). Taisho No. 220 (2), Vol. 7, 155a3-
156a17 (Chap. 30-32).
(12) AX = the Chinese version of the Prajfiaparamita,
bolu6mzduo jlng (Disan m.=:jr(Mahaprajfia-
paramitasl1tra, the Third Section). TaishO No. 220 (3), Vol. 7, 555a16-
556a23 (Chap. 5-6).
(13) SX = the Chinese version of the Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita,
bolu6miduo jfng (CM hui) mjr(Mahaprajiia-
no reference to his sources.
25. Hikata xiv.
JIABS 19.1 26
paramitasiitra, the First Section).TaishO No. 220 (1), Vol. S, S77clS-S80b26
(Chap. 30).
The relationship of various versions and the position of Pe among them
The relationship of Pe to the other 13 versions and of the 14 versions to
one another can be explained as follows, as far as it has been possible to
establish this on the basis of the small sample we have available. First of
all, Cr presents a remarkable similarity to Pe, not only in content but also
in linguistic features, although they diverge from each other in a few
details (see the notes to Pe a4 and Pe as). The other 12 versions do not
indicate so close a relationship to Pe as Cr. Of the three Skt. versions,
PG, PN and SN, PG is the closest to Pe in point of content, although the
text of PG is almost completely Sanskritized. Compared with Pe, Cr, PG
and PN, SN is much enlarged in two places (see the notes to Pe a7 and Pe
bI), but the text is relatively similar to that of PG except for the two
enlargements. PN often has a phrase or a wording evidently different
from the other Skt. versions including Pe (see Pe a2, a6, a7, bI, b2, b3,
b7, blO-I2). These divergences are mostly common to the two Tib.
versions PTt and AT. Of the four Tib. versions PTk, which is close to
PG, agrees with Pe the best. ST demonstrates the same enlargements as
SN and is not very different from it. The text of SX is indeed also
enlarged in the same two places, but sometimes shows a divergence from
SN and ST. PTt is closely related to PN and also often shows a similarity
to AT. Of the five Chin. versions PM and PK correspond more closely to
Pe than PX, AX and SX translated by Xuanzang, which share some
divergences from all the other versions (see the notes to Pe a2, Pe b2, Pe
b3 and Pe bS).
It is clear that Pe does not belong to the Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita
(henceforth: S), because it does not contain the two enlargements common
to SN, ST and SX. But it is very difficult to decide whether Pe belongs to
the Paficavirp.satisahasrika Prajfiaparamita (P) or the
Prajfiaparamita (henceforth: A), because Pe is only a small fragment. We
can assume from the following three facts only that Pe more probably
belongs to P: 1) with regard to the Chap. number (30) Pe only corresponds
to PX and is closer to PM (33) and PK (32) than AT (27), but quite
different from AX (S)(see the note to Pe a2); 2) in content Pe shows no
special similarity to AT and AX; 3) Pe is closest to PTk of the four Tib.
versions and to PK of the five Chin. versions. Behind the difficulty of
deciding whether such small fragments of the Prajfiaparamita as Pe and
Cr belong to P or A there lie other unsettled questions concerning to the
BONGARD-LEVIN AND HOR! 27
formation and development of P and A and the relationship between them
viz. how were P and A formed, how did they develop and in what relationship
to each other do they stand. These very complicated questions could be
decided only by detailed comparison of all the versions belonging to P
and A. Hence' one must reexamine the identification of Central Asian
fragments of the Prajfiaparamita?6 We propose that one should use
provisionally the term "the Larger Prajfiapararnita" to refer to both P and
to A and to distinguish them from S and the smaller Prajfiaparamitlis (the
Prajfiapararnita and so on), when it is difficult to decide
whether a fragment of the Prajfiapliramita belongs to P or to A.
Symbols used
+ a lost
[ ]
()
<>
{ }
<>
U
=
III
*
damaged or uncertain readings.
restored in the parts lost or utterly illegible.
necessary additions to the text.
necessary deletions to the text.
additions by the scribe or later readers.
deletions by the scribe or later readers.
an illegible
single element of an illegible
ellipsis
a division of an into two parts for convenience's sake
leaf broken off at that place.
virama.
punctuation marks in the manuscripts.
a circle marking the end of a chapter; in Pe a miniature is drawn
in the circle.
26. The following Central Asian fragments have been identified as belonging
to A: the fragments dealt with by Konow except for the two unidentified leaves
(see Konow, pp. 35-37); Kat.-Nrn. 933-934, 951 and 956 in SHT 3; Kat.-Nr.
1022 in SHT 5; the fragmentary manuscript described in Edward Conze, "Pre-
liminary Note on a Prajfiaparamim Manuscript," Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society (1950): 32-36. Seventeen fragments from the Stein-Hoernle Collection
have been identified as belonging to P by Kaikyoku Watanabe, as mentioned in
note 5 above.
nABS 19.1 28
DIPLOMATIC TRANSCRIPTION OF Pe
al //I .. ra[ip.-jfiatii sarvbaJ" //I
a2 /1/ [rna] trl[satima samapta 30] /1/
a3 //I [aprameyatp. asarpkhye] + + + +
a4 /1/ tva dhiire + + + +
as //I [vi]lepanehi cUrJ;Iehi c.vare[hi] +
a6 /1/ tii prajfia-piiramita-niryata hi kausika dhyana-
a7 /1/ [bh]ava-< sva-bhiiva-> sunyata prajfia-paramita-niryatii hi
kausika ca
a8 /1/ .[ita]-niryata hi kausika satva-paripacatp.
a9 //I [ka-yalp.]narp pra[ty]eka-buddha-yiinatp. prajfia-piiramita-!1i
alO /1/ [li]khitva pusta-gatatp.lqtva parya
all //I [ya]va pradiikehi imasya p[u]J;lyabhisatp.skiira
a12 /1/ pi] na [u].e + + + + + + + .[e].[i]
bi /1/ .. /1/
b2 /1/ [s]r.[ta] + + .[t]. + + sya lok[e] pradu
b3 /1/ [sya] araha samyak-sarpbuddhasya loke priidur-bhiivatp. bha
b4 /1/ [kau]sika prajfia-piiramita tat=kasya heto yada
b5 /1/ tada tvatp. kausika imarp prajfia-pa
b6 /1/ .[i]ttotpiidatp. ca deva-putriiJ;laIp
b7 /1/ rohi te tena kusala-mfilena prajfia-piiramita-srava
b8 //I .. sya-ci kausika kula-putrasya va kula-duhitaraya
b9 /1/ raIp samyak-saIpbodhim=a[bh]. + [b].[d]. + + + + + +
biO /1/ para + + + + + + + + +
bll //I [tii]ya anu[tta]'i- + + + + + +
bI2 /1/ [tva]-dharma [sa] + + + + .. + + + + + + + + +
TEXT OF Pe WITH RESTORATIONS, ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION,
CORRESPONDENCES AND NOTES
Arrangement
1. Lines ofPe: recto (a) and verso (b).
2. Text of Pe with restorations.
3. English translation of Pe. Here round brackets are used to indicate
words which are not extant in Pe and are supplemented by the other S1..1:.
versions, and square brackets are used to indicate explanatory supplements.
4. Corresponding text in the other Skt. versions (folios and lines in Cr, PG
and SNTb, pages and lines in Kimura's edition of PN). We have given
the text corresponding to Pe together with surrounding words, in order to
show complete sentences, where possible. Equivalents for the preserved
text ofPe (excluding restorations) are printed in bold type.
Recto (Pe a)
Fig. Fragment SI P/19(3) from the N. F. Petrovsky Collection.
nABS 19.1 30
Verso (pe b)
BONGARD-LEVIN AND RORI 31
5. Corresponding places in the Tib. and Chin. versions (folios and lines of
Peking, pages, sections and lines of Taisho).
6. Notes.
Peal
III .. ra[rp.-jfiata sarvba] III
" ... , the knowledge of (all) modes I the knowledge of the modes (of
the paths), the all-(knowledge), ... "
PG 145b11
margakara-jfiata sarvakara-jfiam :
PN 67.13-15
margakara-jfiata sarva-jfiata sarvakara-jfiata
SNTb 286b7
sarvva-jfiata margakara-jfiata sarvvakara-jfiata
PTk 172b6; PTt 75b8; AT 276a3-4; ST 206b8-207al; PM 47c13; PK
285c20; PX 155a3; AX 555a16; SX 577c15-16.
According to the other versions, this is the last part of enumeration of
sarve kusala dharmli!:z. For instance, the whole sentence in PN 67.5-14 is
as follows: tathii hi bhagavann asyluJ1- prajiia-paramitltyluJ1- sarve kusala
dharma antar-gata!:z, tad yathii dasa kusala!:z karma-pathas catvari
dhyanani ... maha-karulJa margakara-jiiata sarva-jiiata sarvakara-jiiata.
The first word of Pe is sarvakara1[L-jfiata or margakara1[L-jiiata. The
form -akara1[L-jiia- with an inserted anusvara is found consistently in the
Central Asian fragment of the Larger Prajfiaparamita, SI P/19a(1) r1l,
r14, r17, v3, v4, v8, vll (see Watanabe 168-170, Bongard-Levin 384-385,
and note 11 above). This word could be explained as a compound with an
accusative form before the root-stemjiia- (cf. AlG II, 1 87, BHSG 23.9).
The second word of Pe is difficult to read because of the defacement,
but seems to be sarvba-jiiata rather than sarvbakara-jiiata, because no
sign for -a is visible on the a k ~ a r a rvba. The gemination of a consonant
after -r- is allowed in Pal).ini 8.4.46. But the duplication of v after r, not
with v, but with b, as in Pe [sarvbaJ, is found almost exclusively in
Central Asian manuscripts (cf. Roernle, MR, p. 89, note 2).
PG omits sarva-jiiata. PTk has rnam pa thams cad mkhyen pa iiid kyi
bar du (yavat sarvakara-jiiata). PM readsJ:l!.mi23::t':$(= margakara-
jiiata( ?) sarva-jiiata) and has no correspondence to sarvakarajiiata. All
the other Chin. versions have the same word order as SN(= ST, AT):
JIABS 19.1 32
sarva-jfiata margakara-jfiata sarvakara-jfiata, in contrast to PN = PTt.
Pea2
III (na)[ma] tri:[satima samapta 30] III
"The thirtieth [chapter] named (the chapter of ... ) ended."
PO 145b12
II II 18 II II
PN 67.16
The end of the Chap. is missing.
SNTb 286b8
II II sata-sahasryal,l prajiia-paramitayal,l parivarto nam1i:i!a-
dasamal,lll (end of Chap. 18)
PTk 172b8
II ses Tab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ston phrag iii su Ina pa las Ile'u bcu
brgyadpa'o II (end of Chap. 18)
PTt 76al
AT 276a6
I ses rab kyi pha rol tu phin pa khri brgyad ston pa las I mchod rten
gyi le'u ies bya (stog: brgya byin gyi le'u bii pa for mchod . .. bya) ste-
I I iii su rtsa bdun pa' 0 I (end of Chap. 27)
ST 207a2-3
II ses rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ston phrag brgya pa I le'u bcu dgu pa-
Il (end of Chap. 19)
PM 47c16
End of Chap. 33.
PK285c22
End of Chap. 32.
PX 155a17
End of Chap. 30.
AX 555a28
End of Chap. 5.
SX 578a3
Pe has here a colophon, which shows the end of Chap. 30. This Chap.
number only corresponds to PX, which inserted, however, a text shared
with AX and SX, but not found in any other version. Pe seems not to
have this text between a1 and a2. This insertion, common to the translations
by Xuanzang, corresponds to the beginning of the following Chap.
As for the number of the Chap., we can establish the correspondence
below: Pe=PX(Chap. 30), PG=SN=PTk (Chap. 18).
We could probably restore parivarto before Pe (na)[ma] on the basis of
examples of colophons of other Prajfiaparamita-manuscripts from Central
Asia, e. g. the Crosby fragment 260 I 261
27
a3111[r]ivarto nama trayo-
dasamaJ:! samaptaJ:!. Therefore trf{Satima samapta], which must agree
with parivarto, seems to be nom. sg. masc. It is unlikely that the ending
-a of the two nouns can be regarded as nom. sg. masc. -a recorded in
BHSG 8.22, because this ending occurs almost exclusively in verse metri
causa. In this case it is more probable that the scribe failed to write a
visarga; in this fragment we find no visarga. Or it might be a matter of
Sanskritization from a Middle lndic version of this text. A confusion of
the endings -a, -U, -0 is found, for example, in GandharI (see von Hiniiber
296, Brough 75).
The ordinal trfSatima- for Classical Skt. trif!lsa- or trif!lsattama-
corresponds to MI tfsaiina-(cf. Pischel 449, BHSG 19.36, 22.14). The
form trfsa- is found in Khotanese manuscripts (e.g. Z 14.88, 14.89) and in
Central Asian manuscripts of SP (see Toda p. 268, H 57 Kha. 0011, 1. 10).
Pe a3
III [aprameyarp, asarp,khyeJ(ya) + + + +
"(Those sons or daughters of good family will beget a merit which is)
immeasurable, incalculable, ... "
Cra2
III [p]utra va kula-duhita va pUl.1yarp, aprameyaIp.
asaIp.khyeyarp, acintiyarp, a
PG 145b13-14
bahu te kula-putras=ca kula-duhitaras=ca pUl.1yarp,
aprameyam = asaIp.khyeyam = acintyarp,m = atulyam = aparim1il.1arp, .
te kula-putra [va] kula-(b14)duhitaro va pUl.1yarp,
PN 67.18
bahu te kula-putraJ:t kula-duhitaro va tato-nidanarp, bahutararp, pUYI.1arp,
aprameyam asaIp.khyeyam acintyam atulyam
aparim1il.1arp,.
27. Shin'ichir6 Hori is now preparing for the publication of this fragment.
JIABS 19.1 34
SNTb 286b9-10
bahu te kula-putra!f kula-duhitaro va pUl).yarp.
aprameyam = asaIpkhyeyam =
te kula-putra<!f> kula-duhitaro va pUl).yarp.
PTk 173a3; PTt 76a4-5; AT 276bl; ST 207a6; PM 47c21; PK 286a1-2;
PX 155b3-4; AX 555b7-8; SX 578a12-13.
Pe and Cr have a MI sandhi with lJ1. between aprameyalJ1. and asalJ1.khyeyalJ1.,
whereas the other Skt. versions follow the. Skt. sandhi. According to
BHSG2.68, it is very common that Mv writes anusvara before vowels in
prose.
The second word of Pe can be restored as [asalJ1.khye](yalJ1.) on the
basis of Cr. In the 3rd line on the right of the large circle about 4
including (yalJ1.) are lost.
Pea4
III (lq)tva + +
"(Those who) take up, preserve, ... after (they have copied this perfection
of wisdom and) made (it into a book)."
Cra3
III yonisaI]1s=ca

PG 145b14
ya imiiI]1 prajfia-paramitaI]1likhitva pustaka-gatal}l
paryavapsya<rp>ti
yonisas=ca ...
PN 67.20-21
ya imiiI]1 prajfia-paramitaI]1 likhitva pustaka-gataI]1 lqtva
paryavapsyanti yonisas ca
SNTb 286bl0
ya imiiI]1 prajfia-paramitaI]1likhitva
paryyavapsyaI]1ti yonisas=ca manasi-
karisyanti ...
PTk 173al-2; PTt 76a2-3; AT 276a7-8; ST 207a4; PM 47c19-20; PK
285c25-26; PX 155a24-26; AX 555b2-5; SX 578a5-8.
Here Pe overlaps with Cr. Some differences are found. These are: 1. Pe
has verbs in the plural in accord with PG, PN and SN, whereas Cr has
them in the singular; 2. The verbs are enumerated in Pe perhaps in the
order: udgrah-, dharay-, vacay-, pary(ava)iip-, manasi-kr-{= PN, SN, PTk,
PTt, AT, ST), Whereas in Cr (= PG) one fmds the order: udgrah-, pary(ava)-
iip-, dhiiray-, vlzcay-, manasi-k,r-; 3. For (3. caus. fut.) Pe
has dhiire( derived from the stem dhiiraya- through a MI sound
change -ayi- to -e- (c[ BHSG 3.62.), whereas Cr has from the
stem dhiira- (cf. BHSG 38.31).
(3. pI. fut.) is derived from the thematic present
stem udg,rh7,La- (cf. BHSG 31.1), and not from the root as in PG, PN, SN.
In Pe a hiatus is kept between (k,r)tvii and udg,rh[n]i!)lant[i] (cf. BHSG
4.55).
The last word of Pe can be restored as dhiire(
In the 4th line on the right of the large circle about 4
including (!)Ianti) are lost.
Pea5
/1/ [vi]lepanehi cUIl,lehi c(I)vare[hi] +
"( ... worships it) with ointments, powders, robes, ... "
Cra4
III [ccha]trehi dhvajehi pradakehi
PG 146al
...
PN 67.22-23
...
vilepana-cti.IVa-clvara-cchatra-dhvaja-patakabhil;t
SNTb286bll
... vilepanaiS=cUr.l].I]ais=
clvarais=cchatrakr> vadyail:).1i
PTk 173a2; PTt 76a3; AT 276a8; ST 207a4-5; PM 47c20-21; PK 286al;
PX 155bl-2; AX 555b5-6; SX 578a9-10.
For -aiJ:t (inst. pI. masc. I nt.) Pe has a MI ending -ehi (cf. BHSG 8.108).
Mter the last [hi] one is lost. The text of Pe as is probably
continued in [ccha]trehi of Cr a4, although Cr and Pe undoubtedly belong
. to different manuscripts.
JIABS 19.1 36
Pea6
III ta prajiia-paramita-niryata hi kausika dhyana-
"(0 Kausika, for the all-knowledge I the knowledge of all modes is
issued from the perfection of wisdom.) 0 Kausika, for (the perfection)
of trance is issued from the perfection of wisdom."
PG 146al-2
prajiia-paramita-niryata hi kausika tathaga-tanaItUll=arhatarp. samyak-
srupbuddhanarp. sarva-jiiata prajfia-paramita-niryata dhyana-paramita
vI(a2)rya-paramita ...
PN 67.24-25
prajiia-paramita-nirjata hi kausika tatba-gatanam arhataIp samyak-
sambuddhanarp. paiica paramita ...
SNTb 286bll-12
prajiia-paramita-ni(b12)ryata hi kausika tatha-gatanam=arhatarp.
saIpIDyak - srupbuddbanaIp sarva - jiiata prajfia - paramita - niryyata
dhyana-paramita prajiia-paramitil-niryata vIryya-paramita ...
PTk 173a3-4; PTt 76a5-6; AT 276bl-2; ST 207a6-8; PM 47c24-25; PK
286a3-4; PX 155b4-6; AX 555b8-1O; SX 578a13-15.
The first word in Pe is perhaps sarva-jftata or sarvakara-jftata. PG, SN
and PM read here sarva-jftata.. PTk, AT and ST have sarvakara-jftata..
PK has both words. PX and AX have both words and mlirga.kara-jftata. in
addition. PN, PTt and SX have no equivalent.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after ta, because
a sentence ends here and a new sentence is begun with the next word
prajftli-.
Pe prajftli-pa.ramita-niryata. for paramitao: this shortening of the final
-a- of a-stems in compounds is found sporadically in Vedic and Classical
Skt. (seeAIG II,I pp. 49, 134f.). BHSG 9.6 records examples in prose.
The last word of Pe is probably dhya.na-pa.ramita..
PG, PK, SN, ST and SX enumerate 5 paramitas concretely, whereas
PN, PTk=PTt=AT pha rot tu phyin pa lila and PM refer to 5
pararnitas. AX reads: (five paramitas, dana-paramita
etc). Pe seems to mention 5 paramitas individually.
Pea7
III (a)[bh]ava-<sva-bbava->sunyata prajiia-pararnita-niryata hi kausika
ca
"(0 Kausika, for) the emptiness of own-being of non-existence (is issued
from the perfection of wisdom). 0 Kausika, for the four (applications
of are issued from the perfection of wisdom."
CraS
prajiia-paramita-niryyata liddhyatma-sunnyata yava abhava-sva-
PG 146a2
prajiia-paramim-niryata addhyatma-sunyata yavad=abhava-sva-bhava-
sunyatii II prajfia-paramita-niryatiini catvari smrty-upasthiiniini ...
PN67.24-25
prajiia-paramim-nirjata ... sarva-sunyata sarva-samlidhayaJ;t ...
SNTb287a4
prajiia-paramim-niryata abhava-sva-bhava-sunyata prajfia-paramitii-
niryatani smrtY-upasthanani ...
PTk 173a4-5; PTt 76a6; AT 276b2; ST 207b8-208a1; PM 47c25; PK
286a6-7; PK 155b7; AX 555bl1; SX 578a18-19.
Here Pe overlaps slightly with Cr in abhava-sva-.
Pe <sva-bhava-> has been added by the scribe or some reader between
lines 7 and 8. A column of four or five dots between va and su in line 7
mark the place for insertion.
Sunyata for sanyatii in Pe, Cr and PG is often found in manuscripts
from Central Asia and Gilgit (see SHT 4, pp. 506-507, 613, and ShOk6
Watanabe, p.xiii) and should probably be ascribed to peculiarities of Central
Asian and Gilgit manuscripts.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after sunyata,
because a sentence ends here and a new sentence is begun with the next
word prajfiii-.
On -paramita- for -piiramitii-, see note to Pe a6.
The last part of Pe might possibly be restored as ca(tviiri sm.rty-
upasthlinlini) on the basis of PG. This supposition can also be supported
by PK and PX. In this case, however, it is problematic that the predicate
niryiita of Pe does not agree with catvari sm.rty-upasthiiniini. It might be
a matter of a scribal error, a sort of haplography, since ni of the expected
-niryiit'iini shares a vowel sign -i with the next word hi. Another possibility
is that niryiitii is a nom. pI. nt. in -ii as recorded in BHSG 8.100. SN,
PTk and ST also have sm.rty-upasthiiniini here, although withou! catviiri.
Equivalents to abhiiva-sva-bhava-sunyata are found in Cr, PG, SN, PTk,
ST, PK, PX, AX and SX, whereas PN, PTt and AT have only sarva-sunyatii/:t.
JIABS 19.1 38
SN and ST include 18 varieties of sunyata with abhiiva-sva-bhava-
siinyata as the last item. In SX 20 kinds of sunyata are attested. After the
word abhava-sva-bhava-si1nyata SN, ST and SX have a lot of items which
are not found in any other version. The texts of S are much enlarged here
as compared with the ones of A and P.
Pe a8
III (prajfia-param) [ita]-niryata hi kausika satva-paripacarp.
"0 Kausika, for the maturing of beings (and the perfect purity) of the
Buddha-field are issued from the perfection of wisdom."
Cra6
III (n)iryyada hi kausi(ka) [pa]rp.ca tatha-gatasya prajfia-
paramita-niryyada hi kausika
PG 146a3
prajfia-pararnitii-niryatani parp.ca tatha-gatasya' prajfia-
paramita-niryataJ:t satva-paripako
PN 67.29
(1.24) prajfia-paramitii-nirjata hi kausika ... (1.28) pafica ...
(1.29) sattva-paripako buddha-ksetra-sampat,
SNTb 287a9-10 .
prajfia-paramita-niryatani pafica (read tatha-gatasya
prajfia-paramita -nirya tal]. satya -paripako buddha - -parisuddhi-
(alO)l;1
PTk 173a8; PTt 76bl; AT 276b3-4; ST 208b2-3; PM 47c27; PK 286a8-9;
PX 155b9-1O; AX 555b20-21; SX 578bll-12.
Cr might overlap with Pe in prajfiii-paramita-niryyadii hi kausika, the last
part of Cr a6, because PG, SN, PTk, ST, PM and PK have no other item
betweenpanca and satva-paripaka'J:t. PN, PTt, AT, PX, AX and
SX insert, however, some items here.
Cr has a form nearer to MI -niryyadii with intervocalic voicing, whereas
Pe has a Sanskritized form -niryata. The gemination of a consonant after
-r- is allowed in Pal)ini 8.4.46.
The first word of Pe can be restored with certainty as (prajfiii-
param)[itaJ-niryata. For the stem final -li.- in -paramita-, see the note to
Pea6.
In PG the predicate niryataJ:t agrees with the next nom. sg. masc.
satva-paripako, although here also forms the
BONGARD-LEVIN AND BOR! 39
subject. In SN the predicate is a nom. pI. masc. or fern. ending in -lift.
nirylita in Pe can probably be taken as a nom. pI. masc. or fern. in accord
with SN.
Pe -paripaca1J1. for -paripaka: -c- for -k- occurs perhaps in analogy to
noun forms such as pacana-, pacana- or verb forms such as pacati. The
ending -a1Jl for -aft / -a (nom. sg. masc.) is often found in Pe and Cr:
prlidur-bhliva1Jl Cr b9, blO, Pe b3; samudagama1Jl Cr b3; anupaccheda[1JlJ
Cr b7; (c)[iJttatpada1Jl Pe b6. These examples are all nom. sg. of action
nouns, probably transferred from masc. to nt. in analogy to the nt. action
nouns in -ana- (cf. BHSG 6.6, 8.26).
The last word ofPe might be buddha-ksetra-parisuddhi or
sampat. The former restoration is supported by PG=SN, PTk=ST sans
rg),as kyi tin yans su dag pa, PM=PK and PX=AX=SX
, the latter by PN and PTt=AT sans rgyas kyi tin phun sum tshags pa.
Pea9
/II (srava) [ka-ya] {tp.}natp. pra[ty]eka-buddha-yanatp. prajiia-pararnita-ni
"(0 Kausika, for) the vehicle of the Disciples, the vehicle of the
buddhas (are issued from the perfection of wisdom. 0 Kausika, for ... )
is issued from the perfection of wisdom."
Cra7
/II (pratye)[ka]-buddha-yiinaIp prajfiii-piiramita-niryyam hi kausika
anuttarazp. satp.mya
PG 146a4
prajiia-pararnim-niryatatp. hi kausika sravaka-yiinaIp pratyeka-buddha-
yiinam* prajfiii-piiramitii-niryatatp. hi maha-yana<m*>
PN 67.30-68.2
prajiia-pararnim-nirjatatp. hi kausika sravaka-yiinRIp pratyeka-buddha-
yiinRIp, prajfiii-piiramitii-nirj am hi kausika anuttara samyaksambodhil)..
SNTb 287alO-ll
prajiia-pararnim-niryata(read tatp.) hi kausika sravaka-yiinaIp prajiia-
paramita-niryata(read tatp.) hi (all) kausika pratyeka-buddha-yiinaIp
prajfiii-piiramitii-niryatatp. hi maha-yanarp.
PTk 173bl; PTt 76b2; AT 276b5; ST 208b4-5; PM 47c28; PK 286alO;
PX 155blO; AX 555b21; SX 578b13.
The first word of Pe can be restored with certainty as above on the basis
of PG, PN and SN.
JIABS 19.1 40
The anusvara above ya in [yiij{fJ'l}nafJ'l is a scribal error, a sort of
dittography, and should be deleted.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after -yiinafJ'l,
word prajfiii-.
On -paramita- for -piiramitii-, see the note to Pe a6.
Pe alD
/11 [liJkhitva pl1sta-gatmp Iq-tva parya
"(Wben they) take it up, understand it, ... , after they have has written
(this perfection of wisdom) and made it into a book,"
PO 146a4-5
yo hi kas-ci(a5)t=kula-putro va kula-duhita va imaIp. prajiia-pararnitiiIp.
Iikhitva pustaka - gakfu!! II yavad = yonisas =
ca .
PN 68.3-5
yo hi kas-cit kula-putro va kula-duhita va imaIp. prajfia-pararnitiiIp.
Iikhitva pustaka-gatfu!! krtva
paryavapsyati yonisas ca
SNTb 287all-12
yo hi kas-cit=kula-putro va kula-duhita va imaIp. (aI2) prajfia-pararnitaIp.
Iikhitva pustaka-gatfu!!
paryyavapsyati yonisas=ca
PTk 173b2-3; PTt 76b3-4; AT 276b6-7; ST 208b6-7; PM 48al-2; PK
286a12-13; PX 155bI4-15; AX 555b25-26; SX 578b24-26.
The formpUsta- for pusta- is often found in Skt. manuscripts from Southern
Turkestan (e.g. the Farhad-Beg manuscript of SP 18b4 and 20b7, see
Toda pp. 241, 243) and in Khotanese manuscripts (e. g. Z 11.66, 22.226
and 23.17), but in non-Central-Asian manuscripts it is rare. It seems to
demonstrate influence from a Khotanese scribal practice.
In Pe and PN a hiatus is kept between k,rtva and whereas
PO and SN demonstrate sandhi. The hiatus in PN was probably produced
in the process of revision or of copying in Nepal.
For the verb form see the note to Pe a4. In Pe the verb is
pI., whereas in PO, PN and SN it is sg. In the four Tib. versions the
subjects are not explicitly pI.
The last word of Pe can be restored as on the basis of
Cra3.
For Pe which corresponds to Cr a3
PG, PN and SN have paryaviipsyati (see also the texts corresponding to
Pe a4). pary-ava-iip- and pary-ap- are used here in the same sense "to
master, to understand" (cf. BHSD pp. 334-335).
As for the word order of udgrah-. dharay-. viicay-. pary( ava)iip-. manasi-
Pe alO follows here the order of Cr a3, and not that of Pe a4 (see the
note to Pe a4).
Peall
I//[ya]va pradakehi imasya p[u]J;lyabhisaIp.skara
"(When some son or daughter of good family writes this perfection of
wisdom, ... worships) with flags etc;, (the former accumulation of
merit does not approach even one hundredth) of his accumulation of
merit."
PG l46a5-6
(a4) yo hi kas-ci(a5)t=kula-putro va kula-duhita va ImaIp. praJna-
paramitiiIp.likhitva ... asya
(a6) paurvakal). pUJ;lyabhisaIp.skaral;t
satatamIm=api kaIan=nopaiti ...
PN68.6-8
(1.3) yo hi kas-cit kula-putro va kula-duhita va imaIp. praj:5.a-paramitaIp.
likhitva ... (1.6)
clvara-cchatra-dhvaja-patiika-vaijayantIbhil)., asya
ptn;IyabhisaIpskiirasyasau paurvakal). satatamIm=
api kalaIp. nopaite, ...
SNTb287 a12-l3
(all) yo hi kaS-cit=kula-putro va kula-duhita va imaIp. (a12) praj:5.a-
paramitiiIp.likhitva ... I (al3) malyair=

patiikabhkr> vividhais=ca vadyair=asya kausika
ptn;IyabhisaIpskiirasyasau p11rvakal;t pUJ;lyabhisaIp.Skaral;t satatamIm=api
kalam nopaiti ...
PTk 173b3-4; PTt 76b4-6; AT 276b7-8; ST 208b7-8; PM 48a3; PK 286a13-
14; PX l55b15-l7; AX 555b27-28; SX 578b27-29. .
nABS 19.1 42
For Pe [yliJva for yavat, see BHSG2.91. This form with the loss of final
-t is consistently used in Cr (as, bl, b2), SI P/19a(l) (r11, r14, r17, v4, v7;
see Watanabe, pp. 168-170, Bongard-Levin, pp. 384-385, and note 11
above) as well.
Pradlikehi for patliklibhi/:l is also found in Cr a4. The initial consonant
cluster pr- probably resulted from a hyper-Sanskritism of MI parjaga-. -r-
might be a reflex of the retroflex -rj- in parjaga-. Intervocalic -d- for -t-, a
common sound change in MI, is also found in Cr a6 niryylidli for nirylita
(see the note to Pe a8). We have here perhaps a relic of a Middle ludic
text (cf. BHSG 2.28, Geiger 38.3, Pischel 192, 203-204, Brough 33,
von Hiniiber 172-180). In Classical Skt. pataka- occurs usually as
fern., as in PG, PN and SN. PW records pataka (masc.) as "vielleicht nur
fehlerhaft." But PSM records parjaga (masc.) beside parjligli, parjaya
(fern.), and PTSD records pa.taka (nt.) beside pataka (fern.). MI had,
therefore, a masc or nt. form besides a fern. form of this noun. Here
pradakehi is, therefore, probably inst. pI. masc. or nt., rather than inst. pI.
fern. (cf. BHSG 8.108,9.105).
Pe [yaJva pradlikehi corresponds only to PG. PN, PTt, AT, SN=PTk=ST,
PM and SX do not have yavat. PK, PX and AX do indeed read 773:? (=
yavat), but the following words are different frompatlikli-.
Since it is clear from PG, PN and SN that Pe imasya modifies the
following pw:zyabhisaf!lskara-, we can restore the last word in Pe as
pUlJyabhisaf!lskara(sya) with an ending -sya. For imasya (gen. sg. masc.),
see BHSG 21.62.
Pea12
III pi] na [u](p)e(ti) + + + + + (up)[e](t)[i]
"(That fohner accumulation of merit) does not approach even comparison
(with his accumulation of merit, does not) approach (even ... )."
PG I46a6-7
(as) asya (a6) paurvakaq. pUl).yabhisarp.skaraq.
satatamIm=api kaIan=nopaiti ... upanisa{:.}(a7)m=api na
PN 68.11
(1. 7) asya pUl).yabhisarp.skarasyasau paurvakaq. pUl).yabhisarp.skaraq.
satatamIm=api kaIarp. nopaiti, ... (UI) apy upanisam api
, na
SNTb287b2
(a13) asya kausika pUl).yabhisarp.skarasyasau pfuvakal].
pUI).yabhisaJp.skaral). satatamlm=api kalarp. nopaiti ... (b2) upanisam=api
na II
PTk 173b5; PTt 76b7; AT 277a1; ST 209al; PM 48a4-5; PK 286aI5-16;
PX 155b18; AX 555b29; SX 578c4.
Pe is probably an object of [u](p)e(ti), whereas PG, PN and
SN upanisam is an object of Hence an acc. form is
required here, because in this case becomes an a-stem:
(see BHSG 15.4). Here an anusvara should more probably be supplemented,
althoughBHSG 9.20 records ace. sg. fern. in -a, a nom. form used as acc.
pi for api after anusvara is recorded inBHSG 4.3. PM and PK have no
correspondence to whereas PX=AX=SX (upa-
and PTk, PTt, AT, ST rgyu correspond to it.
In Pe there is a hiatus between na and [u](p)e(ti), whereas PG, PN and
SN have a sandhi form napaiti.
We find e for ai, a regular sound change in MI, in Pe upeti (see BHSG
3.67).
Pe bl
III .. III
"There will be (a manifestation of ... in the world)."
PG 146b1-2
loke pradur-bhavo bhavi1;>yati .
PN 69.13-14
loke pradur-bhavo bhavati,
SNTb 288b3-13
loke pradur-bhavo bhavisyati I
PTk 174b6; PTt 77b8-78ai; AT 277b5; ST 211a8-212a7; PM 48a21-22;
PK 286b5-8; PX 155c14-17; AX 555c23-24; SX 579cll-580a3.
According to PG and SN, we find here a long series of sentences consisting
of gen. + lake pradur-bhava Because in Pe bl a gen. form is
lost, it is wholly impossible to find exactly corresponding places in the
other versions. Pe could be restored as (lake pradur-bhavalJ'l) [bhav
(fe) or O(ti) on the basis ofPe b2-3 or CrblO lake pradur-bhavalJ'l
The fut. form of Pe corresponds to PG and SN, but not to PN, which has a
pres. form bhavati.
The texts of SN, ST and SX include in the section corresponding to the
JIABS 19.1 44
text expected before Pe b 1 a lot of items not found in any other version
and are greatly "extended.
Pe b2
III [s]r(o)[ta]-(apat)[t](i-phala)sya lok[e] pradu
"There will be (a manifestation of the course of a Bodhisattva in the
world). (There will be) a manifestation of the fruit of Stream-entering
in the world."
Crb9
bodhi-satva-caryyayaIploke pradur-bhavaIp
PG 146b2-3
bodhi-satva-caryaya loke pradur-bhavo srota-apatti-
phalasya salqd-agami-(b3)phalasyanagami-phalasyarhatvasya loke
pradur-bhavo .
PN69.15-17
bodhi-sattva-caryaya loke pradur-bhavo bhavati, srota-apanna-salqd-
agamy-anagamy-arhataIp pratyeka-buddhanilIp. bodhi-sattvanaIp loke
pradur-bhaval;t prajfiayante.
SNTb 288b13-289a2
bodhi-satva-(289al)ca<ryil>ya{Ip} loke p<r>adur-bhavo I
srot{r}a-apatti-phalasya loke pradur-bhavo I 28 salqd-
agami-phalasya loke pradur-bhavo I anagami-phalasya loke
pradur-bhavo I arha(a2)tvasya loke pradur-bhavo
I
PTk 174b6-7; PTt 78al-2; AT 277b5-6; ST 212a8; PM 48a22; PK 286b8;
PX 155c18-19; AX 555c25-26; SX 580a13.
The text of Cr b9 is probably continued in [bhajvi[ jyate of Pe b2, although
Cr and Pe undoubtedly belong to different manuscripts. Therefore the
words before can probably be restored as bodhi-satva- .
caryaya lake pradur-bhavalJl on the basis of Cr.
29
PG=PN=SN, PTk=PTt=
AT=ST (byaii chub sems dpa'i spyod pa) and PK ifiiJiJ:![ also support this
restoration. PM has indeed ifiiJiJ:![, but the following item does not cor-
respond to srota-iipatti-phala-. PX, AX and SX have 1.IUfit*, which corres-
ponds to srota-iipatti-phala-, but the text surrounding this word is quite
28. Twodeletions and two additions on the basis of SNTa 229alO-ll.
29. Cr -ciiryyiiyiif!l should possibly be emended as -ciiryyiiyii, which might be
a gen. sg. fern. of a hyper-Sanskritized form -ciiryii- for -caryii-.
different from all the other versions.
The fut. form of Pe corresponds to PG and SN, apart
from the middle ending -te, and not to PN, which has a pres. form instead.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after [bha]vi-
because a sentence ends here and a new sentence is begun with
the next word [s]r(o)[ta]-.
Pe [s]r(o)[ta]-(apat)[t](i-phala)sya corresponds to PG=SN and PTk=ST
rgyun du tugs pa'i 'bras bu, whereas PN, PTt and AT have srota-apanna-
(Tib.rgyun du tugs pa).
The text following Pe b2 can be restored as pradu(r-bhaval'fl
or (Dti) on the basis ofPe b2-3 or Cr blO lake pradur-bhaval'fl
Peb3
/1/ (tatha-gata)[sya] araha<ta> samyak-sarp.buddhasya loke pradur-
bhavarp. bha
'There (will) be a manifestation of (the Tathagata), the Arhat, the Perfectly
Enlightened One in the world."
CrblO
[sya] arahata saIpmyak-srupbuddhasya loke pradur-bhavrup

PG 146b3
pratyeka-bodher=lake
3o
priidur-bhavo tatha-gatasyarhataJ:!
samyak-saIpbuddhasya loke pradur-bhavo
PN 69.17
pratyeka-buddhanarp. bodhi-sattvanarp.loke pradur-bhaval}. prajiiayante.
SNTb 289a2
pratyeka-bodhe<r> loke pradur-bhavo 1 anuttarayal).
sarp.myak-sarp.bodher=loke pradur-bhavo II
PTk 174b7; PTt 78a2; AT 277b6; ST 212bl-2; PM 48a23; PK 286b9-1O;
PX 155c20; AX 555c27-28; SX 580a16-21.
The fIrst word of Pe can probably be restored as above on the basis of PG.
A hiatus is kept between [sya] and araha in Pe and Cr, but not in PG.
The following word should probably be emended to araha<ta> (=Cr)
or rather araha<taJ:z> on the basis of PG. In any case, we fInd here an
epenthetic vowel -a- inserted in the consonant cluster rh (see BHSG 3.100).
30. Read lake.
il JIABS 19.1 46
All the Skt. and Tib. versions have pratyeka-bodhi- (PG, SN, PTk, PTt
and ST) or pratyeka-buddha- (PN and AT) as the second to the last item.
As for the last item, they fall into 3 groups. Pe, Cr and PG agree with one
another on the wording tathii-gatasyilrhataft samyak-sa1J1.buddhasya. SN
anuttarilyilft sa1J1.myak-sa1J1.bodher corresponds to PTk=ST bla na med pa
yan dag par rdzogs pa'i byan chub and PX PN bodhi-
sattvilna1J1. corresponds to PTt byan chub sems dpa' rnams; AT has the
same text as PTt with the addition: sems dpa' chen po (mahii-sattvilnam).
SX ... and AX
include all three
wordings. PK has PM reads
On priidur-bhiiva1J1. for pradur-bhilvaft, see the note to Pe as paripilcalJl.
The last word of Pe can be restored as on the basis of Pe
b2 or as on the basis of Cr blO.
PX, AX and SX insert a two-lined text in which the Gods encourage
Kausika to take up the perfect of wisdom, read it, etc. after this sentence.
This text is not found in any other version.
Peb4
III [kau]sika prajml-paramita tat=kasya heto yada
"0 Kausika, the perfection of wisdom (is to be taken up ). And why?
When (ideas occur to the Asuras in this way, ... )"
PG 146b4
udgrhl).a tvaIp. kausika prajiia-paramitaIp. dharaya vacaya paryavapnuhi
tvaIp. kausika prajfia-paramitiil!1 yonisas=ca manasi-kuru tat=kasya
hetoJ:t yada kausikasural)aIp.ffi=evaIp. samudacara ...
PN 69.1S
udgrah:ll).a tvaIp. kausika prajiia-pararnitilIp. dharaya vacaya paryavapnuhi
tvaIp. kausika prajfia-paramitam. tat kasya hetor? yada kausika
asural).am evaIp. samudacara ...
SNTb 2S9a2-3
udgraha(a3)l)a tvaIp. kausikemaIp. prajiia-paramitilIp. dharaya vacaya
paryavapnuhi yonisas=ca prajfia-paramital!1
tat=kasya hetoJ:t yada kauSikasural).:lIp.ffi=evaIp. sa[mudaca]ra
... ,
PTk 174bS-175al; PTt 78a3-4; AT 277b7-8; ST 212b3; PM 4Sa23-24;
PK 286bll-12; PX 155c24-25; AX 556a2-4; SX 580bl.
Prajnii-piiramitii1J1. of PG, PN and SN is here the acc. object of verbs in 2.
sg. ipv. Pe prajiiii-pliramitli might also be acc., and an anusvara should
possibly be supplemented. But a construction such as manasi-kartavyli
prajiiii-pliramitli, which is found, for instance, in PN 69.2-3, is also possible.
It is impossible to determine whether Pe prajiiii-pliramitli is nom. or acc.,
because the text, including the verbal forms, is lost.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after -pliramitli
and after heto, because sentences end here and new sentences begin with
the next words tat and yada respectively.
Heto (gen. sg. masc., with the loss of visarga) for hetof:t or hetor is
recorded in BHSG 12.37.
Peb5
III tada tvarp. kausika imarp. prajfia-pa
"(When ideas occur to the Asuras in this way), 'we will fight (with the
33 Gods ... ),' then, 0 Kausika, you (should bring to mind, ... ) this
perfection of wisdom."
PG 146b4-5
yada kausikasuraJ?arp.m=evarp. samudacara deva<rp.>s=
devais=trayas-trirp.sakI:t> sardhaIp.
tvarp. kausikemarp. prajfia-pararnitarp.
samanvahrtya .. ,
PN 69.21-23
yada kausika asurllJ?am evaIp. samudacara devais trayas-
trirp.saiI:t sardharp iti tada tvarp. kausika imarp.
prajfia-paramitarp. samanvahareI:t ...
SNTb 289a3-4
yada kausikasuraJ?am=evaIp. samudacara I devan*s=
traya(a4)s-trirp.san* devais=trayas-trirpsaiI:t sarddharp.
tvarp. kausikemarp. prajfia-paramitarp.
samanvahftya ...
PTk 175a1-2; PTt 78a4-5; AT 277b8; ST 212b4; PM 48a25-26; PK 286b13-
14; PX 155c27-28; AX 556a5-7; SX 580b3-4.
The first word of Pe should be restored as above on the basis of PG, PN
and SN. The 1. pI. act. ending -ma for Skt. -mas is recorded in BHSG
26.5-6.
A hiatus is kept between kausika and imafJ1 in Pe.
On imafJ1 for imlifJ1 (acc. sg. fern.), see BHSG 9.17.
JIABS 19.1 48
The last word of Pe can be restored as prajfiii-pli(ramitli,!l) or prajiili-
pli(ramitarrz) . .
PX, AX and SX read (= yuyam: Kausika and the Gods) instead of
fx. (= tvam: Kausika). This peculiarity is not shared with any other version.
Peb6
III (c)[i]ttotpadarp ca deva-putra1).arp.
"There will be (that) production of thought (no more) [to the Asuras].
And when the male deities (or the female deities) have (the time of
decease), ... "
PG 146b6
na punas=te cittotpada ca deva-putraIJatp
deva-kanyanarp. va cyuti-kala<l,1> syat= ..
PN 69.24-25
na ca pun as tan vigraha-cittotpadan ca deva-
putraIJatp deva-kanyanarp. va cyuti-killo bhavet ...
SNTb 289a5
na punas=te cittotpada
31
I ca deva-putraIJatp
deva-kanyanarp. cyuti-kalal;1 syat= ...
PTk 175a2-3; PTt 78a5-6; AT 278al; ST 212b5-6; PM 48a27-28; PK
286b14-15; PX 155c29-156al; AX 556a8; SX 580b5-6.
The first aksara of the first word of Pe can be restored as above on the
basis of PG: PN and SN. Pe (e)[ilttotpadarrz is nom. sg., whereas in PG,
PN and SN this word is pI. Pe has the verb bhavisyate, unlike PG=SN
(= PTk=ST mam par 'phel bar 'gyur ro) and PN
( '" PTt skye bar mi 'gyur ro).
On (e)[ i lttotpadarrz for eittotpadaf:z, see the note to Pe a8 paripliearrz.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after
because a sentence ends here and a new sentence is begun with the next'
word
Pe eli should probably be corrected to ea or ca.
Peb7
III (ka)rohi te tena kusala-mUlena prajfia-paramita-srava
31. Read eittotpiidii.
"(In front of them, Kausika), recite (this perfection of wisdom). They
(will be reborn in the same worlds of the Gods) through that wholesome
.root of the hearing of the perfection of wisdom."
PG 146b6-7
tvarp. kausika purata imliIp prajfia-paramimIp. svadhyayarp.
kuryas=te (b7) tena kusala-millena prajfia-paramita-sravaJ?ena
tatraiva II
PN 69.25-28
api puratal;t svadhyayarp. kuryas, te yady atmano 'payopapattlIp.
enfup. prajiia-paramitliIp srJ?vatfup. te 'payopapatti-
cittotplida antar-dhasyanti, tatraiva deva-bhavane te utpatsyante.
SNTb 289a5-6
tvarp. kausika puratal;t i(a6)mfup. prajfia-paramita<tp>
svadhyaya<tp> kuryas = te tena prajfia - paramita -sravaJ?a - kuSala
- mfilena {nuptirveJ?anuttara SaIp.IDyak_sarp.}32 prajiia-paramim-
prasadena ca tatraiva I.
PTk 175a3-4; PTt 78a6; AT 278a2; ST 212b6-7; PM 48a29-b2; PK 286b16-
17; PX 156a3-4; AX 556al0-12; SX 580b7-9. .
The fIrst word of Pe can be restored as above on the basis of PG, PN and
SN, which contain the verb kuryas (2. sg. opt.).
We should possibly supplement some punctuation mark after (ka)rohi,
word teo
Pe corresponds with PG and SN with the exception of the verb form.
Pe has an ipv.; PG and SN an opt. PN, however, has a different text
altogether and omits tena kusala-miilena. PTt and AT also show this
deviation, while PTk and ST correspond with Pe, PG and SN. PX, AX
and SX contain an equivalent for kusala-millena. PM and PK read
instead J:Mm!.
Pe (ka)rohi (2. sg. ipv.), which stands for Skt. kuru, is formed from the
strong stem karo- plus the 2. sg. ipv. ending -hi. According to BHSG 30.9,
in most texts this form is found only in verse, but in Mv it is also found in
prose.
On -piiramita- with a shortened stem vowel, see the note to Pe a6.
The last word of Pe can be restored as 0 srava( !lena) on the basis of PG.
32. A correct deletion by the scribe himself.
JIABS 19.1 50
Pe b8
II/ (ka)sya-ci kausika kula-putrasya va kula-duhitaraya
"Kausika, (when this perfection of wisdom will come to the range of
hearing) of some son or daughter of good family, ... "
PG 146b7-S
yasya kasya-cil:=kausika kula-putrasya (bS) va kula-duhitur=va deva-
putrasya va deva-kanyaya va iyarp. srotravabhasam=
.
PN 69.2S-70.1
yasya kasya-cit kausika kUla-putrasya va kula-duhitur va deva-
putrasya va deva-kanyaya va iyarp. prajiia-paramita srotravabhasam

SNTb 2S9a7
yasya kasya-cit=kula-putrasya va kula-duhitur=va deva:Rutrasya va
deva-kanyaya va iyarp. prajiia-paramita srot<r>avabhasarp.
{rp.}ti I
PTk 175a4-5; PTt 78a7-S; AT 278a3; ST 212bS; PM 4Sb4; PK 2S6b19;
PX 156aS-9; AX 556aI5-16; SX 580b13.
The first word of Pe can easily be restored as above on the basis of PG,
PN and SN.
On Pe (ka)sya-ci with the loss of the final consonant of -cid, a regular
sound change in MI, see BHSG 2.91.
Pe, PG, PN and AT contain here an address to Kausika, as do all the
Chin. versions. SN, PTk, PTt and ST, however, omit this.
Pe kula-duhitaraya (gen. sg. fern.) is derived from the stem -ara- (see
BHSG 13.1S).
Peb9
III (anutta)rarp. samyak-sarp.bodhim=a[bh](isarp.)[b](u)[d]. + + + + + +
"(They will all) know fully the highest perfect enlightenment (with ... )."
PG 146bS
sarve te tena samyak-saIpbodhim=
abhisarp.bbotsyante
PN 70.1-2
33. Correction on the basis of SNTa 229b5.
sarve te ten a kusala-millenanupilrveJ?-anuttariU!J. samyak-sarpbodhim
abhisambhotsyante.
SNTb 289a7-8
sarve te tena kusala-mille(a8)nanupilrveJ?-anuttariU!J. sarpmyak-
sarpbodhim=abhisarp.bhotsya<rp>te I
PTk 175a5-6; PTt 78a8-78b1; AT 278a3-4; ST 213a1; PM 48b6-7; PK
286b21; PX 156alO-ll; AX 556aI7-18; SX 580b15-16.
The first word of Pe can easily be restored as above on the basis of PG,
PN and SN.
The last word of Pe seems to be 3. pI. fut. of the verb abhi-saf!l-budh-
according to PG, PN and SN. BHSG p. 222 records and
as fut. forms. In the fragment SI P/19a(l) two similar forms
occur: r5, r9 (see Watanabe, p. 168,
Bongard-Levin, p. 384, and note 11 above). Therefore the word could be
restored as a[bhJ(isaf!l)[b] (u)[ dJ( or a[bhJ(isaf!l)[b J(u)[ d]
The former form, derived from the present stem budhya-,
shows the gemination of a consonant, which is allowed in PaJ?-ini 8.4.47,
but seems to be a matter of orthography in this case. Edgerton explains in
BHSG 28.19 and p.222 that the latter form is derived from the verbal stem
buddha-, which is a denominative to the nominal stem buddha-.
After the [d]. 6 or 7 are lost.
Pe blO
III para + + + + + + + + +
"C ... were) completely (emancipated) in the absolute sphere
PG 146b9
tatba hi kausika ye te ante <'>dhvani tatha-gata abhilvarp.n=arhantalJ
samyak-sarp.buddha<l).> sa-sravaka-sarp.gbas=te <'>tra prajfia-
paramitayarp. nirvaI].a-dhatau parinirvrta
PN70.4-7
tatba hi bhagavan ye 'tIte 'dhvani tatha-gata arhantalJ samyak-sambuddba
abhilvan, sravaka nirvaI].a-dhatau te
'pYrnam eva prajfia-pararnitam agamyanuttararp. samyak-sarp.bodhim
abhisambuddhal)..
JIABS 19.1 52
SNTb 289a8-9
tatha hi kausika ye te <'>bhUvan* atite <'>dhvanj34 tatha-gata arhantaJ:t
samyak-saIJ1buddhal;1 sa-sravaka-sarp.ghaJ:! te <'>tra prajiia-paramitiI-
(a9)yarp. nirvaIJ.a-dhatau parinirv[t:al;1
PTk 175a7; PTt 78b2; AT 278a5; ST 213a2-3; PM 48b9-1O; PK 286b23;
PX 156a13-14; AX 556a20; SX 580b18.
The first part of Pe can be restored as on the basis of
PG and SN or as on the basis of PN. The
is difficult to decipher because of the defacement, and no sign for -e is
visible. We should possibly supplement a vowel sign -e on the basis of
PG, PN and SN. However, it is also possible that Pe makes a compound
of and nirvZlf.!a-dhatu-.
PN has a peculiar construction in sravakii
nirvalJa-dhatau No texts of the other Skt. and Tib. versions
correspond to it. PTk, PTt and ST show a common reading ... nan thos kyi
dge 'dun dan bcas pa ... phun po ma Ius pa'i my a nan las 'das pa'i dbyins
su yons su my a nan las 'das so, which corresponds to PG and SN ... sa-
sravaka-sal[lghaJ:t ... nirvalJa-dhatau parinirv.rtaJ:t.
Only AT has no equivalent for nirvalJa-dhatau
parinirv.rtaJ:t, which all the other versions have. The text of AT is as
follows: de dag gis kyan ses rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa 'di nid fa bslabs
nas bla na med pa yan dag par rdzogs pa'i byan chub mnon par rdzogs
par sans rgyas la (te 'pfmal[l prajfia-paramitayal[l samyak-
sal[lbodhim abhisal[lbuddhaf:t).
For the spelling rvba, see the note to Pe al [sarvbaj.
According to PG, PN and SN -dhatau we can take Pe -[dhatuJve as loco
sg. In Classical Skt. dhatu- occurs only as a masc. noun, but in BS and
Pali also as a fern., as in Pe (see BHSD p. 282a). BHSG records no
instance of a loco sg. in -uve to a u-stem, although BHSG 12.41-42 collects
examples of obI. sg. fern. in -aye and -uye solely from Mv. Von Hintiber
338 postulates *dhatuva for PaIi dhatuya (inst.). Pe -[ dhatuJve would be
the very form to be postulated for the obI. sg. fern. ending in -uye, if the
ending -uye developed out of -uve in analogy to the i-stems. It appears
then that dhatuve was derived from *dhatvai (dat. sg. fern.) with insertion
of an epenthetic vowel -u- before -v- (see BHSG 3.114) and with the
regular MI sound change ai > e (see BHSG 3.67); it occurs as a obI. sg.
fern.
The last two para in Pe seem to be a part of parinirv.rta-
34. Read <'>dhvani with SNTa 229b5.
according to PG and SN. No vowel sign to the ra is visible in the
fragment, and therefore in this case we should probably supplement a
vowel sign -i to this
After ra 8-1 Q are lost.
Pe bll
III (prajfia-parami) [ta]ya anu[tta] + + + + + + +
"After they have learned about (the perfection of wisdom), (they will
know fully) the highest (perfect enlightenment)."
PO 146b10
te <'>piliaiva prajfia-pararnitayaIp samyak-
sa:rpbodhim=abhisa:rpbhotsyante'
PN70.8-9
te 'plrnam eva prajfia-paramitam agamyanuttara:rp samyak-sambodhim
abhisambhotsyante.
SN 289a9-10
te <'>piliaiva prajfia-pararnitayaIp sa:rpmyak-
sa:rpbodhim=abhisa:rpbhotsyante I
PTk 175a8; PTt 78b3; AT 278a6; ST 213a4; PM 48blO-ll; PK 286b24-25;
PX 156a12-13; AX 556a19-20; SX 580b19-20.
The fIrst word ofPe can be restored as above on the basis ofPG and SN.
Pe (prajfia-parami)[taJya is a loco sg. fern. in -liya. BHSG 9.57 records
instances from SP for loco sg. fern. in -liya in prose. BHSG 9.63 records
many more examples of this ending in verse than in prose.
A hiatus is preserved between and anu[ttaJ in Pe.
For Cr=PO=SN which corresponds to PTk=ST bslabs sin, AT
bslabs nas and PK=PX=AX=SX lJ, PN has agamya, which corresponds
to PTt brten nas.
The last word of Pe can be restored as anu[ttaj(ra'!l) or anu[ttaj(r1if!l)
on the basis of PO and SN.
After the [ttaJ 8-1 0 are lost.
Pe bI2
III [tva]-dharma [sa] + + + + .. + + + + + + + + +
"(For in the perfection of wisdom are contained ... , or) Bodhisattva-
dharmas. Sakra (said: ... )."
JIABS 19.1 54
PG 146bll-12 .
tatha hi kausika sarve dharma
antar-gatal). sravaka-dharma va pratyeka-buddha-dharma va bodhi-satva-
dharma va buddha-dharma va sakkra aha
PN 70.13-15
tatha hi sarve buddha-dharma antar-gatal).. sarve
bodhi-sattva-dharmaJ:t sarve pratyeka-buddha-dharmal). sarve sravaka-
dharma antar-gatal).
SNTb 289all-12
tatha hi kausikatra prajiia-pararnitayarp. dharmma
antar-gatal). sravaka-dharmma va pratyeka-buddha-dharmma va _
bo(a12)<dhi>-satva-dharmma
35
va buddha-dharmma va: II sakra
aha II
PTk 175b3; PTt 78b6-7; AT 278a7-8; ST 213a7-8; PM 48b13-14; PK
286b27-28; PX 156aI5-17; AX 556a22-23; SX 580b25-26.
The first word of Pe seems to be (bodhi-sa)[ tvaJ-dharmZl, which occurs at
the end of a sentence. But in no other version is this the last item in the
sentence, whose predicate is prajiiii-paramitayam antar-gataJ:z. bodhi-
sattva-dharma- is the second to the last item in PG, SN, PM, PK, AX and
Sx. PM and PK have the equivalent {lfiii?t before -Ml?t, which corresponds
with PG=SN buddha-dharma. AX and -SX have {lfiii?t before the last
item (tathagata-dharma-). PTt and AT have byan chub sems dpa'i
chos thams cad (sarve bodhi-sattva-dharmaJ:z) as the third to the last item
before the equivalents for sarve pratyeka-buddha-dharmaJ:z and sarve
sravaka-dharmaJ:z and have the same word order as PN. PX has the same
word order, but includes no equivalent for sarve. PTk and ST have byan
chub sems dpa'i chos (bodhi-sattva-dharmZI.J:z) as the third to the last item
before the equivalents for buddha-dharmaJ:z and sarve
dharmaJ:z. We may conclude that Pe is isolated in regard to word order.
We should probably supplement some punctuation mark after -dharma,
because a sentence ends here and a new sentence is begun with [Sa].
Pe -dharma without final visarga, although it occurs at the end of the
sentence, shows the regular MI nom. pI. masc. ending in -a. According to
BHSG 8.78, examples of this ending in prose are found commonly in Mv
and rarely in some other texts.
Pe [sa] seems to be the first of sakra-. PTk and ST have brgya
byin gyis gsol pa, which corresponds with PG=SN sakra aha. But PTt and
35. Supplement of <dhi> with SNTa 229b8
AT share a text, which is longer than sakra aha. AT: de skad ces bka'
stsal ba dan I bcom ldan 'das la lha'i dban po brgya byin gyis 'di skad
ce$ gsol to I PTt: de skad ces bka' stsal pa I lha rnams kyi dban po
brgya byin gyis,bcom ldan 'das la 'di skad ces gsol to I Both texts could
be translated into Skt. as follows: evam ukte sakro devaniim indro
bhagavantam etad avocat. All the Chin. versions have equivalents for
sakra- devlmllm indra- (pM=PK: "jlmj2;J; and "said
to the Buddha" Only PN omits sakra aha and the following
three sentences. PG 146b12-13 reads them as follows: maha-vidyeyalfl
bhagavan=yad=uta prajfili-pliramitli' anuttareYa1fL bhagavan=vidyii yad=
uta prajfili-pliramitli (bJ3) asama-sameyalfl bhagavan=vidyli yad=uta
prajiia-pllramitll' .
After Pe [sa] about 4 are lost. One after them cannot be
deciphered because of the defacement. After it 8-1 0 are also lost.
ABBREVIATIONS
A
acc.
act.
AIG
AT
AX
BHS
BHSD
BHSG
Prajiiaparamitii
accusative.
active.
Jakob Wackernagel. Altindische Grammatik. Gottingen:
1896-;Band II,l: Albert Debrunner, Die Nominalsuffixe.
1954.
The Tibetan version of the Prajiia-
paramitii
The Chinese version of the Prajiia-
paramita, translated by Xuanzang.
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.
Franklin Edgerton. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar
and Dictionary. Vol. 2: Dictionary. New Haven: 1953 ..
----,. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dic-
tionary. Vol. 1: Grammar. New Haven: 1953.
Bongard-Levin Bongard-Levin, G. M. "A Fragment of the Paficavilflsati-
BrQugh
BS
caus.
slihasrikli Prajfilipliramitli-siitra from Eastern Turkestan."
Journal of the American Oriental Society 114.3 (1994):
383-385.
Brough, John, ed. The Glmdharr Dharmapada. London:
1962.
Buddhist Sanskrit.
causative.
JIABS 19.1
Chap.
Chin.
Conze, PL
Cr
Dutt
fern.
fut.
GBM(FacEd)
Geiger
gen.
Hikata
von Hintiber
von Hintiber,
Erforschung
Hoernle,MR
inst.
ipv.
Kimura
Konow
56
Chapter.
Chinese;
Conze, Edward. The Prajfiiiparamita Literature. 2nd rev.
and enlrg. ed. Bibliographia Philologica Buddhica, Series
Maior 1. Tokyo: 1978.
The Crosby fragment 254 / 255.
Dutt, Nalinaksha, ed. The Paficavirrzsatisahasrikii PrajfiZi-
parlrmita. CalCutta Oriental Series 28. London: 1934.
feminine.
future.
Vira, Raghu, and Lokesh Chandra. Gilgit Buddhist
Manuscripts (Facsimile Edition). 10 pts. Sata-Pitaka
Series. Vol. 10. New Delhi: 1959-1974. Pt. 3 (1966); Pt.
4 (1966); Pt. 5 (1970).
Geiger, Wilhelm. PZili Literatur und Sprache. GrundriB
der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, I, 7.
StraBburg: 1916.
genitive.
Hikata, Ryush6, ed. Suvikrantavikrami-Parip,rccha Pra-
jfiZipZirlrmita-Siitra. Ed. with an introductory essay.
Fukuoka: 1958.
Hinuber, Oskar von. Das altere Mittelindisch im Uberblick.
VerOffentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und
Kulturen Sudasiens 20. Wien: 1986.
----. "Die Erforschung der Gilgit-Handschriften
(Funde buddhistischer Sanskrit-Handschriften, I)." Nach-
richten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, I.
Philologisch-Historische Klasse. 1979.
Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf. Manuscript Remains of Buddhist
Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan. Facsimiles with
transcripts, translations, and notes, edited in conjunction
with other scholars. Vol. 1. Oxford: 1916.
instrumental.
imperative.
Kimura, Takayasu, ed. PaficavirrzsatisZihasrika Prajfia-
paramita II-III. Tokyo: 1986.
Konow, Sten. "Central Asian Fragments of the A ~ t i ' i d a
sasahasrika Prajfiaparamita and of an Unidentified Text."
Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 69 (1942):
1-37.
Lethcoe
loco
masc.
Matsunami
MI
Mv
nom.
nt.
obI.
opt.
P
Pe
Peking
PG
Pischel
PK
pI.
PM
PN
pres.
PSM
PTSD
PTk
PTt
Lethcoe, Nancey R. "Some Notes on the Relationship
between the AbhisamayaI3.l)1kara, the Revised Paiica-
. vllpsatisahasrika, and the Chinese Translation of the Un-
.revised Journal of the American
Oriental Society 97 (1976): 499-51l.
locative.
masculine.
Matsunami, Seiren. A Catalogue of the Sanskrit
Manuscripts in the Tokyo University Library. Tokyo: 1965.
Middle Indic.
Mahavastu.
nominative.
neuter.
oblique.
optative.
Prajfiaparamita.
The Petrovsky fragment SI P /19(3).
Suzuki, Daisetsu T., ed. The Tibetan 168 vols.
Peking Edition Kept in the Library of the Otani University,
Kyoto. Tokyo-Kyoto: 1955-196l.
The Sanskrit manuscript of the
Prajfiaparamita from Gilgit.
Pischel, Richard. Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Grun-
driB der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, I,
8. StraBburg: 1900.
The Chinese version of the
Prajfiaparamita, translated by Kumarajlva.
plural.
The Chinese version of the Prajfia-
paramita, translated by
The Sanskrit text of the Prajfia-
paramita from Nepal.
present.
Haragovinddas Seth. Paiasaddama-
hm:u:zavo. Prakrit Text Society Series 7. Varanasi: 1928.
Rhys-Davids, T. W., and W. Stede. The Pali Text Society's
Pali-English Dictionary. London: 1921-1925.
The Tibetan version of the Prajfia-
paramita included in the Kanjur.
The Tibetan version of the Prajfia-
JIABS 19.1 58
paramita included in the Tanjur.
PW Bohtlingk, Otto, and Rudolph Roth. Sanskrit-Worterbuch.
7 Bde St. Petersburg: 1855-1875.
PX The Chinese version of the Paficavirp.satisahasrika prajfia-
paramita, translated by Xuanzang.
S Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita.
Sander, Sander, Lore. "BrahmI Scripts on the Eastern Silk Roads."
Brahm! Scripts Studien zur Indologie und lranistik 11112 (1986): 159-192.
Sander, PaliiD- Sander, Lore. Palaographisches zu den Sanskrithand
graphisches schriften der Berliner Turfansammlung. Verzeichnis der
sDe dge
sg.
Shako
Watanabe
SHT
Skorupski
Skt.
SN
SNTa
SNTb
SP
ST
sTog
SX
Taishi5
orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Suppl. 8.
Wiesbaden: 1968.
The Nyingma Edition of the sDe-dge bKa' -' gyur and
bsTan-'gyur. Oakland, 1981.
singular.
Watanabe, Shako, ed. Saddharmapul'}arfka Manuscripts
found in Gilgit. 2 vols. Tokyo, 1972-75.
Waldschmidt, Ernst, et al. Sanskrithandschriften aus den
Turfan-Funden. Teil 1-6. Verzeichnis der orientalischen
Handschriften in Deutschland, X. Wiesbaden, 1965-1989.
Teil 3 (1971); Teil4 (1980); Teil5 (1985).
Skorupski, Tadeusz. A Catalogue of the sTog Palace
Kanjur. Bibliographia Philologica Buddhica, Series Maior
IV. Tokyo: 1985.
Sanskrit.
The Sanskrit text of the Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita from
Nepal.
The Sanskrit manuscript of the Satasahasrika Prajfia-
paramita from Nepal kept in the General Library of the
University of Tokyo, Matsunami No. 382-B.
The Sanskrit manuscript of the Satasahasrika Prajfia-
paramita from Nepal kept in the General Library of the
University of Tokyo, Matsunami No. 383.
SaddharmapUl).qarIlca.
The Tibetan version of the Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita.
The Tog Palace Manuscript of the Tibetan Kanjur. Leh:
1975-1980.
The Chinese version of the Satasahasrika Prajfiaparamita,
translated by Xuanzang.
Takakusu, Junjiro, and Kaikyoku Watanabe, eds. The
Tib.
Toda
Taisho Shishu Daizokyo. 100 vols. Tokyo: 1924-1934.
Tibetan.
voc.
Watanabe
Z
Zwalf
Toda, Hirofumi, ed. Saddharmapwy;lankasutra Central
. Asian Manuscripts. Romanized Text. Tokushirna: 19S3.
vocative.
Watanabe, Sh6go. "Mihitei no Hannyakyo shahan kenkyl1
II: Petrovsky Collection No. SI PI19a(1) [Studies in
Unidentified Manuscripts of the PrajiUiparamita-siitra (ll):
No. SI P/19a(1) from the Petrovsky Collection]." Indogaku
Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 41 (1993):167-172.
Emmerick, Ronald E. The Book of Zambasta. a Khotanese
poem on Buddhism. London Oriental Series 21. London:
1965.
Zwalf, W., ed. Buddhism: Art and Faith. London: 19S5.
LIST OF PECULIAR FORMS
Hiatus Pe a4, alO, b 11.
Sandhi -1Jl a- Pe a3.
nom. sg. masc. in -a Pe a2.
a[bh](isalJl)[b ](u)[ d]( (3. pI. fut.) Pe b9.
araha<ta> (gen. sg. masc.) Pe b3.
(aka) ra[lJl-jfiataj Pe a1
imalJl (acc. sg. fern.) Pe b5.
imasya (gen. sg. masc.) Pe all.
(3. pI. fut) Pe a4., alO
(acc. sg. fern.) Pe a12.
upeti(3. sg. pres.) Pe a12.
inst. pI. masc./nt. in -ehi Pe a5, all.
(ka)rohi (2. sg. ipv.) Pe b7.
(ka)sya-ci Pe bS.
(c)[ijttotpadalJl Pe b6.
trl[Satima j Pe a2
-duhitaraya (gen .sg. fern.) Pe bS.
-dharma (nom. pI. masc.) Pe b12.
-[dhatujve (lac. sg. fern.) Pe blO.
(3. pI. caus. fut.)Pe a4.
-paripacalJl Pe as.
-paramita- Pe a6, a7, as, a9, b7.
-(parami)[tajya (lac. sg. fern.) Pe b11.
pi Pe al2
nABS 19.1 60
pilsta- Pe alD ..
pradiikehi Pe all.
priidur-bhava7JZ (nom. sg.) Pe b3.
[yiiJva Pe all.
-rvb- Pe aI, blD
-sunyatii Pe a7.
(1. pI. fut.) Pe bS.
heto (gen.sg.masc.) Pe b4 .
NIRMALA S. SALGADO
Ways of Knowing and
Transmitting Religious Knowledge:
Case Studies of Theravada Buddhist Nuns
Studies of the education and transmission of Buddhist knowledge in the
Theravada tradition have usually focused on formal institutional struc-
tures of learning such as those provided by major monastic traditions.
Until recently, relatively little attention has been given to informal ways
of knowing and transmitting religious knowledge, specifically, those that
are created and re-created by groups which are in a constant process of
transformation'! In particular, the participation of women in such infor-
mal systems of knowing has often been ignored. While Bartholomeuz's
extensive study of Buddhist nuns discusses the place of religious educa-
tion for predominantly elite and well-known head-nuns, to date there has
been no investigation of changes among the attitudes as well as the com-
position of the junior nuns in individual hermitages.
2
This is important
I am indebted to the International Center for Ethnic Studies, Colombo, for
the initial support given for this investigation. I am also grateful to Ananda
and Rukmini Kulasuriya as well as Kusuma Devendra who helped me in Sri
Lanka. Ven. Deegalle Mahinda and Ananda P. Guruge gave me useful com-
ments on drafts of this article. George Bond, Martie Reineke, and Paul
Westman gave me much encouragement and many helpful suggestions
throughout my work on this paper. I am also thankful to the editors and read-
ers of the ]JABS for their insightful suggestions which helped me improve this
work.
1. One of the best studies that does discuss this is M. Carrithers, The Forest
Monks of Sri Lanka, (Delhi: OUP, 1983). Other more recent studies are
found in G. Bond, The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka, (Columbia: University
of South Carolina, 1988) and R. Gombrich and G. Obeyesekere, Buddhism
Transformed, (DeIhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988).
2. I use the term "nuns" to refer to the ten-precept-mothers or dasa sit maniyo
who have renounced the household life and live either in communities or
alone on a more or less permanent basis. I do not refer here to fully ordained
61
62 nABS 19.1
since it is indicative both of developments within particular groups of
nuns and of probable changes affecting the community of female renun-
ciants as a whole.
This essay will focus on two groups of nuns and attempt to explore the
religious education that is accessible to contemporary Buddhist women at
a grass-roots level. I will draw on interviews conducted with junior as
well as head nuns in order to demonstrate the importance of recognizing
that established "institutions" of nuns are in a constant state of flux.
Additionally, an investigation ofreligious transmission among contempo-
rary groups of nuns in Sri Lanka will provide a clue as to how women's
ways of knowing 3 figure in the on-going process ofrevival and reform in
Sri Lankan Buddhism today.
Initially, this study will examine the nature and content of religious
education provided by early monastic centers in Ceylon and discuss how
the transmission of religious knowledge affected the status of education
in general and that of women in particular. The ways in which the Bud-
dhist revival in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries sparked a renewal
of interest in the education of bhikkhus, lay children and nuns, illustrates
to a certain extent, the tension between the types of knowledge imparted
to Buddhist monks and nuns to this day. After examining the more tra-
ditionally established systems of knowing, this study focuses on how the
lives and ways of knowing of two very different head nuns have defined
religious knowledge for their hermitages as well as the lay folk whom
they serve. This study will demonstrate that these two head nuns and
their hermitages, while representing a marginalized and liminal group, 4
nevertheless, provide centers of cultural transmission that are well within
the main stream of the rapidly changing religious scene of Sri Lankan
Buddhism today. This investigation will further suggest that in earlier
times too, more informal ways of knowing such as those in which the
bhikkhUlJls. Similarly, when discussing the "ordination of nuns" I refer not to
the higher or lower ordination of bhikkhUlJls but to the ordination of ten-pre-
cept-mothers only.
3. I have borrowed the term "women's ways of knowing" from the book of
the same title by M. F. Belenkey, et. aI., Women's Ways of Knowing (New
York: Basic Books, 1988). I have not however used it in exactly the same
way.
4. For a good discussion of the liminality of Buddhist nuns see K. Devendra,
"Establishment of the Order of Buddhist Nuns and its Development in Sri
Lanka," Sakydhitii: Daughters of the Buddha (New York: Snow Lion Publi-
cations, 1988) 262-266.
SALGADO 63
nuns currently participate might have co-existed with the major monastic
centers of learning.
EDUCATION
Historical Precedents
Provision for the formal education of bhikkhus and bhikkhu1JzS has existed
almost since the inception of Buddhism in Ceylon.
5
Since written texts
were rare or inaccessible, an important part of this education was gthe
memorization of texts for the purpose of transmitting the tradition orally.
This was a continuation of the bhii7JQka tradition which flourished in
India and became a central means of preserving and teaching the
Dhamma after the Buddha's demise. As centers of monastic learning
became established, the transmission and character of religious knowl-
edge was debated, redefined and broadened. Learning at the monastic
centers came to include that of secular sUbjects.6 The teaching of these
subjects to the clergy, a practice still hotly debated today, was in keeping
with the traditional curriculum at Buddhist monastic centers in India'?
The inclusion of secular subjects in the curriculum could have been a
cause for as well as a consequence of increased involvement with the
laity. Since these subjects would have been taught at monastic centers of
learning, providing an education for laity such as student physicians and
astrologers, it is likely that this would have necessitated an increased
demand for teaching facilities and tools. This in tum would have
resulted in monasteries' greater dependence on the laity.
Initially it is probable that the clerical centers of education would have
included the education of both monks and nuns. Bhikkhu1JzS in Ceylon
had access to education when the twofold Sangha still flourished, 8 and it
is likely that lay women and girls benefited from this. However, the dis-
appearance of the Bhikkhu1Jz Order around the tenth century9 would have
5. P. B. J. Hewavasam, ''The Buddhist Tradition," Ceylon. Ministry of Edu-
cation and Cultural Affairs. Education in Ceylon (Colombo: The Government
Press, 1969) 1119.
6. W. Rahula, History of Buddhism in Ceylon, 3rd ed. (Dehiwala: Buddhist
Cultural Center, 1993) 160-161.
7. A. W. P. Guruge, "Education, Buddhist," Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol.
5, fascicle 1. (Sri Lanka: Government of Sri Lanka, 1990) 28.
8. Hewavasam, ''The Buddhist Tradition" 1126.
9. Gunawardene shows that the latest evidence we have of Theravada bhikk-
h u ~ i s in Sri Lanka dates back to the reign of Mahinda IV, thus indicating that
the demise of their lineage in Sri Lanka was around or shortly after the tenth
64 JIABS 19.1
had a definite impact on the status and education of Buddhist women.
Yet, when monastic education became the prerogative of the bhikkhus
alone, there is no record of post-primary education being offered to
girls.
IO
While it is possible to attribute this lacuna in our e v i d e n ~ e to
what Gross calls "androcentric record keeping," II it is more likely that
Vinaya restrictions concerning relationships between bhikkhus . and
women did, in actuality, result in the exclusion of female students from
monastic institutions of education. How Buddhist women in Ceylon
were learning and transmitting religious knowledge between the tenth
and nineteenth centuries remains, for the most part, a matter of conjec-
ture. It is possible that Buddhist women then were engaged in religious
activities similar to those they are involved in today. These wouid have
included participation in study groups and meditation sessions,12 in-
volvement in household rituals
l3
as well those that will be discussed
below.
Education-the contemporary scene
The Buddhist revival, with its renewal of interest in monastic education,
as well as religious education in general, resulted in initiatives to provide
a formal education for Buddhist women. Females were now seen as the
future mothers and nurturers, and hence the main educators of the gen-
erations to come. 14 It was in this climate of revival that the fIrst attempts
to establish Buddhist schools for girls transpired. IS Among the earliest of
such schools to be established were those run by Buddhist nuns. 16 Never-
theless, as time passed and the Buddhist nuns received little or no formal
century. R. A. L. H. Gunawardene, Robe and Plough: Monasticism and Eco-
nomic Interest in Early and Medieval Sri Lanka (Arizona: University of
Arizona, 1979) 39.
10. Hewavasam, "The Buddhist Tradition" 1126.
11. R. M. Gross, Buddhism After Patriarchy (Albany: SUNY, 1993) 49-51.'
12. G. Bond, The Buddhist Revival 177-186.
13. S. Kiribamune "Religion and Its Relevance to the Lives of Buddhist
Women" paper presented at 3rd CENWOR Convention, Colombo, Sri Lanka,
March 1992. This study discusses the popularity of domestic worship in the
lives of Buddhist laywomen today.
14. T. J. Bartholomeusz, Women Under the Bo Tree (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994) 49-50.
15. Bartholomeusz, Women Under the Bo Tree 50-53.
16. Ibid., 60-65.
SALGADO 65
training they were unable, unlike members of the male clergy, to emerge
as educational leaders.
The first institution for the formal education of monks to be established
in 'modern and that was known by the name of pirivelJa was the
Vidyodaya Pirive1).a, founded in 1873.
17
In the beginning the modern
were mainly dependent on the support of the laity. By the time
Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948, pirivelJas were being systemati-
cally supported by substantial amounts by the government, the precedent
for which was established as far back as 1875 when Vidyodaya was given
a government grant.
18
Writing in the 1960's, Pafifiasekhara, mentions
that the number of registered pirivelJas in Ceylon was 231: 125 were
junior pirivelJas the equivalent of junior high),' 27 were senior
(equivalent of senior high) and 79 were affiliated to universities,19 The
piriveIJas basically continued the traditional methods of teaching and
were primarily geared to the education of the male monastic community.
While they were open to laymen, these institutions generally focused on
providing the secondary education for a novice monk from the' age of
about twelve onwards. Some of them had the facilities to educate a
clergyman up to the equivalent of the Bachelor of Arts Degree. In 1966
the Buddha-sravaka Dharmaplthaya, a university for monks was
established and con-tinues to be funded generously by the state.
The main focus of government policy has been concerned with imple-
menting educational institutions so as to better serve Buddhist monks and
laity, and until very recently it had little place on its agenda for the edu-
cation of nuns. One consequence of this has been that the first Buddhist
schools for girls run by lay people have flourished to this day, whereas
those run by the nuns (who are generally less educated than laity) have
not been so successful. Today men and women have equal access to a
secular education but the specifically religious education of women lags
behind that of men. The poor institutional structures supporting female
renunciants may be caused partially by a reluctance to accept their roles
as leaders in Buddhist communities.
One of the government surveys on general education that was carried
out in 1982-1983 indicated that out of a total of 620 nuns who responded
17. KalukondayawePailiiasekhara, "The Pirivenas," Ceylon. Ministry of Edu-
cation and Cultural Affairs. Education in Ceylon (Colombo: The Government
Press, 1969) 747.
18. Conversation with Ananda Guruge in May 1995.
19. Pafiiiasekhara, ''The Pirivenas" 751.
66 JIABS 19.1
to a nation-wi.de survey, 129. had received an education of Grade 3-5;
152, an education of Grade 6-8, and 110 had completed their Ordinary
Level Examinations.
2o
A total of only 17 nuns was recorded as ,having
had further education at any level. 21 The nuns who had received a for-
mal religious education (i. e. one that was geared toward taking the pub-
lic exams in religion that student monks for example would generally
take) were not surprisingly, even fewer than this. At the most, from any
one of 18 districts in the country, only a handful of nuns had succeeded
in passing public examinations in religion. 22
Between 1984-1986 the government made various attempts to provide
an education for nuns.
23
Classes, which were conducted on a weekly or a
daily (5 days a week) basis, were conducted in subjects such as PaIi,
Buddhism, English, Sinhalese and Health Science. These classes, con-
ducted by both laypeople and pirivelJa staff, were originally held in and
around Colombo. However, since 1988, an education focusing on Orien-
tal Languages has been made available to nuns on a district-wise basis.24
By 1993 the government was funding daily classes for nuns in a center in
eleven districts in the country.25 To date about 80 nuns have passed the'
pracfna palJ4ita and in the past 5-10 years four or five nuns have com-
20. The information from the government surveys is from K. M. L. B.
Thamal, "A Study of the Dasa-Sil Maniyo (Consecrated Women) in the Bud-
dhist Society of Sri Lanka," M. A. diss. (University of the Philippines, 1983)
86.
21. Of the seventeen mentioned, nine had passed their Advanced Level Ex-
aminations, five had completed Teacher Training and three had passed the
Teacher.s'- Final.
22. Thamal, "A Study of the Dasa-Sil-Maniyo" 91.
23. Unless otherwise indicated, the following information on the government
sponsored education of nuns was obtained in the course of discussions with
Padma Dinapala, Cultural Officer at the Department of Buddhist Affairs arid
consultations of available government records. Several discussions and con-
sultations of surveys took place between 1984 and 1994.
24. The education provided for nuns who wished to train for the pracina palJ-
4dita, the final and most difficult of three public examination on Oriental
Languages. The PaIi, Sanskrit and Sinhala literature studied for these exams
include some religious content. It takes about two years to train for each
examination. These examinations have recently been considered equivalent in
status to B. A. examinations in these subjects.
25. Initially the district-wide classes were held weekly only.
SALGADO 67
pleted a Bachelor's degree in local universities. 26 These nuns are gener-
ally dependent on their parents or relations for financial support up
through their tertiary studies unlike the members of the Sangha who are
usually supported by established and well-endowed monasteries as well as
the State. After graduating the nuns have gone on to teach in schools.
Although some nuns have continued to attend the state sponsored
classes, the attrition rate has been high due to others having to make an
arduous journey from the remote areas where they live to centers where
the classes are held. The transportation problem was exacerbated when
government funding for the nuns decreased in 1994. A recently founded
international journal devoted to the concerns of Buddhist nuns discusses
the Sri Lankan situation:
... the Ministry of Buddhist Affairs has cut down the allocation for nuns ...
by fifty percent for 1994. As a result, the nuns do not even have the bus
fare to meet in their districts ... This has proven to be a severe handicap to
the nuns and their efforts to improve their education and living conditions.27
Some nuns I interviewed were indeed reluctant to attend classes because
this entailed a difficult bus journey. Others simply said that there was no
such learning facility within traveling distance of their hermitage.
Government efforts to encourage the formal education of the nuns are
still in their fledgling stages. While of some consequence to a few indi-
viduals, these attempts do not yet significantly impact the population of
nuns at large. In 1993 a total of 141 nuns throughout the country were
registered in state sponsored classes in religious subjects. The island pop-
ulation of nuns is estimated at about 2500-3000. Thus according to the
latest figures less than six percent of the total number of nuns in Sri
Lanka are participating in these educational programs.
It is not uncommon for a bhikkhu to complete the full course of public
examinations in religion and then graduate from a university with an B.
A., an M. A. or even a Ph.D., but this would be a rarity for a Theravada
nun today. The nuns who have left school before graduating are in a
clear majority.28 Since many aspiring nuns leave high school before they
graduate, and there is often a lapse of some years before they become
26. Communications with Padma Dinapala, Dept. of Buddhist Affairs and
with Ratna Handurukande, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
27. "International News," SakyadhUli 5.2 (Summer 1994): 4.
28. This is clear from the information available on surveys conducted by the
Dept. of Buddhist Affairs as well as from my interviews.
68 nABS 19.1
nuns, it is difficult.for them to become re-integrated into an
institution of education (even if they have access to one).29 How then
might these nuns learn and transmit religious knowledge? What avenues
of learning are open to them? To what extent are their ways of Knowing
and practicing religion defined or restricted by existing norms of how a
Buddhist religieuse would behave? These are some of the questions that
I tried to address in the course of my associations with two hermitages
and their founding nuns.
WAYS OF KNOWING AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES
Traditional education in Theravada Buddhism has clearly come to focus
on the exegesis of religious texts. Such an education, especially when
imparted to large numbers, presupposes a variety of basic facilities and
tools. Most nuns' hermitages today do not have access to these necessary
amenities. As a consequence, nuns have generally departed from these
orthodox patterns of learning and developed their own ways of knowing
and transmitting religious knowledge. In some cases (e. g. where the
government has implemented centers of learning for nuns) nuns may
indeed be receiving a traditional education, however the nuns who ben-
efit are a minority and, as I will demonstrate, this education does not
influence hermitages where the ethos for such an education is
unsupportive.
How nuns, as opposed to monks, are educated impacts not just the
content of their knowledge, but also the social and religious activities in
which they are engaged. While the majority of monks function as teach-
ers and religious practitioners, nuns are more involved in meditative and
social activities. A nun might not be expected to know the details of a
particular'Buddhist text, but in her capacity as a mother figure and as a
woman she might be expected to serve as a counselor to children and
abused women.3
0
She thus has an affinity for lay women and children not
usually shared by monks. Although nuns do not enjoy the same
tional privileges as monks, their first hand experiences as mothers, educa-
tors and meditators have enabled them to transmit religious knowledge
29. One nun spoke of the how taunts she received in school when her school
mates learned of her desire to become a nun led her to leave school sooner
than she otherwise would have. Even continuing her studies as an aspiring
nun had clearly become difficult.
30. This was observed by me during visits to various nunneries. It is also a
claim made by several head nuns with whom I spoke.
SALGADO 69
effectively to women and children. The two pioneering nuns I discuss
have been successful largely because of their individual charisma. These
nuns are atypical in that they are pathfinders, whose successes have
resulted in the establishment of one or more hermitage(s). However,
their efforts typIfy those of most nuns insofar as the support they have
received in the earliest stages of their vocation has not come from well-
organized lay supporters or the state, but rather from lay folk in the
locality.
Religious Education and the Aligorj.a Hermitage
3
!
Uttera Ma1).iyo was in her fifties when I interviewed her along with her
four junior nuns in Aligoq.a in 1985.3
2
She easily commanded the
respect of the nuns under her tutelage and of the lay people she knew
because of her gift for teaching and telling stories. She had expressed a
pronounced inclination to follow the religious life since her early
childhood. Despite her parents' many early protestations, she was
ordained as a nun when she was thirteen. Utter a s early career as
a nun shows that she placed a high priority on education.
33
She moved
from one hermitage to another with the main objective of pursuing her
studies in various schools. Unlike many of the nuns of her generation
with whom I spoke, Utter a M::i1).iyo had graduated from high school
where she told me she had studied the and PaIi. After
graduating, she began teaching and continued to do so for about eight
years in different schools throughout the country and her reputation
spread afar. Her education was similar to that received by monks and
followed orthodox patterns of textual exegesis.
The people of the Aligoq.a neighborhood came to know of her as she
traveled and taught in various parts of the country. They invited her to
come to Aligoq.a to teach and preach, a rather unusual invitation for a
31. Names of places and persons mentioned in regard to the two hermitages I
discuss are not authentic. I have chosen to give these nuns the names of
bhikkhuIJzS found in the Therzgi'ithi:i.
32. Unfortunately, 1985 was the first and last time that I was able to have
good discussions with her. She died unexpectedly within a few weeks of my
second visit to Aligoq.a.
33. Uttera Maniyo would have benefited from universal free education that
was offered at the time.
70 JIABS 19.1
nun to receive.3
4
These lay people claimed that while the temples in the
area provided im adequate education for their sons, there was no similar
provision for an education for their daughters.
It was about twenty-five years ago that Utter a Mfu:riyo accepted the
invitation and came to Aligoq.a. The land where the hermitage was to be
situated had been a family burial ground. This was land that villagers
had considered infested by ghosts and evil spirits. The owners gladly
gave the land to Utter a Mal)iyo and the local villagers contributed
towards the building of a shrine, and living quarters. By her very pres-
ence, she had purified the impurity and evil associated with the former
cemetery. Uttera Mfu:riyo spoke of how, prior to her arrival t h e ~ e , the
viIlagers were terrified of even passing this particular cemetery because
of its associations with malevolent ghosts. Uttera Mfu:riyo began teaching
religious subjects at a nearby high school. While initially unwilling to
become even more involved with her teaching activities, she was eventu-
ally persuaded otherwise by the villagers. Not surprisingly, she was hesi-
tant to do so as she felt that it would detract her from the contemplative
life she had sought. Her first Sunday School class held in 1969 had forty
children. The Sunday School was successful and twenty-five years later,
by the time of my visit in 1985, was being attended by three hundred
girls and boys.35
Uttera Mal!iyo' s mission did not stop with teaching in the local schools
and the Sunday schooL She had founded a hermitage for nuns (no sim-
ple task as I discovered in the course of my field work), was training
junior nuns and had helped establish three branch hermitages that are all
currently managed by nuns who were once trained by her at the Aligoq.a
hermitage. One of these branch hermitages also runs a Sunday School
which has about 200 students.
36
UtteraMal!iyo's ways of transmitting knowledge extended beyond a
providing a formal religious education for women.3 7 She was also
34. Such invitations were especially rare at the time, given the generally low
status attributed to Buddhist nuns, viz., nuns then were considered uneducated
and usually incapable of exercising leadership.
35. About two-thirds of the students here are girls.
36. The branch hermitages are supported entirely by donations given by the
local villagers and relations of the nuns who live there. The Sunday school
and its students are however given some support by the government.
37. What I refer to here is the more established type of training that a present
day bhikkhu or a bhikkhu1}1 of the past might have received. By her example
as a strong role model and a pioneer, she influenced her junior nuns. In the
SALGADO 71
training nuns to manage and run a nunnery, nuns who would be capable
of continuing what she had begun. The daily activities of cooking,
cleaning and sweeping at the hermitage; were according to her, medita-
activities. Additionally, her skillful use of imagery and story-telling
in her discussions of religious ideas (whether taken from texts or from
real life-experiences), enhanced her teaching methods. Uttera Mfu)iyo
was a pioneering nun because she had gone through a formal training and
had used this in addition to alternative ways of knowing and transmitting
knowledge for the benefit of other nuns as well as lay folk. At the time
of our last discussion, Uttera Mal)iyo spoke enthusiastically of her plans
to establish a pirivel}Q near the hermitage. Negotiations with the state
concerning the funding and building plans for the institution were
already under way. However, she died before she could see the comple-
tion of her plans. It is likely that if her plans had reached fruition, the
proposed Aligoqa pirive!la, albeit a grass-roots institution in its origins,
would have provided a traditional education for nuns. This education
would have been similar to that given at the state sponsored classes to
nuns today.
When I last visited the Aligoqa hermitage in 1994 some clearly defin-
able changes had taken place. Although the Sunday school was still
flourishing and attendance had not dropped, the new head nun placed
more emphasis on meditation. The building that was to have become a
pirive!la had instead become a meditation center for lay women. Addi-
tionally' only one of the four junior nuns whom I had formerly known to
be attending daily classes in Buddhism and related subjects was now con-
tinuing her studies. The changes had clearly been a result of Utterii
Mfu)iyo's demise and the attitudes of the new head nun, VimalaMfu)iyo.
When I asked Vimala M fu)iyo about the previous plans for the pirivena,
she conveyed to me that running such an institution would be "too much
trouble." She also did not see any point in formal education itself and
spoke depreciatingly of Citta a junior nun, who stubbornly per-
sisted in pursuing her education. This nun is now attending one of the
government sponsored programs. Two of the four nuns I had known
previously had temporarily left the hermitage to join a meditation center
and help train laity there. One of the two remaining junior nuns had
context of a more established institution of education, the students would sel-
dom have the example of a pioneer to learn from and their education would be
focused on textual religious knowledge, largely to the exclusion of learning
how to found and manage young hermitage.
72 JIABS 19.1
stopped attending classes after completing her preliminary exams in reli-
gion. She found the bus journey too tiring. She also maintained that
someone after all should be present to help with the running of the her-
mitage and to look after the head nun who was elderly and not in the best
of health. In any case, she claimed that education was not as important
as meditation because it was vipassana meditation alone that was neces-
sary for realizing nibbana.
38
She too spoke chastisingly of CittaMal)iyo
indicating that she was not carrying out her responsibilities since she was
"always studying." Citta Mayo informed me that she was awaiting the
result of the second of the three public exams in Oriental Languages.
She was well aware that she lived in a environment that was not support-
ive of her studies, but she intended nevertheless to pursue them. While
agreeing with the other nuns that meditation was soteriologically essen-
tial, she thought that studying was also necessary since it taught one how
to relate to society at large. Moreover, she said, her goal was to "be like
Uttera Mal)iyo."
The account of Utter a Mayo and the Aligo<;la hermitage underscores
certain features concerning the rapidly changing status of nuns' her-
mitages today. 39 It also throws light on attitudes to a traditional Buddhist
education. In the course of my field-work I found that these hermitages
have usually emerged and developed primarily because of the enthusiasm
and efforts of an outstanding pioneering nun.
40
The formal education
that Utter a Mal)iyo gained and imparted to her junior nuns clearly played
an important part in the establishment of a Sunday school (where all the
nuns were teachers.) Today the hermitage continues to be respected and
supported by the locality but its renown is not the same. With the new
importance given to meditation in this remote hermitage, the hermitage
has turneq away from orthodox patterns of learning and has consequently
becomeinore peripheral in the community. As one lay donor put it "in
earlier times, when Uttera Mal)iyo was alive, the long distance buses
38. I have noticed that when asking nuns about studying, there usually is a
very practical reason-in addition to a soteriological one-that they give me
for not wanting to study.
39. Here I refer to the those hermitages where four or more nuns live on a
more or less permanent basis, and also those which have known at least two
generations of nuns. There are many nuns who live alone and it is often the
case that for various reasons, a hermitage having one or more nuns does not
survive for even one generation.
40. Also see E. Nissan, "Recovering Practice: Buddhist Nuns in Sri Lanka,"
South Asia Research 4.1 (May 1984): 42-44.
SALGADO 73
would know of this hermitage. Today they would not know where to
stop if you asked them."
The events leading up to the founding and the growth of the Aligoq.a
heiTnitage preSent an interesting case study in interpretations of modern
Buddhism on the microcosmic level. The present tension between propo-
nents of formal education and those who emphasize meditation partially
represents a change that has been effected by the demise of one head nun
and her replacement by another but could also reflect a tension between
gantha-dhura (the burden of written or oral texts) and vipassana-dhura
(the burden of meditation). In the context of changes in modern Bud-
dhism, this may also be interpreted as a difference between "traditional"
and "reform" Buddhism. 41 This difference in ways of knowing had been
given new meaning in the context of the modern Buddhist revival.
While the renewal of interest in the formal education of Buddhist women
at the government conducted classes for nuns is clearly a part of the Bud-
dhist revival, the proliferation of vipassana meditation centers and the
accompanying disdain for a more formalized education are
also a part of "reform Buddhism."
An investigation of a very different hermitage whose leadership focuses
on cultivating meditation will provide another, more controversial inter-
pretation of Buddhism. The head nun of this hermitage encourages her
junior nuns to practice samatha or concentration meditation. This medi-
tation' unlike the vipassana meditation of "reformist" Buddhists, has for
the meditator, the objective of seeking a better rebirth rather than of real-
izing immediate soteriological goals. For samatha meditators, nibbana
remains a thousand lives away.
Meditation and communications at Delgahawatte
like Utter a was in her mid-fifties when 1 first
stayed at her hermitage in 1984.1 have since visited her thrice in the
past decade. 42 The hermitage has expanded. Attitudes to religious prac-
tices and beliefs among the junior nuns as well as the composition of the
hermitage itself have also changed considerably. story
41. By reform Buddhism I mean the Buddhism that has been closely associ-
ated with the vipassanii meditation movement and reforms. This is the type of
Buddhism, that unlike "traditional Buddhism" encourages all Buddhists to
meditate for the purpose of realizing Nibbiina in the present lifetime. See
Bond, Buddhist Revival 136-173.
42. I stayed at her hermitage in April 1984, October 1985, and August 1994.
I also paid a very brief visit to her hermitage in 1993.
74 JIABS 19.1
presents a good explanation for the initial founding and later attraction
of her hermitage particularly because her experiences were not dissimilar
to those of most of her junior nuns whom I met in 1984. ,
Suman a Mfu:llyB left school before graduating when she was fifteen
years old and had an arranged marriage to a store owner two years
later.
43
Shortly after her marriage, she desired to become a nun. When
SumanaMal)iyB was in her late thirties or early forties she began to go
into trances and hear messages from various supernatural beings.
44
She
would throw crockery on to the floor, chant prayers and engage in con-
versations with invisible persons. She would occasionally lose conscious-
ness and often repeated her intention to leave home and visit a holy place
called Delgahawatte. Her family members, unable to explain her behav-
ior, believed she had gone insane. She eventually left her husband and
family and went alone to De1gahwatte in the early 'seventies. There was
no hermitage for nuns there at that time but she made De1gahawatte her
new home, founded a hermitage, and is based there to this day.
Sumana Mfu:llyB arrived at Delgahawatte, unknown and determined.
She spent her time meditating there while living on alms brought by
charitable lay folk. People who had apparently incurable maladies began
to seek her advice. She was capable of curing them through the use of
herbal concoctions and oils and the recitation of pirit. Her reputation as a
religious healer spread locally. Sumana Mfu).iyo would often diagnose
an illness that she claimed was caused by the spirit of a dead relative
(fiiiti) who wanted the living to perform meritorious actions (pina) that
would then enable the iiiiti to enter a happier rebirth. Sumana Mfu:llyB
continued to live in this manner, meditating and healing others for a
period of about eight years.
In the early 'eighties, Suman a Mfu:llyo eventually acquired some land
on which to build a hermitage. Shrines and separate living quarters for
nuns and laity were constructed. Several lay women with a variety of
illnesses and psycho-somatic disorders continued to seek her for her heal-
ing powers and have stayed at the hermitage itself, some of these
remained there to be ordained. Sumana Mfu).iyo continues to attract laity
43. The information on Sumana Maniyo's story was obtained through dis-
cussions with her as well as with a niece of hers and a relative of her ex-hus-
band. Sumana Maniyo spoke freely of her experiences since she became a
renunciant, but I had to rely on the other informants for information on her
life prior to renunciation.
44. These supernatural beings could include both gods as well as dead rela-
tions (fiati).
SALGADO 75
who have a special relationship with gods and spirits. Although com-
municating with the gods is not considered undesirable in Buddhism,
communicating with and being affected by a dead relative is regarded
differently since this results in the individua1' s physical and emotional
instability, and 'is ultimately detrimental to the cultivation of meditative
practices.
45
At the time of my first visit to Delgahawatte in 1,984, all of
the six junior nuns there had at some time experienced communications
with a filiti and / or deity. Of these six nuns, five had been severely
incapacitated by an illness that was related to these communications. 46
At that time there were also three lay women who were awaiting their
ordination and claimed to receive communications from dead relations.
The nuns and lay women spoke to me wide-eyed and enthusiastically of
these unusual experiences. During my stay with them in 1984, the morn-
ing and evening worship around the Bodhi tree would be fraught with
anticipation since among the participants there would be daily occur-
rences of trances and conversations with supernatural beings. This would
usually happen while pirit was being chanted.
47
By the time of my second visit in 1985 there had been a turnover of
some of the junior nuns. (Three had left). There were five new junior
. nuns, only one of whom had experienced communications with supernat-
ural powers. Three elderly nuns who had joined not only denied any
such communications but they were openly critical of these. They did
not see such communications as an intrinsic or necessary part of Bud-
dhism. In fact, by this time communications with supernatural beings
occurred rarely. When I talked to Suman a Mayo in 1993, she was
proud to tell me that the hermitage was now free of any such "unde-
sirable" communication with the dead.
45. This is the traditional Buddhist interpretation, it is also the interpretation
given by Sumana Maniyo herself.
46. The lives of these nuns and the symptoms of their maladies were very
similar to those of the women described in G. Obeyesekere's, Medusa's Hair
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).
47. Usually Sumana Maniyo would request the spirit to identify itself and
cease taking over the bodies of human beings. She would agree to transfer
merit to the spirit and help it enter a better state. Then she would scold the
spirit for its behavior and demand that it leave. Sometimes two or three spirits
would be talking simultaneously through various nuns. Due to the dramatic
nature of the conversations these sessions often proved entertaining for all
involved.
76 JIABS 19.1
In 1994, there were only five junior nuns staying "permanently"48 at
the hermitage, and as Sumana Mfu:]iyo indicated, none of them have
communications with spirits now. Nevertheless SumanaManiyo contin-
ues to help people who are afflicted with trances and communications
with supernatural beings. When I last visited her in 1994, three major
sessions were held at her hermitage within a period of five days in order
to help a young man overcome an affliction. There were about 35:40 lay
people (mostly friends and relations of the afflicted man) staying at lay
people's quarters by the hermitage.
Ways of knowing and transmitting knowledge at the Delgahawatte
hermitage present an interesting contrast to both the formal education and
the type of meditation that have developed at the Aligoqa hermitage.
Unlike Uttera Maniyo, Sumana Mal)iyo speaks disparagingly of any
provision for a traditional education for nuns since this, according to her,
would detract from what should be the true Buddhist vocation-that of
realizing higher spiritual states through meditation. She actively discour-
ages book learning and none of the junior nuns currently at Delgahawatte
attend classes on Buddhism. 49
Suman a Mfu:]iyo' s ways of knowing come from spiritual powers asso-
ciated with absorption in meditative states that allow her to communicate
directly with the gods. The stories that this nun relates carry with them a
divine authority. This is what Sumana M a ~ i y o claims and this is why
her many lay followers and junior nuns consider her unique. Messages
that come to her from the deities often concern past events that transpired
in the time of Gautama Buddha and these may correct falsities found in
the texts that, according to her, have been changed by monks and are not
always accurate. For her, religious texts were, after all, written by falli-
ble human beings. In addition to explanations of past events, messages
from the deities provide interpretations for crises of both a personal as
well as a communal nature. Hence divine communications have not only
helped Suman a Mfu:]iyo recommend remedies for the sick, but they have
48. It is difficult to determine how permanent "permanently" really means.
Some of the nuns I spoke to in 1994 had been there for 8-10 years. They
expressed no intention of leaving the hermitage. However, it is often the case
that nuns move around from one hermitage to another for various reasons.
49. This has been some cause for frustration among some nuns under her
tutelage. Two of the junior nuns I spoke with in 1985 subsequently left to
pursue their studies elsewhere. One nun who is still there also expressed a
keen desire to study and read. She was obviously unhappy about not being
allowed to do this.
SALGADO 77
also aided her in answering questions concerning the civil strife and
bloodshed endemic in the country in the mid and late 'eighties.
Although Suman a like Vimal a MIU;tiyo, the current head nun
at Alig04a, on meditation, she encourages her nuns to practice
samatha rather than vipassana meditation. It is samatha meditation that
allows for communication with deities. The nuns in this hermitage do
not practice vipassana meditation as it is considered "too difficult."
They do not expect to realize nibbiina in their present lifetime,but hope
to improve their chances of doing so in a future life. Despite the differ-
ent foci of meditative practice in the two hermitages, practitioners of
both seem to agree that meditation is an essential ingredient in the routine
activities performed at the hermitage such as cooking, cleaning etc. This
once again underlines a difference between religious activities performed
by nuns and monks. For the monks, especially those who are attached to
large, well-endowed monasteries where the focus is on textual studies,
the daily business of obtaining food and maintaining the temple etc., is in
the hands of lay people. For these monks, meditation would not be as
closely intertwined with their daily activities in the running of the temple
in the way that it is for the nuns.
WOMEN'S WAYS OF KNOWING: TRANSITIONS IN CONTEXT
This investigation has examined a diversity of Buddhist ways of knowing
and has shown how certain informal ways of knowing are central to the
on-going processes of revival and reform in modern Buddhism. Further,
Bloss's claim that the study of the nuns " ... provides clues to major
changes in Sri Lankan Buddhism and it should be an interesting tool for
analysis of the continuities and changes of Sri Lankan Buddhism in the
future"50 supports the findings of this study. The changes that are clearly
evident in the Alig04a and Delgahawatte hermitages are also intimately
related to how women act as cultural transmitters of religion.
The Alig04a hermitage, which initially attempted to develop a more
traditional form of knowledge by establishing a pirive1}a-type of institu-
tion, eventually turned to focusing on vipassana meditation and thus
modern reformist Buddhism. The tension there between traditional and
reformist Buddhism remains presently unresolved. The Delgahawatte
hermitage, on the other hand, reflects a "neo-traditionalist" orientation.
50. L. Bloss, "The Female Renunciants of Sri Lanka" Journal of the Interna-
tional Association of Buddhist Studies 101 (1987): 28.
78 JIABS 19.1
Neo-traditionalist Buddhism is the Buddhism which emphasizes the g r a d ~
ual path to nibbana and embraces ritualism and devotion to the gods. 51
Although the nuns at Delgahawatte have been criticized by. some for
engaging in communications with spirits, as the process of routinization
takes place, they themselves claim that these communications are unde-
sirable and need to be eradicated.
Some scholars have suggested that the resurgence of Buddhist nuns is a
part of a wider transformation of Theravada Buddhism termed
"Protestant Buddhism." Thus Bloss and Bartholomeusz both indicate that
some of the nuns they discuss follow the Protestant Buddhist model
(Bloss, 14, Bartholomeusz, 12). Although there is some debate as to
what exactly "Protestant Buddhism" is,52 (and I do not wish to explore
the many ways in which it may be defined in this essay), it would not be
inaccurate to incorporate some nunneries, at a certain point in time,
under the Protestant Buddhist umbrella. However, I think it would be
simplistic to identify the apparent resurgence of nuns as a whole with the
development of Protestant Buddhism. Gombrich and Obeyesekere indi-
cate that it is necessary" ... to probe deeper, not into village or Protestant
Buddhism, but the nature of Theravada Buddhism, be it of the village or
reformist variety" (288). This supports my suggestion that a simple cat-
egorization of all nuns ignores the diversity of their roles in the changing
religious scene of Theravada Buddhism today.53
My research suggests that the situation of the nuns who are neither
strictly lay, nor monastic, allows for a variety of ways of learning and
conveying Buddhisms - ways that are both molded by and in turn define
contemporary religious changes. These are also ways that might not have
been expressed by nuns had they not been marginal but rather a part of a
more strictly controlled Sangha. 54 While these marginalized groups evi-
51. Bond, Buddhist Revival 113.
52. J. C. Holt, "Protestant Buddhism?," Religious Studies Review 17.4 (Octo-
ber 1991).
53. I would also venture to indicate that the distinction between "urban" and
"rural" suggested by some scholars as a means of categorizing Buddhists in
general and monks and nuns in particular is not as clear cut as it might seem.
Often a nunnery (while situated in an urban or rural area) includes nuns from
both urban and rural parts of the country. Additionally, the junior nuns in
particular tend to move around from one nunnery to another, thus defying
attempts to identify them permanently with anyone place.
54. In Buddhism Transformed, 45-48, Gombrich and Obeyesekere refer to an
interesting case of an unorthodox monk who communicates with spirits and
SALGADO 79
dently speak to changes in Sri Lankan Buddhism today, it is not incon-
ceivable that such groups existed and functioned similarly in previous
times. Only then, there were no researchers who investigated them and
recorded their stories. 55
helps people who also wish to do so. Such communications are considered
very unusual for a fully ordained monk and are generally frowned upon.
55. While oral and written records themselves might not provide data of pre-
vious and nuns and their hermitages, this does not rule out the possibility of
their presence in earlier times. It is noteworthy that some nuns do not claim
to belong to a lineage but would consider themselves ordained (in the ten pre-
cepts) by a monk or self-ordained. This indicates the possibility that other
similarly ordained nuns might have been present prior to the nineteenth cen-
tury revival of Buddhism when the lineage of nuns is generally thought to
have first been established in Sri Lanka.
GREGORY SCHOPEN
The Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the
Role of the Monk in MUlasarvastivadin Monasticism
The earliest Buddhist inscriptions that have survived do not refer to
monasteries (viham). In fact the numerous monks and nuns who made
donations at SanC! , for example, identify themselves not by reference to
a monastery or Order, but-exactly like lay men and women donors-by
reference to their place of birth or residence. We find for example:
"The gift of the Nun YakhI from Vedisa."
"The gift of the Nun Saghadana from Vaghumata."
"The gift of the Monk Kaboja from Nadinagara."
"The gift of the Elder (thera), the Noble One (aya-) Naga, a monk from
UjenI."l
The wording here-exactly parallel to the wording in the records of lay
donors-would appear to at least suggest that these nuns and monks lived
in villages.2
1. J. Marshall, et aI, The Monuments of Siifichr, vol. 1, (Delhi: 1940) nos.
137, 138, 169 and 303.
2. For something like this pattern in the very early history of Western monas-
ticism see G. E. Gould, "The Life of Antony and the Origins of Christian
Monasticism in Fourth-Century Egypt," Medieval History 1.2 (1991): 3-11;
but see also B. Harvey, Living and Dying in England 1100-1540. The
Monastic Experience (Oxford: 1993) 75-77 who refers to "the old-established
practice of naming a novice after his local village or town" in Benedictine
monasticism (e. g. John Cambridge, Nicholas Salisbury, etc.); on Sri Lankan
usage in regard to monastic names see R. F. Gombrich, Theraviida Buddhism.
A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (London & New
York: 1988) 5. In Indian donative inscriptions, whether referring to monks or
lay persons, it is really impossible to tell whether the toponyms refer to place
of residence or place of birth, though it is usually assumed to be the former.
On the onomasticon of early Buddhist inscriptions in general and its value for
the historian see G. Schopen, "What's in a Name: The Religious Function of
the Early Donative Inscriptions," Unseen Presence: The Buddha and Sanchi,
81
JIABS 19.1 82
But when references to monasteries begin to occur after the beginning
of the Common Era they sometimes seem already to carry hints of what
might be an unexpected form of ownership. Both monastic. seals and
inscriptions, for example, suggest that some early Buddhist monasteries
were at least named after private or particular individual lay persons. A
late 2nd or early 3rd Century sealing from Intwa, near Jugac:lh, is a case
in point. The legend on this sealing reads:
mahara.ja-rudrasena-vihare bhilqu-salJ7.ghasya.
3
Without yet being able to say what the genitive or possessive implies,' this
should probably be rendered:
of the Community of Monks in the Monastery of the Greilt King
Rudrasena," or " ... in the Great King Rudrasena's Monastery.
Likewise in the well-known Wardak Vase Inscription the gift recorded
was made "in Vagramarega's Monastery" or "the Monastery of
Vagramarega" (vagramarig(r)a-viharam(r)i), and Vagramarega here is
certainly the name of a lay person, although, again, we still do not get
any explicit indication of the relationship of the individual to the viham
ed. V. Dehejia (Bombay: 1996) 58-73; and contrast this with Et. Lamotte,
Histoire du bouddhisme indien. Des origines a ['ere taka (Louvain: 1958)
454-55. On the development of the standard viha.ra see G. Schopen, "Doing
Business for the Lord: Lending on Interest and Written Loan Contracts in the
Miilasarva.stiva.da-vinaya," Journal of the American Oriental Society 114
(1994): 527-54; esp. 547-52. It is also worth noting that-as the texts cited in
this paper amply demonstrate-it is becoming increasingly obvious that the
single term viha.ra is used in both texts and inscriptions to refer to what must
have been a wide range of types of buildings that differed enormously in both
size and construction. Though I will here frequently not translate the term
viha.ra, I also frequently use the term "monastery." Since we rarely know
precisely what sort of building a given text is referring to this should be taken'
as nothing more than a convenient gloss. Note that the Vinayavibhanga,
Derge 'dul ba Ca 249b.3 defines vihara in the widest possible way: '''viha.ra'
means: where there is room for the four bodily postures-walking, standing,
sitting and lying down" (gtsug lag khang zhes bya ba ni gang du spyod lam
bzhi po 'chag pa dang / 'greng ba dang / 'dug ba dang / nyal ba dag shong
ba'o). Pa.li Vinaya iv 47.27, for example, offers another definition which,
though different, is no less broad.
3. B. Ch. Chhabra, "Intwa Clay Sealing," Epigraphia Indica 28 (1949-50):
174-75. .
SCHOPEN 83
which is named after him or said to be his. We are not explicitly told in
what sense it might have "belonged" to him.4 But another well known
inscription would seem to make this a little more clear.
The inscription on the Tor Qherai Potsherds begins in the following
way:
shahi-yola-mirasya viharasvamisya deyadharmo yal'f! prapa svakiya-yola-
mira-shahi-vihare sal'f!ghe caturdise acaryanal'f! sarvastivadinal'f! prati-
grahe.
5
"This hall for providing water is the religious gift of the Shahi Yola-Mira,
the Owner of the Monastery, to the Community of the Four Directions, for
the acceptance of the Teachers of the Sarviistiviidin Order, in his own-
Yola-Mi ra, the Shiihi's -monastery."
The gift is made here to the monastic community in "Yola-Mlra, the
Shiibi's monastery" so that once again we have a monastery that is named
after or said-in some sense-to belong to a particular lay man.
6
But
here in addition we are told not only. that the gift was made by the Shllhi
Y ola-MIra himself, but that "the monastery of Y ola-MIra, the Sh iibi" was
his own (svakiya), and that he was the vihiirasviimin. This last term or
title may be particularly significant the discussion of it
has given rise to some red herrings 7-its basic meaning is on one level
seemingly straightforward. B. G. Gokhale, for example, says: "That a
4. S. Konow, Kharoshlhr Inscriptions with the Exceptions of those of Asoka,
Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 2.1 (Calcutta:1929) 165-170, no. LXXXVI.
5. Konow, Kharoshfhr Inscriptions, 173-76, no. XCII; see also S. Konow,
"Note on the Tor :t;>herai Inscriptions," in A. Stein, An Archaeological Tour in
Waziristiin and Northern Baluchistiin, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey
of India 37 (Calcutta:1929) 93-97-for the sake of orthographic simplicity I
have cited the text from the latter.
6. Konow, Kharoslz.thr Inscriptions, 175, says of Yola MIra: "His title shiihi
shows that he was not a private person but a local governor or chief, probably
under KushiiI?-a suzerainty." The Tog 'dul ba Ta 164a.3-
167a.2 = Derge, 'dul ba Tha 108a.6-110aA, has an interesting account of
drinking facilities for passersby, and the origin, location, and rules goveming
"water-houses" (chu'i khang pa) in Miilasarviistiviidin monasteries. In part,
the text says, these facilities grew out of brahmanical concerns for purity.
7. See for example J. F. Fleet, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and
Their Successors, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 3 (Calcutta: 1888) 263 n.7;
272 n.3; 279 n.5; V. V. Vertogradova, "Notes on the Indian Inscriptions from
Kara-Tepe," Summaries of Papers presented by Soviet Scholars to the VIth
World Sanskrit Conference (Mascow: 1984) 160-71; esp. 166; and next note.
"JIABS 19.1 84
person described as vihiirasviimin had control of the vihiira or monastery
is beyond doubt as the second part, sviimin, indicates." 8 And Sircar has
defined the term as " 'the master of a monastery'; the builder-or owner
of a monastery."9 But since in virtually all unambiguous cases the indi-
vidual who has the title viharasviimin or vihiirasviiminz is neither a monk
or nun, but a lay person of some sort, and since the term sviimin cannot
itself mean either "donor" or "builder" and must rather mean "owner,"
"proprietor" or "master," it is difficult to avoid the conclusion-however
jarring-that at least some Buddhist monasteries in India were thought to
be in at least some sense the property of lay men or women. The fact
that we are not used to thinking in these terms probably explains why
most translators of the title vihiirasvamin have preferred the more
ambiguous "master," rather than "owner," in their renderings. "Owner,"
however, may well turn out to be, as we will see, the better translation.
Understood in this way the Tor Qherai inscription would appear, of
course, to be particularly striking evidence for the private ownership of
Buddhist monasteries in India, but it is by no means unique. We have
already seen other evidence, and there are other references to
viharasviimins. There is in fact a wide range of expressions in inscrip-
tions that seems to point in the same direction.
Like the Tor Qherai Inscription, a number of inscriptions from
Mathura record religious gifts made by a donor in his or her "own
monastery." We find it said, for example, that "a Bodhisattva (image)
was set up by Amohaasi, the mother of Budharakhita, together with her
mother and father, in her own monastery (sake vihiire); or that what
Liiders takes to be a group of "merchants" made a gift "in their own
vihara" (s[vaJke vihare); or that Pusyada(ta), the daughter of Gunda, an
owner of a vihara (viharasviimin), also set up an image in "her own
monastery" (svake vih[aJre).10 At Mathura, however, the adjective
8. B. G. Gokhale, "Buddhism in the Gupta Age," Essays on Gupta Culture,
ed. B. L. Smith (Delhi: 1983) 114, though he himself then goes on to suggest
that the vihiirasviimin was a kind of government official in charge of monas-
teries, which is unsupportable and almost certainly incorrect.
9. D. C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary (Delhi: 1966) 371.
10. H. Liiders, Mathurii Inscriptions, ed. K. L. Janert (Gottingen: 1961) nos.
1, 65, 136 (though the readings differ widely Liiders no.136 is almost cer-
tainly the same inscription edited in B. Ch. Chhabra, "Curzon Museum
Inscription of Kanishka's Reign; Year 23," Epigraphia Indica 28 (1949-50):
42-44-the two editions have sometimes been wrongly cited as if they con-
tained two different inscriptions, e. g. M. Njammasch, "Hierarchische Struk-
SCHOPEN 85
svaka, "own," is applied not just to viharas, but to what must have been
smaller units within a monastery as well. We find that a monk named
Nagadatta, for example, set up yet another Bodhisattva image "in the
Monastery in his own shrine" v]ihare svaka[y01J1-
ce]ti[ya]ku.tiya'fl); likewise, that a lay-sister (upasika) named Nagapiya
also set up a Bodhisattva "in her own shrine for the acceptance of the
Teachers of the Dharmaguptaka Order (svakayii cet[i]yaJca.t[i]y[ a]
acaryana dharmagutakana pratigrahe).11
In materials the expression can be even more varied,
although the basic idea seems to remain very much the same. We find
reference to a donor establishing relics "in his own bodhisattva chapel"
(tanuvae bosi( dhi)satva-gahami) in the monastic compound at the
Dharmarajika in Taxila; a seal from Taxila with the legend "of
Mudrasata, in his own Viham" (atavihare mudrasatasa); a donor who
describes himself as the horamurta-which Ltiders says is "a Scythian
word with the same meaning as Skr. danapati"-in "his own vihara
(apanage vihare);12 etc.
There is really nothing very new in all of this. Nearly all these refer-
ences have been noted before by others. But their fuller or more precise
significance may not yet have been recognized. G. Fussman, for exam-
ple, has said recently in regard to the expression svakaya'fl cetiyii-
ku.teya'fl that-when the individual using it is a lay person-"l' expression
peut seulement signifier 'dans Ie sanctuaire qu' elle a fait construire, ou
donne' ."13 M. Njammasch, speaking more broadly, has observed: "Die
Inschriften besUitigen uns die Vermutung, dass der Stifter, der ein
Kloster oder einen Tempel erbauen liess, diesem als eine Art Mazen vor-
stand." 14 Both remarks are undoubtedly true in one way or another; but
neither probably goes far enough. To suggest that the term svaka indi-
cates only that the individual concerned built or donated the shrine or
turen in den buddhistischen Klostem Indiens in der ersten Halfte des ersten
lahrtausends unserer Zeitrechnung," EAZ. Ethnographisch-Archiiologische
ZeitschriJt 11 (1970): 534, 535).
11. Ltiders, Mathurii Inscriptions nos. 157, 150.
12. Konow, Kharosh.thl Inscriptions 77 (no. XXVII); 101 (no. XXXVII.10);
148-50 (no.LXXVI).
13. G. Fussman, "Documents epigraphiques kouchans (V). Buddha et bod-
hisattva dans I'art de mathura: deux bodhisattvas inscrits de l'an 4 et I'an 8,"
Bulletin de l' ecole franr;aise d' extreme-orient 77 (1988): 12.
14. Njammasch, "Hierarchische Strukturen in den buddhistischen Klostem
Indiens" 535.
JIABS 19.1 86
monastery is, again, to ignore what the term etymologically means, and
to avoid the question of who actually owned the shrine or vihiira once it
was built, or who had control of it once it was donated-it ducks the dis-
tinct possibility that "the conveyance of a piece of property into the pos-
session of another did not in-evocably suppress the claims and rights of
former owners"; 15 it ignores the question of the continuing relation-
ship-if any-of the "donor" to that which he or she donated. To say
that the donor or founder continued, once a vihara or shrine had been
built, to superintend or preside over it as a "patron" is better, but it too
avoids the question of actual ownership. .
Part of the problem here must lie in the sources so far used. The
inscriptions we have are undoubtedly records of actual gifts and transac-
tions, but the kinds of things that we would like to know are often pre-
cisely those things they take for granted: they assume an understanding
of phrases like svake vihiire and never explain them. Literary sources, on
the other hand, have not-in so far as I know-been considered germane
to the kind of issues raised by our inscriptions. This may be an oversight.
There are, for example, several passages in the Pali or Mahaviharin
Vinaya which either suggest or assert the private ownership of Buddhist
monasteries. Sometimes these are little more than incidental elements in
a nan-ative dealing with some other matter-and are important for that
very reason. In the Suttavibhaliga there is an interesting case in point.
Here a monk indirectly claims to be an Arhat by saying to a lay brother
(upiisaka): "That monk who lives in your vihara (tuyhalJl vihiire) is an
Arhat." The nan-ator then immediately adds: "But he (the monk him-
self) was living in his (the lay-brother's) vihiira" (so ca tassa vihiire
vasati).16 Both statements are delivered in such a way as to suggest that
it was perfectly natural and in no way unusual to refer to a vihara as
belonging to a lay-brother or to call it "his."
Another text that occurs twice in the Mahaviharin Vinaya as we have
it-once in the Suttavibhanga, and once in the Cullavagga
17
-both con-
firms the fact that the redactors of this Vinaya saw nothing unusual in
describing a monastery or monastic property as being a layman's, and
reveals a little more about what this might have meant:
15. B. H. Rosenwein, To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter. The Social Meaning
of Cluny's Property, 909-1049 (Ithaca and London: 1989) 114.
16. Pilii Vinaya iii 102.5.
17. Pilii Vinaya ii 174.4 and iii 65.38.
SCHOPEN 87
On one occasion, moreover, monks used in another place the bedding and
seats that were articles for use in the monastery of a certain lay-brother.
(tena kho pana samayena bhikkhii afifiatarassa upiisakassa
vihiiraparibhogalfl afifiatra paribhufijanti)
That lay-brother, then, was contemptuous, critical and complained: "How
is it, indeed, that the Reverend Ones will use articles for use in one place
somewhere else?"
They related this matter to the Blessed One. He said: "Monks, an article
for use in one place must not be used somewhere else. Who would use it
thus-that is an offence of wrong doing.
The text here is admittedly ambiguous, though this does not affect the
main point. The text is saying, it seems, either that the monastery
belonged to a certain lay-brother, or that the property "for use" in the
monastery did. In either case the apparent fact of his possession or own-
ership was sufficiently strong to allow him to criticize the monks for
asserting control over it-they took elsewhere what belonged to him or
to his vihiira. At the very least, then, the rights of the monks to
"monastic" property would appear here to have been limited: they could
not do whatever they wanted to with it. But the ability to do quidquid
facere voluerint ("whatever they want to do with it") was in Roman and
Medieval Western law, as in Indian law, the defining characteristic of
absolute possession or ownership.l8 Our Pilli text is confirming that
18. Rosenwein, To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter 111. For India see J. D.
M. Derrett, "The Development of the Concept of Property in India c. A. D.
800-1800," ZeitschriJt for vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 64 (1962): 15-
130, but esp. his discussion of the expression "the
presence of an application at pleasure," at 113ff. The compilers of the Mala-
sarviistiviida-vinaya too apparently already knew a similar conception of pro-
perty according to which individual ownership was characterized by the indi-
vidual's ability to do what he pleased with the property involved. In the
Qvaravastu, GMs iii 2, 124.3 a dying monk promises his property to another
monk saying madfyalfl piitracfvaralfl m.rte mayi tava yathiisukham, "When I
am dead my bowl and robe are yours to treat as you please"; in the
Tog' dul ba Ta 379a.3 the Buddha is made to say that a monk
should accept property "willed" to him by his father, and that when it has been
accepted "it should be used as property in whatever way one wishes," ji ltar
'dod pa bzhin du longs spyod du yongs su spyad par bya'o. (Both these
latter in fact quotes the former-are discussed in some detail in G.
Schopen, "Monastic Law Meets the Real World: A Monk's Continuing Right
to Inherit Family Property in Classical India," History of Religions 35 [1995]:
101-23.) Still within the Indian cultural sphere, but farther afield, see T.
JIABS 19.1 88
ownership of sort at least did not inhere in the monks in regard either
to a monastery of a lay brother or the property "for use" in such a
monastery. And this ruling is given the sanction of the Buddha him-
self. 19
Passages of this sort are perhaps sufficient to indicate that a study of
the conceptions of property in the Pali or Mahaviharin Vinaya might well
be fruitful. Such a study, however, is not undertaken here. Here I
would rather show that there is as well another body of material-and
perhaps a better one-which can provide important data on the concep-
tions and role of property exchanges in Indian monastic Buddhism; here I
would rather give some idea of the range of materials bearing on the
notions of property and ownership to be found in the Mulasarviistivada-
vinaya preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan. It is, though, important to
note that what follows is in no sense intended as an exhaustive or even a
systematic study of these notions in this literature. What follows is only
meant as a hint of what might be discovered there; it is intended only to
give some idea of the complexity of the conceptions of ownership found
in this Vinaya, and to point to the intricate web of on-going relationships
and mutual obligations between monks and laymen that transfers of
property created and sustained.
We might begin with two cases involving the mischievous monk
Upananda. In one case the ownership of a vihiira appears to .inhere in
Upananda himself; in the other the vihiira is said to belong to the Com-
munity; but in both cases there are further complications. Since the texts
dealing with these two cases-and most of the others dealt with below-
Burrow, A Translation of the Documents from Chinese Turkestan
(London: 1940) 90, 127, 136, 137, 143.
19. For interesting passage concerning the ambiguity of owner-
ship in the Pilii Vinaya see the "court case" at iv 223. Here a "shed" or
"stable" (?uddosita) given to the Community of Nuns by a lay brother was
claimed by his heirs after his death and the nuns take the case to "the chief
ministers of justice" ( ... vohiirike mahilmatte pucchilJ'lsu) for adjudication.
(The MUlasarvastivadin "parallel" to this-found at
Derge 'dul ba Ta 123a.5-124a.2-is particularly interesting. It too involves a
"court case," but not in regard to a building. It concerns a nun's attempt to
collect on what appears to be a written, negotiable promissory note (chags
rgya-chags rgya is, moreover, here defined in the following way: chags rgya
zhes bya ba ni bu Zon bda' ba'i dbang rgya'o: "'promissory note' means: a
witnessed marker that calls in a debt"; since this is exactly the same definition
that is given at Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, 779, the former mJlst here be
the latter's source-the definition is cited there simply as "old," rnyin pa).
SCHOPEN 89
are not yet easily available in a western language I will generally trans-
late them in full.
20A certain householder had a vihiira made for Upananda (upananda-
syiinyatamena grhapatinii vihiiraJ:! kiiritaJ:!).21 Upananda did not live there.
He gave space (vastu) to whatever visiting monk came, but he took himself
any acquisition (liibha).
Once an ascetic monk who limited himself to only the three robes
(traiclvarika) came. He saw that that vihiira was empty and he asked:
"Whose vihiira is this?" (kasyiiya'!l vihiiraJ:! iti)
The monks told him: "The Monk Upananda's" (upanandasya
The ascetic monk went and asked Upananda.2
2
Upananda said: "This vihiira? You may live there. But any acquisition is
mine" (prativasa, yo 'tra liibhaJ:! sa mama iti).
20. Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 36.14-37.5; Tog 'dul ba Ga 285b.4-286a.6=
Derge 'dul ba Ga 211a.3-211b.1; cf Vinayasutra 111.2, where the entire text
is condensed into a restatement of its concluding rule: liibhagrahilJo viharasya
sammarjanam, "For he who takes the acquisition there is the cleaning of the
vihara"-Here and throughout when an extended passage from the canonical
Vinaya is cited I cite in the notes the passage corresponding to it in
GUl).aprabha's Vinayasutra. This procedure, it is hoped, will allow the reader
to see something of how the author of this fundamental, but little studied,
Miilasarvllstivlldin handbook used his canonical sources. Moreover these cita-
tions from the Vinayasutra will provide some of the Sanskrit vocabulary for
those canonical passages which I can cite only from their Tibetan version. In
most cases I have attempted translations of these citations from the Vinaya-
sutra, but they are almost all extremely tentative and rough. The only com-
plete published edition of the Sanskrit text of the Satra is-as will be seen-
full of corruptions and conjectural readings, and the Tibetan version, in addi-
tion to not yet being critically edited, frequently and significantly differs from
the available Sanskrit text. The succinctness of expression and their numerous
lexical problems, moreover, make both versions difficult to understand even
when the text seems certain.
21. The Tibetan seems to imply a different text here: nye dgas khyim bdag
Gig gtsug lag khang brtsig tu bcug nas: "When Upananda had caused
(compelled) a householder to build a vihiira"; cf. n.71 below.
22. The Sanskrit here reads simply sa tena gatva yaGitaJ:!, and an inordinate
reliance on pronouns whose referents are not always immediately clear is
characteristic of the style of the Millasarvastivada-vinaya in both Sanskrit and
Tibetan. I have frequently supplied the referents for such pronouns in my
translations.
nABS 19.1 90
The ascetic monk stayed there, but he never cleaned that vihiira, nor
applied fresh cow-dung.
13
Once when he went away from the vihiira
another monk came. He too, having asked Upananda, stayed in that vihiira.
He saw that the vihiira was full of rubbish. He cleaned it, and when he had
thrown the rubbish out and was standing near the rubbish dump still holding
the broom another monk saw him: That monk said: ''Why, Venerable One,
are you standing here still holding the broom? Should you not leave the
broom?"
He responded: "Who, indeed, has stayed here so fastidious about his
hands that he never set foot towards a broom 1"24
The other monk said: "So-and-so, an ascetic monk who limits himself to
the three robes, stayed here. '
When he saw that ascetic monk while going about for alms and
reproached him, the ascetic monk said: "Upananda takes the acquisition.
Why should I clean out his vihiira?" (upanando liibha1'J1 K.rhT}iiti aha1'J1 tasya
vihiira1'J1 sodhayiimi?25) ,
The monks reported this matter to the Blessed One, and the Blessed One
said in regard to this situation: "Whoever takes the acquisition, he must
clean the vihiira (yo liibha1'J1lIrhT}iiti tena iti).
In this passage-which comes from the Sayaniisana-vastu-the simple
genitive is three times used to indicate possession or ownership: first in-
terrogatively in the initial question of the ascetic monk:
vihiira/:t iti, "whose vihiira is this?"; then in the response to that question
by the monks: upanandasya "the monk Upananda's," and in the
23. Applying gomaya as a cleaning agent is frequently referred to in the
Miilasarviistiviida-vinaya but not, I think, in the Plili Vinaya. A careful study
of "bull-shit" in the two vinayas may, therefore, tell us something important
about the geographical and cultural place of origin of these vinayas.
24. The translation here is doubtful. Gnoli prints sa kathayati: ko 'py atra
tena na kadiicit sa1'J1miirjanf padam api dattam iti, but
emends the text at least twice in so doing. The Tibetan has: des smras pa I
'di na lag srung ba 'ga' zhig gnas gnas pa Ita ste I des phyags ma'i rjes kyang
med do I. The tone here is almost certainly sarcastic or ironic and probably
involves a word-play on "hands" and "foot."
25. This is clearly marked in the Tibetan as a question: myed pa ni nye dgas
khyer la de'i gtsug lag khang kho bos phyag bdar bya 'am zhes ... and such
sharp retorts are also characteristic of the earthy, sometimes humorous style of
this Vinaya. See, for another example, Cfvaravastu, GMs iii 2, 123.1, where
the distributor-of-robes tells the attendant of a monk who has died to wash the
latter's robes and the attendant says: tva1'J1 aha1'J1
tvam eva socaya, "You will just distribute these belongings.
Why should I clean them? Clean them yourself!"
SCHOPEN 91
ascetic monk's justification of his inaction: ahaf!l tasya viharaf!l sodh-
ayami, "why should I clean out his vihara?" Notice that nowhere in the
account does the apparent private ownership of a vihara by a monk
receive comment or criticism. It seems to be taken for granted. In fact
the problem for our text does not appear to be the private ownership of a
vihara by a monk, but rather certain abuses that such ownership might
give rise to. This would probably have been clear already to the reader
by the choice of Upananda as the main character: he is in this Vinaya the
stock figure of the scheming monk who is always trying to find an angle
to benefit, and usually enrich, himself.
The problem for our text seems to be that some monks-condensed
into the figure of Upananda-did not live in viharas that they owned but,
while living elsewhere, used or were using them as sources of income.
They allowed other monks to live in their viharas, but they claimed for
themselves any income or property that came to the vihara. This income
or property was called labha. To translate this by "acquisition" is admit-
tedly not elegant, but it has the advantage of signaling that this is com-
monly a technical term in this Vinaya for property that came to an
individual or the vihara over time, that was, quite literally, acquired.2
6
Our text, then-without directly raising the issue of private owner-
ship-seems to have been intended to encourage monks who owned
viharas to live in them. At the very least it says that those who claimed
ownership of any acquisition that came to a vihara must themselves clean
that vihara. But to keep the vihara clean would inevitably require the
regular and active presence there of the monk claiming the acquisitions.
Read in this way what might otherwise seem to be a simple, if not silly
story, turns out to be an attempt to deal with matters of some moment. It
appears to be an attempt to force monks to live in-or themselves prop-
erly maintain-any vihara that they received benefits from. It is perhaps
also worth noting here that a similar tendency towards encouraging or
26. See Clvaravastu, OMs iii 2, 108.16-113.10 for a long and detailed dis-
cussion of the eight kinds of "acquisitions" (labha), and Vinayavibhanga,
Derge 'dul ba Cha 208b.5-211bA for an even more detailed enumeration of
rules goveming the transfer of "acquisitions" intended for one thing or pur-
pose to another. For some idea of the range of things that can fall under the
heading labha see, for example, pali Vinaya iii 266.2: labho nama clvara-
pi1}r;lapata-senasana-gilanapaccayabhesajja-parikkhara antamaso cU1}1}api1}r;lo
pi dantakaHhal'[L pi dasikasuttal'[L pi, "'an acquisition' means: the belongings
-robes, bowls, bedding and seats, medicine for the sick-even a lump of
chunam, a tooth-stick, a bit of thread."
JIABS 19.1 92
reinforcing "stab.ility" can be in the terms of many of the gifts
recorded in the inscriptions from the Western Caves;27 and that the
preoccupation of monks with "acquisitions" (liibha) is a common object
of criticism in many early mahayana sutras.
28
The second case concerning Upananda comes immediately after the
ftrst in the Sayaniisanavastu. Here Upananda does not own the vihiira .in
question, it has only been "assigned" to him. Its actual owner-
ship is ambiguous. Its donor twice refers to it as his; and he retained an
active interest in its condition. The monks refer to it as siir[Lghika, "of or
belonging to the Community."
29The Blessed One had said: "The reward must be assigned in the name
of dead donors!" (abhyatZtakiilagatiiniiTfl diinapatfniim namnii dalqir;ii
itl). The Elder of the Community (saTflghasthavira) was reciting
the verse for the sake of dead donors and a certain householder canle to the
vihiira,. He heard him assigning the reward. He approached the Elder and
said: "Noble One, if I have a vihiira built will you assign a reward in my
name too?"
The Elder said: "Do so! I will duly make the assignment."
When that householder had had a vihiira built he had not given anything
to it. It remained entirely empty. When the householder saw that he went
27. S-ee, for example, E. Senart, "The Inscriptions in the Caves at Karle,"
Epigraphia Indica 7 (1902-03): 57 (no. 13); 64 (no.19); E. Senart, "The
Inscriptions in the Caves at Nasik," Epigraphia Indica 8 (1905-06): 65 (no.
3); 71 (no.4); 73 (no. 5); 78 (no.1O); 82 (no. 12); 88 (no. 15); 90 (no. 17)-
all of which indicate in one way or another that the gifts they record are
intended only for monks who are in residence at a particular vihiira or
monastery.
28. See, for example, A. von Stael-Holstein, The Kiisyapaparivarta. A
Mahiiyiinasutra of the Ratnaku,ta Class (Shanghai: 1926) Sections 2.8; 5.4;
15.2, .6; 22.3; 112.2, .6; 125.2; 126.18; 131.3; L. Finot,
p'rccha. sutra du mahiiyiina (St. Petersburg: 1901) 15.1; 17.4, .5, .10; 19.10,
.14; 31.16; 33.2; 34.4, .11; 35.2, .11, .13, .17; 36.4; etc. Notice too that in a
remarkable passage at the beginning of the Pali Suttavibhaliga (iii 9.20ff), a-
passage that presents both a developmental view of the vinaya and an explicit
enumeration of the "conditions" which worked to create it, the text itself has
the Buddha say, in effect, that certain problems will not arise in the order until
it has accummulated considerable acquisitions (liibhaggamahatta).
29. Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 37.6-38.13; Tog 'dul ba Ga 286a.6-287b.2 =
Derge 'dul ba Ga 211b.1-212a. Here again the whole of this text seems to be
represented in the Vinayasutra by a restatement of the first part of its conc1uij-
ing rule: na prasadaliibhasya vaihiiratvam, 111.2: "In regard to an acquisi-
tion (given) from gratitude, it does not belong to the vihiira."
SCHOPEN 93
to the first vihiira and said to the Elder: "Noble One, my vihiira (madzyo
vihiiraJ:t) remains empty. Not a single monk lives there."
The Elder of the Community said: "Sir, it should be made productive
(utsvedya) !"
The householder said: "But Noble One, it has been built on sterile saline
soil jalJ'lgale kiiritaJ:t). How is it to be made productive?"
"Householder, I did not mean it in that sense (niiham etat sa1J'ldhiiya
kathayiimi), but rather that there is no acquisition (liibha) there.
The householder said: "Noble One, whoever now lives in my vihiira
(idiinz1J'l yo madzye vihiire prativasati), to him I present cloth."
Thinking "an acquisition is obtained," Upananda [got the vihiira assigned
to him],30 but he still lived elsewhere. The vihiira stood empty. When a
mendicant pilgrim monk (anyatamalJ. pi1Jefapiitiko caityiibhivandakalJ.)31
30. The text here is uncertain. Gnoli prints upanandena anupurve1Ja sva-
bhiiga iva udf5.rhltalJ., but this is "ex conject." He says the ms. reads upanan-
dena svagiitryii uddisitalJ.. The Tibetan has: gral rims kyis bab pa na rang gi
skal bar blangs nas, which both here and below seems to presuppose a some-
what different text: where the Sanskrit text has tupanandasya
the Tibetan has dge slong nye dga'i skal bar dbang ngo; where the Sanskrit
has 'ya1J'l vihiiro 'tra the Tibetan has khyod kyi skal ba'i
gtsug lag khang 'dir 'dug go; and where the former reads mamiiya1J'l vihara
the latter has gtsug lag khang 'di kho bo'i skal ba yin gyis. The San-
skrit text, then, uses throughout a form of ud - dis to express the relationship
of Upananda with the vihiira and this is in conformity with monastic proce-
dure elsewhere in this Vinaya; cf. Sayaniisana, Gnoli 35.4, 39.15, 43.4,
53.24ff, etc., where vihiiras or "cells" (layana) are consistently referred to as
"assigned" to monks.
31. Caityavandaka (mchod rten la phyag tshal ba), which I have translated
"pilgrim," is the designation of a specific category of itinerant monk fre-
quently referred to in the Mulasarviistiviida-vinaya; see Sayaniisana, Gnoli
33.26 (where such monks are also described as iigantukas, "visitors,"
"guests"), 49.13 (where such a monk is said to "have come from the country,"
janapadiid . .. iigataJ:t); Carmavastu, GMs i!i 4, 196.9 (where a monk
so designated is explicitly said to "have arrived at SravastI from the South,"
sriivastlm anupriipto); Tog 'dul ba Ka 439b.6
(= Divyavadana 47.26); Sanghabhedavastu, Gnoli i 60.2, 60.27, 91.6, 93.14
(in the last five references the title occurs in what is an interesting editorial
comment inserted into the text; in each case a certain place or stupa is referred
to and then the redactors add: adyiipi caityavandakii vandante, "Even
today pilgrim monks venerate it"-such editorial comments (there are several
other kinds as well) will richly reward careful study). The title also occurs at
E. Waldschmidt, Das Mahiiparinirvii1Jasutra (Berlin: 1951) 41.7, 41.12; and
in two inscriptions from Amaravati; see Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme
indien 580, 582-83, where both are wrongly taken to refer to the Caitika
JIABS 19.1 94
came to SravastI and saw that the vihara was empty he asked the monks:
"Whose vihiira is this?" (kasyaya1Jl vihiiraJ:t iti).
They explained the situation saying: "This vihara belongs to the Com-
munity, but has been assigned to the Monk Upananda" (saTjLghiko 'ya1Jl
vihiiraJ:t ki1Jl tupanandasya iti).
The mendicant monk approached Upananda: "This vihara has been
assigned to you 'ya1Jl vihiiro). May I stay here?"
Upananda said: "You may do so."
The mendicant monk stayed there. He was industrious and not lazy.
Everyday he smeared that vihara with cow-dung and cleaned it. -There are
five blessings in sweeping: one's own mind becomes clear; the mind of
others becomes clear; the gods are delighted; one accumulates roots of merit
which are conducive to that which is attractive; and when one's body is
destroyed, having departed easily, one is reborn in the heavenly world
among the gods.
Those who saw that vihara smeared and swept went to that hQuseholder
and told him about it. When he heard that he was delighted. Then later he
himself went to that vihara and saw that it was indeed well smeared and
swept. He was very grateful (abhiprasanna) and presented that mendicant
with cloth.
Upananda heard about it. He scurried to the vihara and said: "Mendicant,
this vihiira was assigned to me (mamaya1Jl vihiira You must give
me the clothe!"
The mendicant thought to himself: "This monk is by nature acquisitive
(labhatmaka). If I do not give it to him he will most certainly take it by
force and drive me out of the vihara." He handed it over to him.
said in regard to this situation: "When someone is grateful to a person and
gives him a token of his gratitude, that belongs to that person alone (yasya
prasannaJ:t prasannadhikara1Jl karoti tasyaiva sa). But an acquisition con-
nected with the rainy season retreat belongs to Upananda" (upanandasya tu
tabhaJ:t iti).
Certain elements of the first part of this text have already been dealt
with elsewhere.
32
Here we might note the motive our text attributes to
the donor or builder of a vihiira. The donor here is moved to act as a
result of hearing the Elder of the Community reciting a verse and assign-
ing the reward or merit to dead donors. This is apparently what the pre-
sent donor wants as well. He acts-if you will-not so much out of con-
cern for this life as for the next, and the Elder assures him that should he
"sect." For an instance in which lay men are referred to as caityabhivandakas
see Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 33.11 cited below p. 25.
32. Schopen, "Doing Business for the Lord," 545ff.
SCHOPEN 95
have a vihara built this will be done for him too. The recitation of
verses for the benefit of donors was apparently a regular part of a
MUlasarvlistivadin monastic community's activity. It was apparently not
only a public event-the householder heard it being done when he went
to the vihara-but at least one text indicates that it was done daily as a
part of the regular round of monastic chores. The text in question now
forms a part of the and describes "the rules of customary
behavior for monks who have been given a penance" (bslab pa byin pa'i
dge slang gi kun tu spyad pa'i chas). The activities of such a monk are
severely restricted-he cannot accept any form of greeting or salutation
from monks in good standing, cannot sit with them, etc.-but he must
also perform the daily round of chores and rituals:
33Having risen early in the morning he must open the door. The lamp-
pots are to be cleaned. The vihlira must be watered down, swept and
smeared with fresh cow-dung. The latrine is to be swept, and earth and
leafs and cold or hot water-depending on the season-are to be provided.
The openings of the drains must be cleaned ...
And:
When it is time to assemble he must arrange the bedding and seats and set
out the incense and censer. He must recite the Qualities of the Teacher (stan
pa'i yan tan bsgrags par bya
34
). He must announce the date saying:
33. Tog 'dul ba Ta 156b.1-157b.4 = Derge 'dul ba Tha 103b.
1-104a.5; cf Vinayasiitra cited in n.35.
34. The Sanskrit that stan pa'i yon tan bsgrags par bya is translating is vir-
tually certain because of a close parallel for this passage in the Plirivlisika-
vastu, GMs iii 3, 97.17: sacet pratibala bhavati slistur gU1Jasa7Jlkfrtana7Jl
kartum svayam eva kartavyam . naced bhia1JakaJ:t "If he is able to
perform the Proclamation of the Qualities of the Teacher he himself should do
it. If he is not able, a reciter is to be asked." In the Tibetan translation of the
Plirivlisikavastu (Tog 'dul ba Ga 241.lff) slistur gU1Jasa7Jlkirtana7Jl is
translated by stan pa'i yan tan bsgrag par, which corresponds exactly to what
we fmd in our passage. When slistur gUTJasa7Jlkfrtana7Jl occurs
a little later in the same passage the Tibetan renders it stan pa'i yon tan yang
dag par bsgrags pa. Unfortunately I do not know whether the "Proclamation
of the Qualities of the Teacher" involved a specific text, and if so, what that
text might be. That it involved a ritualized recitation is, however, almost cer-
tain. Sylvain Levi, in what remains a remarkable piece of scholarship, cited-
among a wealth of other texts - a passage from the Chinese translation of the
JIABS 19.1 96
"Reverend Ones, may the Community hear! Today is the first day of the
winter month.' The verse for the benefit of the Owner of the Vihiira
(vihiirasviimin), and for the gods of the vihiira, must be recited." But if he
is not able to do it he must entrust it to a monk! (dge 'dun btsun pa rnams
gsan du gsol / deng dge 'dun gyi tshes gcig lags te / gtsug lag khang gi bdag
po dang / gtsug lag khang gi lha mams kyi don du tshigs su bead pa gsungs
shig ees nyi ma brjod par bya / ci ste mi nus na dge slong la beol bar
bya'ol)
Although here the announcement of the day and the call to recite the
verse for the Owner of the Vihiim are made by a monk undergoing a
penance, it appears from the closely parallel passage in the Piirivtisika-
vastu preserved in Sanskrit that this was otherwise done by the Upa-
dhiviirika, the Provost or monk in charge of physical properties in a
monastery:
The day must be announced: "Reverend Ones, may the Community hear!
Today is the 10th of the half-month"-and so on in the same way as the
monks in charge of physical properties announce it" (divasa /
Miilasarviistiviida-vinaya in which the Buddha is made to say that only two
things are to be recited with "the intonations of a chant": "II y a exactement
deux choses qu'on fait avec des intonations de cantilene: I celebrer les vertus
du Grand Maitre; 2 reciter Ie livre sacre des Trois Ouvertures" (S. Levi, "La
recitation primitive des textes bouddhiques," Journal Asiatique [1915]: 432).
The Tibetan version of this text is found at Tog' dul ba 67b.3-
69a.3 = Derge Tha 45b.6-46b.5, and the passage in question reads: 'di ltar
ston pa'i yon tan yang dag par bsgrag pa dang / rgyud chags gsum pa gdon
pa dag ni skad kyi gtang rag gis gdon par bya'o. Given the correspondences
already established it is virtually certain that Levi's "celebrer les vertus du
Grand Maitre" is the same as the siistur gU1J-asa1!lklrtana1Jl kartum of the
Piiriviisikavastu (his "Ie livre sacre des Trois Ouvertures" corresponds to what
in Sanskrit is called the Trida1J-rjaka, on which see G. Schopen, "On Avoiding
Ghosts and Social Censure: Monastic Funerals in the Miilasarviistiviida-'
vinaya," Journal of Indian Philosophy 20 (1992): 32-34, n.62; and, indepen-
dently, H. Hu-von Hintiber, Das Vorschriftenfiir die buddhi-
stisehe Beichtfeier im Vinaya der Miilasarviistiviidins (Reinbek: 1994) 209-
10).-For the corresponding passage to Piiriviisikavastu, GMs iii 3, 97.17 in
the Vinayasiitra, see 104.28ff which also refers to siistur gU1J-asa1Jlklrtana; and
for what appears to be the corresponding passage to Tog' dul
ba 67b.3-69a.3 see Vinayasiitra 55.10: kuryiit Siist,r-gu1J-asa1Jlklrttane
trida1J-rjakadiine ca svaraguptim, and Derge, bstan 'gyur, Wu 43b.7 where
svaragupti is translated by dbyangs kyi nga roo
SCHOPEN fJ7
s.T1J.0tu bhadantaJ:z sa7J'tghaJ:z / adya dasamlty evamadi yatha upa-
dhivarika arocayantil).35
The Sayaniisanavastu, the and the Vinayasutra all refer
to a formally announced ritual recitation of verses. The fact that the first
says that it is done for deceased danapatis or donors, while the second
two say it is for the viharasvamin or Owner of the Vihara, would seem to
suggest, if all are referring to the same activity, the additional fact that
the two titles-danapati and viharasvamin-could be used interchange-
ably, or that the two titles could be carried by the same person.
Viharasvamin, of course, is the title we have already met in inscriptions,
and will meet again in our Vinaya.
It is also incidentally worth noting that our text suggests that a vihara,
to be inhabitable, must carry benefits or "be made productive"; and that
the terms of the donor's grant of cloth appear once again to have been
designed to encourage "stability" or continued residence in a vihara: the
fIrst grant of cloth is not to the monastery, but to he who lives in it. The
35. Parivasikavastu, GMs iii 3, 98.7, and preceding note. Upadhivarika,
"The Provost or monk in charge of physical properties," is one of the numer-
ous monastic administrative titles which have yet to be closely studied. The
upadhivarika sometimes appears as a monk of some status, and sometimes
almost as a janitor; see GMs iii 1, 249.8; Clvaravastu, GMs iii
2, 146.15; Tog 'dul ba Ta 242a.I-243a.2 = Derge 'dul ba Tha
159b.3-160a.6 (cited below); Vinayavibhanga, Derge 'dul ba Ca 103b.4ff;
152b.lff; etc.; and also Vinayasatra 115.3ff; 119.1-.10. It will have been
noticed that in explicit regru;d to the reciting of the verse and assigning the
reward to dead donors the Sayanasanavastu says this was done not by the
upadhivarika, but by the sa7fLghasthavira or "Elder of the Community," and at
least the assigning of the reward is also elsewhere said to be the responsibility
of the sa7fLghasthavira (see GMs iii 4, 80.8-.12). But a passage
in the Vinayasatra-which if not drawn from the is based on a
text remarkably close to it-again attributes these activities to the upadhi-
varika; upadhivarikena tata agamyarocana7fL samghe / /
bhedena / viharasvamidevatarthafi ca niyogasya
vaca-nam / anantaram / adya pratipad viharasvamino vihara-
devatana7fL carthaya gathii7fL iti (76.14-.20): "By the monk in
charge of physical properties then, when it is determined, there is the an-
nouncing to the Community of the particulars, of the time of the month, (and)
the declaration of the duty of the monks in regard to the recitation of verses
for the benefIt of the Owner and the gods of the vihara. To wit: 'Today is
the fIrst day of the bright half of the fortnight. You must recite the verses for
the benefIt of the Owner of the vihara and for the gods of the vihara!'"
nABs 19.1 98
second gift of cloth is equally interesting. It is made out of personal
gratitude-not out of obligation nor as a part of the regular benefits
attached to the monastery-and it is made to a specific individual, not to
anyone who resides in the monastery. The text, moreover, explicitly says
that this sort of gift "belongs to that person alone." It is the private
property of the monk involved and forms thus-along with inheritance
of family property-a part of the private wealth that the Milla-
sarvastivada-vinaya allows monks to have.
36
Such a gift, made as a token
of personal gratitude, also tells us something important about a donor's
relationship to his vihara.
Our text uses the expression prasannadhikara1[l karoti which
I have understood here, in light of two instances of its use in a text from
the Miilasarvastivadin Vinayavibhanga now preserved in Sanskrit in the
Divyavadana, to mean something like: "being grateful he gives a token
of his gratitude." The Vibhanga text
3
? concerns a boy who, as a result of
seeing the Wheel of Rebirth with its five possible destinations painted on
the porch of the VeI,1uvana monastery (sa vayasyakena sardha1[l
veJ}uvana1[l gato vihiIra1[l pasyati
paficagaJ}aka1[l cakram abhilikhitam), is determined to be reborn in
heaven. Told by a monk that he can achieve this by feeding the Buddha
and his monks, but lacking the means to do so, he hires himself out to a
householder who is building a house. Because of his ability to keep the
other laborers at their work-he tells great stories-twice the work usu-
ally done in a day is finished. As a consequence the, householder starts to
give the boy twice his promised wage and the boy asks why he is giving
him two days wages. The householder says: putra na dvidaivasika1[l
dadamy api tu prasanno 'har[! prasannadhikara1[l karomfti. Edgerton
suggests that prasannadhikara means here "service tendered by one who
36. See, Tog 'dul ba Ta 377a.2-379aA = Derge 'dul ba Tha
252b.3-254a.1; cf Schopen, "Monastic Law Meets the Real World," 11 Off.
37. For the Sanskrit text see Divyavadiina 298.24-311.10; for the Tibetan,
Vinayavibhanga, Derge 'dul ba Ja 113b.3-122a.7; the first part of this text
has been translated from the Chinese version of the Miilasarvastivada-vinaya
in J. Przyluski, "La roue de la vie a ajal).!a," Journal Asiatique (1920): 314-19;
on the identification of Divyiivadana 298.14ff with the Vihhmiga text see S.
Levi, "Les elements de formation du divyavadana," T'oung Pao 8 (1907): 105
-22; esp. 107; on the relationship of the Divyavadana and the Miila-
sarvastiviida-vinaya see, more recently, H. Satoshi, "The Relation between the
Divyavadana and the Miilasarvastivada-vinaya. The Case of Divyavadana
Chapter 31," Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyii 49.2 (1991): 1038-1036.
SCHOPEN 99
is kindly disposed, i. e. service of friendship,"38 but this seems to be a
little off. The householder is not tendering a "service" but making a gift,
and not from friendship but from gratitude for a service done for him.
He is, then, perhaps more precisely saying: "Son, I am not giving two
days wages, bui I, being grateful, am giving a token of my gratitude."
Later in the same story the boy gives food left over from the meal
intended for the Buddha and his monks to a group of merchants. They
are described as abhiprasanna, which here certainly cannot mean "believ-
ing in" and must mean something more than Edgerton's "favorably
disposed." They are more accurately "pleased" or "moved" or"grateful"
for a service done for them. The boy had given them food when they
were unable to buy any in Rajagrha because it was a holiday (riijag,rhe ca
parva pratyupasthitam iti na ki7JZcit krayer;.iipi labhyate-some things
never change!). The merchants gave the boy a heap of jewels, but the
boy initially refuses it saying that he does not give for a price (na may ii
millyena dattam iti). The merchants respond by saying they are not
paying him for the food ki7JZtu vayam taviibhiprasanniif:t prasanniidhi-
kiira7JZ kurmaf:t, which again would seem to mean, "but we, being very
grate<ful to you, are giving a token of our gratitude."39
In these two passages the meaning of prasanniidhikiira seems to be un-
usually clear. Both take some pains to point out that a prasanniidhikiira
is neither a wage nor a payment. And both indicate that it is something
given in response to action that personally benefits or affects the giver.
It is hard to imagine that its sense is any different in our passage from the
Sayaniisanavastu. This would then mean, however, that something done
for a vihiira was thought to personally benefit its diinapati or donor, that
vihiira and donor remained intimately linked, and that the interests-
however defined-of the latter in the former continued over time.
Defining precisely the interests of the donor in the vihiira described in
the Sayaniisanavastu is, at this stage, still difficult. In the monks'
response to the direct question "whose vihiira is this?" the text has them
say: "this vihiira belongs to the Community (sii7JZghika). But when the
donor speaks he twice refers to it as "my vihiira" (madzyo vihiiro). The
use of the form madzya, rather than the usual genitive of the first person
pronoun, would seem to want to emphasize the fact of his ownership.
38. F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (New Haven: 1953) s.
v. adhikiira.
39. Abhiprasanna is sometimes better rendered by "very pleased," "gratified,"
or-and perhaps even here-when it involves a reaction to fine, beautiful or
expensive things, "greatly affected"; cf. the text cited below, p. 25.
JIABS 19.1 100
Moreover, our text also implies that even if the Community in some
sense owns the vihara, it does not hold it outright or without obligation.
If actually given, the gift of the vihara was made on the understanding
that at least a recitation of verses and an assigning of merit would be
performed for the donor, and it appears that this was both a daily obliga-
tion and that the obligation continued even after the death of the dOI).or.
This arrangement looks more and more less like a gift than an exchange
of mutual benefits.
The same language of possession occurs elsewhere in the Miila-
sarviistiviida-vinaya in a variety of other contexts as well. Three further
examples must suffice. In yet another passage from the SayaniiSana-
vastu,40 for example, it is said that a householder had built two vihiiras
and that it was his "usual practice" (iiearita) to distribute cloth to each of
the monks who had entered the rainy season retreat in them. When he
went to one of the vihiiras to do so Upananda had arranged for Nanda,
another monk, to get a share for him there, while he ran off to the second
vihara to get a second share at that vihara as well. The following
exchange occurred:
Nanda held out his hand. The householder gave him cloth.
He held it out again.
The householder said: "Noble One, you have been given cloth. Why do
you hold out your hand again?"
Nanda said: "Householder, Upananda has entered into the rainy season
retreat in your vihiira (tava vihiire). I seek something that he can have?"
The householder, of course, does not give it to him, ironically citing the
Buddha's authority to a monk: "Noble One, the Blessed One has praised
giving with one's own hand. So with my own hand I will give."41 Here
the persoh who built the vihiira is the same person who also regularly
distributes cloth there during the rainy season. And the Monk Nanda, at
least, refers to the vihiira as that person's.
40. Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 40.13-41.6; Tog 'dul ba Ga 289a.4-290a.l =
Derge 'dul ba Ga 213a.7-213b.7.
41. svahastena bhagavata [rd:-tii} diinarrz prasastam svahastenaiva diisyiimi
iti; the same statement also occurs elsewhere, e. g. Tog 'dul ba
Ta 64a.6 = Derge 'dul ba Tha 43b.3: beom ldan 'das kyis rang lag nas dbul
ba bsngags pas / rang gi lag nyid nas dbul gyis ...
SCHOPEN 101
There is-as a second example-yet another interesting passage from
the Vinayavibhanga.
42
Here, when vihiiras in Vaisall fall into disrepair
the donors (sbyin bdag dag. diinapati) are said to have made the follow-
ing observation and determination:
IT even the vihiiras of we who are still living, abiding, continuing and
alive fall into ruin like this, how will it be for the vihiiras of those who are
dead? We should give a perpetuity to the Community for building purposes
(bdag cag gson zhing 'dug ste / 'tsho zhing sdod pa rnams kyi gtsug lag
khang dag kyang 'di ltar 'jig na shi ba rnams kyi ji ltar 'gyur / bdag cag gis
mkhar len gyi rgyur dge 'dun la mi zad pa dbul bar bya'o . .. )
Here again lay donors are presented as thinking of the vihiiras in question
as their own. There are vihiiras of donors who are still living, and
vihiiras of those who are dead, but none of the vihiiras are said to belong
to the Community. The sense of ownership here seems in addition. to
have created specific obligations. The donors themselves determine that
they should provide the financial resources for the future maintenance of
their vihiiras. Both their interest and their obligation are very long term,
and to service both they provide permanent endowments.
The last example of the language of possession to be cited here is also,
perhaps, the strongest, and comes again from the Vinayavibhanga:
430nce when one householder had two vihiiras, a forest-vihiira and a vil-
lage-vihiira (khyim bdag gcig la gtsug lag khang dgon pa dang / grong
mtha' pa gnyis yod nas), there was an abundance of bedding and seats in his
(de'i) village-vihiira, but in the forest-vihiira there were very few. On one
occasion when there was a festival (dus ston) in the vihiira in the forest the
forest-monks were going to borrow (g-yar ba) bedding and seats from the
village-vihiira, but the village-monks would not let them.
The Blessed One said: "They must be lent! (brnyan par bya' 0). If there
is rain or the threat of rain they must not be lent!"
While on the way they were spoiled by wind and rain.
The Blessed One said: "They should be piled under a large tree or near a
wall and covered with something!"
The monks covered them with something good.
The Blessed One said: "They should be covered with things of little
value!"
42. Vinayavibhaitga, Derge 'dul ba Cha 154b.3ff; this text is discussed in
some detail in Schopen, "Doing Business for the Lord," 527ff; and the corre-
sponding passage from the Vinayasiitra is also treated there, 541ff.
43. Vinayavibhaitga, Derge 'du1 ba Ja 15a.3-15b.1.
JIABS 19.1 102
When the festival had ended the monks thought: "This vihiira too belongs
to that householder" (gtsug Zag khang 'di yang khyim bdag de'i yin no
snyam nas), and did not give them back.
The Blessed One said: "They must be brought back with forcel" (mthus
dgug par bya'o).44
The monks did not know which was which.
The Blessed One said: "Write on them 'this bedding and seat belong to
the forest-vihiira of the householder so-and-so,' 'this belongs to the village-
monastery' (gnas mal 'di ni khyim bdag cha ga ma zhig gi dgon pa'i gtsug
lag khang gi yin no / 'di ni grong mtha'i gtsug lag khang gi yin no zhes yi
ge bri zhing45), and as the bedding and seats are clearly identified, so they
are to be used!"
The references here to the lay possession of vihiiras can hardly be
called casual. In fact the entire purpose of the text is to deal with a sit-
uation in which a lay man has not one, but two vihiiras, and the relation-
ship of the lay man to the vihiiras is expressed in a variety of ways.
44. Though this seems fairly strong talk it is hard to interpret otherwise since
mthus here almost certainly is translating something like baliit, as it does at
Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 38.9 cited above 14. What I have there translated as
"will take it by force" is in Sanskrit baliit and this is rendered into
Tibetan as mthus khyer nas. Moreover, what appears to be the corresponding
passage in the Vinayasutra has baliid adiine grahalJam (mi ster na mthus
gzhung bar bya' 0): "In regard to what was not given, it is to be taken (back)
by force."
45. I have taken cha ga ma to be the same as, or intended for che ge mo
(=amuka). For the Vinayavibhaitga I unfortunately have access only to the
Taipei reprint of the Derge, but the Vinayasiitra, cited below, also seems to
suggest an intended che ge mo. If I am correct, the rules generated by this
Vinayavibhaitga text are treated in two widely separated places in the
Vinayasiitra. First at Vinayasutra 36.3-.5 (=Derge Tanjur 'dul ba Wu 28b.6-
.7) where we find: diisyatvam apratilambhane / diinatve 'pi grhapater
niyater abhaitgaf:t / baliid adiine grahalJam / dadyur yiicitakatvena 1 (mi ster
na de dag gis sbyin par bya ba nyid yin no / khyim bdag de nyid yin yang nges
pa la gzhig pa med do / mi ster na mthus gzhung bar bya' 0/ g-yar po nyid du
sbyin par bya'o I. Then at Vinayasutra 119.1-.2 (=Derge Tanjur 'dul ba Wu
98b.3): nimittakara1)am /siirp.ghike niimnaf:t sayaniisane lekhanam /
deyadharmo 'yam amukasyedarp. niimni vihiira iti (mtshan ma byas pa nyid la
nyes ba med do / dge 'dun gyi gnas malla ming yi ger bri'o / 'di ni che ge
mo'i gtsug lag khang ming 'di zhes bya ba'i sbyin par bya ba'i chos so zhes
sol). Enough is clear in these two passages to make it fairly sure that both are
related to, or based on, our Vibhaitga text, but enough is not so clear that I, at
least, do not have the confidence to attempt a translation of either.
SCHOPEN 103
Strictly speaking Tibetan has no verb corresponding to the English
"have," but it commonly expresses the notion of "to have"-as it does in
the opening clause of our text-by the construction: "subject" + la par-
ticle + thing or things + the existential verb "to be," yod. The force of
the construction" is clear from some examples in our grammars. Hahn,
for example, gives rgyal po de la sras gsum mnga' 0 (respect form for
yod pa): "Fur jenen Konig sind drei Sohne da; jener Konig hat drei
Sohne"; Bacot, bdag la dam pa'i chos yod do, "J'ai le bonne Loi," or mi
'di la pha ma yod, "Cet homme a ses parents." 46 It therefore expresses
possession in the broadest possible sense. In addition to this, the village
vihiira is said to be "his," using the genitive of the pronoun (de'i), and,
using yet another common construction, the forest-vihara is said "to
belong" to him (khyim bdag de'i yin no).
But perhaps the most interesting statement of ownership in the text is
the last one. The Buddha rules that the property of a vihara should be
labelled, but not-be it noted-by writing on it "this is the property of
the Community," or something like that. It is, rather, to be identified as
belonging to the vihara of the householder so-and-so. If nothing else,
the generic nature of this formula-it is essentially a form in which the
blank "so-and-so" is to be filled in with an actual name-points to how
common it might have been that a vihara belonged to householders.
There is at least one other text that might suggest that all viharas did.
The account in the of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya
which describes the conditions under which the Buddha ruled that monks
should use the kind of seals that have been recovered from a number of
monastic sites in India, and which we have already referred to, starts-
like the last part of our Vibhmiga text-with a confusion over property:
47In the vihara thieves stoled from the Community's strong room and
from the individuals' cells. Moreover, when what belonged to other monks
was mislaid, having mislaid their belongings, they did not know what they
had received. The monks reported this matter to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "Since it is henceforth authorized, a seal should be
carried!"
46. M. Hahn, Lehrbuch der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache (Bonn:
1985) 84 (114.b); J. Bacot, Grammaire du tibitain litteraire (Paris: 1948) t.Il,
102, s. v. yod pa.
47. Tog 'du1 ba Ta lla.2-11b.6 = Derge 'du1 ba Tha 7h.6-
8a.7.
"JIABS 19.1 104
(gtsug lag khang du ma byin par len pa rnams kyis / dge 'dun gyi mdzod
dang / gang zag "gis [rd: gil gnas khang dag nas brkus so / dge slang gzhan
dag cig gi yang star na / bdag eag gi star nas ji tsam lon pa ma tshor ro /
skabs de dge slang rnams kyis / beam ldan 'das la gsol ba dan / beam ldan
'das kyis bka' stsal pa / de lta bas na gnang gis / rgya beang bar bya' 01)
But once allowed to have seals the group of six had lewd scenes engraved
on them-"a man and woman having sex." In response to lay criticism
of such seals, the Buddha is then made to say:
There are two sorts of seals, those of the Community (dge 'dun gyi)
and those of the individual (gang zag gi). For the seal of a COrnrllU-
nity, when a wheel has been engraved in the middle, on each side of it a
deer should be engraved, and below this the name of the Owner of the
Vihara ('og tu gtsug lag khang gi bdag po'i ming bri bar bya'0).48
This passage would seem to suggest that the name found on a seal like
that from In!wa discussed above is the name of the viharasvamin, even if
that title is not actually used. More importantly, it is obvious that the
instructions given in our text were intended to be general, that they were
meant to apply to all MUlasarvastivadin monasteries. But since this
would mean that the seals of all monasteries should have below the wheel
and deer the name of the viharasvamin, this would in tum strongly sug-
gest that the redactors of this text assumed that every monastery had a
viharasvamin. And it is worth repeating that in both inscriptions and
texts the viharasvamin is-in all unambiguous cases-a lay person.
It would seem, then, that the evidence cited so far for the lay owner-
ship of Buddhist monasteries in India is strong, if not yet specific: we
have yet to see in what sense or senses we are to understand that
"ownership," or what specific legal rights that ownership entailed. Of
course, the fact that specifics are hard to come by might itself be signifi-
cant. It, and the pervasive use of the language of possession as if it were
perfectly straight-forward and unproblematic, may suggest that such"
ownership and its attendant rights were assumed to be so well known and
48. Cf. Vinayasiitra 54.25: dharayet mudriin ... cihna1!l sii1!lghikiiyii1!l ma-
dhye eakra1!l piirSvayor m.rgiiv adhstiid viharasviimino niima: "They should
keep (or wear) seals ... The insignia on a Community's (seal should be) a
wheel in the middle with a deer on each side (of it); beneath it the name of the
owner of the monastery."
SCHOPEN 105
understood that they did not require explanation.
49
There are, however,
some texts in which the nature of that ownership and at least some of its
attendant rights are more explicitly stated. Although there are undoubt-
edly others, I limit myself here to two examples. The first comes again
from the SayanCisanavastu:
50When the householder had covered the grove with ten
million (ko.tf) and had bought it from Prince Jeta and presented it (niryiitita)
to the Community of Monks headed by the Buddha, then pious pilgrims
various places (niiniide.saniviisina/:! sriiddhiis caityiibhivandakii) came
to SravastI.
51
Some of them were greatly affected (abhiprasanna) and said:
"Noble One, we too would have a site built here in the Jetavana for the
Noble Community" (iirya vayam apy iiryasa/pghiiya jetavane ki"lpcid vastu
kiirayema itO.
The monks said: "When you have bought the land for a price (mulyena
bhumilJ'l krztvii) you may do so."
"Noble Ones, for what price is it given?" (kiyatii mulyena dfyate)
"For so much gold" (iyatii hira/Jyena)
"Noble One, where are we going to get that much? But if we get a place
on this spot we are going to have it built on (iirya kuto 'smiikam etiivad
bhavati; tathiipi tu yady etasmin prade.se labhiimahe karayiima iti).
The monks reported this matter to the Blessed One.
49. Cf. the remarks in N. Hunt, Cluny under Saint Hugh. 1049-1109
(London: 1967) 166, in regard to monastic donors in 11th and 12th Century
France: "Some donors liked to retain the advocatio or defensio, whereby they
remained the lawful protectors of their monasteries, especially in temporals
and against other lay interference. Their rights, regarded by contemporaries
as natural to the owner or founder of a monastery, were nowhere clearly
defined." Notice how the terms "donor," "founder" and "owner" are used in
this quotation. Such usage points to the same sort of fluidity and overlapping
of titles and statuses that occur in our texts where the "founder" or "donor"
also appears to be the "owner." In a situation of this sort the term "donor"
is-like the term "monastery"; see n.2 above-only a convenient gloss for a
much, more complicated status, and is used as such throughout this paper.
50. Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 33.9-.25; Tog 'dul ba Ga 283a.4-283b.4 = Derge
Ga 209a.7-209b.5; for the Vinayasutra see below n.53.
51. Here the title caityiibhivandaka appears to be applied to laymen; see n.31
above.
JIABS 19.1 106
The Blessed One said: "The householder must be asked for permission!
(grhapatir avalokayitavyal:t). If he authorizes it (anujiinfte), it should be
built. 52
The monks asked the householder
aniithapilyjado grhapatir avaZokitafl).
He said: "I authorize pious brahmins and householders to do a meritori-
ous work that depends on me for the sake of the Community. I do not
authorize doing it for the sake of an individual (sa kathayati. miim iigamya
sriiddhii briihmalJagrhapatayaJ:! saf!!ghasyiirthiiya pUlJyakriyiivastu kurvanti
anujiiniimi; pudgaZasya kurvanti nanujiiniimiiti).
said: "Therefore, I authorize (anujiiniimi) that it is to be built for the sake of
the Community. When it is for the sake of an individual the donor must be
asked for permission (diinapatir avaZokayitavyaJ:!). If he authorizes
(anujanfte) it it is to be built. If he does not authorize it it is not to be
built.
53
Although they do not affect the main point of the passage, some ele-
ments of the language here are difficult to render smoothly and certainly
into English. The pious pilgrims, for example, say vastu kiirayema.
Vastu here is almost certainly used for what in Classical Sanskrit is more
commonly spelt viistu. Edgerton defines vastu as "site" or "place," giv-
ing as examples the site on which a hut stands or a city is to be built. But
vastu itself also can mean "building" -as in ViistuSiistra, "the science of
architecture"-or "a building." In his translation of the Arthasiistra
Kangle translates viistu as "a building site" and as "immovable property,"
and the text itself includes "a house, a field, a park, an embankment, a
tank or a reservoir" under the term.
54
It is, of course, difficult to get all
of this into a translation, but it is clear that the pious pilgrims want both
52. Except when translating the phrase pUlJyakriyavastu kurvanti immediately
below the Tibetan consistently translates forms of k.r- in our text by forms of
rtsig pa which means much more specifically "to build."
53. See Vinayasiitra 110.23 (= Derge, Tanjur Wu 92b.I) where this text
from the Sayanasana is represented by: anujanfyur saf!!ghike vastuni
saf!!ghiiya pudgalaya va vasavastukaralJaf!! / saf!!sce(?)d [rd. sacet]
danapatir anujfiiitena (gal te sbyin bdag yod na des rjes su gnang na'o),
"They should authorize the making of a dwelling place by others for the Com-
munity or an individual monk on a site belonging to the Community. If there
is a donor (it should be done) through being authorized (by him)."
54. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary 475, s. v. vastu; R. P.
Kangle, The Kau.tilfya Arthasiistra, 2nd ed. (Bombay: 1969) Pt. 1, III, 8, Iff;
332.
SCHOPEN 107
to build and a site on which to build within the Jetavana. Likewise diffi-
cult to translate is the compound pU!lyakriyiivastu which here at least may
in part be punning off viistu. Edgerton; again, defines the expression as
an "object or it.em of meritorious action"; de la Vallee Poussin, who I
follow, translates it in the plural as "oeuvres meritoires."55
In spite of these difficulties, however, the basic situation of our text is
not in doubt. AnathapiJ).q.ada had presented (niryiitita) the Jetavana to the
Community. Then other lay persons also wanted to build there. The
monks tell them they must, in effect, first buy the land on which they
would build. The monks, in other words, are purposing to "sell" what
should belong to them. But when-in spite of a stiff price-the lay men
agree, the text makes it clear that the monks do not themselves have the
exclusive rights to do so. They cannot act without the donor's permis-
sion. If he does not authorize it it cannot be done. The donor then
retains control and certain rights of ownership even after he has
"presented" the property in question to the Community.
The text goes on, however, to modify these rights and we may be see-
ing in our text two stages in what might have been a historical process.
Anathapi1).q.ada is made to concede some of his rights of ownership for
certain purposes. He allows others to perform "oeuvres meritoires" at his
vihiira ifit is for the sake or benefit of the Community, but not if it is for
the sake of an individual. But this too is not quite the end.
Anathapil).q.ada's judgment would have categorically disallowed
"for the sake of an individual" if it had become the general rule. The
general rule articulated by the Buddha at the end of the text, however, is
more flexible. The Buddha is made to allow building activity by others
at a vihiira that appears to still belong to and be under the control of the
original donor if it is for the benefit of the Community; but it is also
allowed if it is for the benefit of an individual and the original donor
also allows it. The solution here is-as it frequently is in the vinaya-a
complicated one. But even after several modifications it is clear that the
original donor or owner of a vihiira continued to have some control over
who could or could not participate in and add to his pious foundation.
The donor in our text retained this control over his monastery in regard
to, above all else, meritorious works done "for the sake of an individual,"
55. L. de La Vallee Poussin, L'abhidharmakosa de vasubandhu, t. III (rep.
Bruxelles: 1971) 15; 94 ("bonnes oeuvres"); 231ff. For passages where monks
exhort lay men by praising the pUlJyakriyilvastus see Vinayavibhanga, Derge
'dul ba Ca 246b.6ff; Derge 'dul ba 192a.3ff; etc.
JIABS 19.1 108
pudgalasyarthliya, but what precisely this expression might intend is not
immediately determinable. Generally in both the MUlasarvastivadin and
the Pili Vinayas the contrastive categories sa'!lghika and paudgalika are
used to distinguish that which belongs to or refers to the Community as a
whole from that which belongs to or refers to an individual monk. This
is the case, for example, in the passage concerning seals cited above. If
this same contrast or distinction is intended in our present text then the
donor's control does not extend to meritorious works done at his vihara
which are for the sake of the entire Community, but is restricted to works
done for the benefit of individual monks. This, however, is only
possibility. 56 In light of what we sometimes find in inscriptions there is
also at least one other. In a inscription from Mathura, for exam-
ple, it is said that an image was set up by a monk donor "in his own
shrine in the vihara belonging to the timber merchants"
vJihare svaka[ya'!l ceJti[yaJku.tiya'!l).57 The language here suggests-as
has already been indicated-that individuals could and did own smaller
units within a monastery. There is a distinct possibility that it is this sort
of "individual" (pudgala) ownership of a shrine or chapel in a monastery
that our text is putting directly under the control of the original donor or
owner of the vihara. It is not inconceivable that the monk Nagadatta-
the donor of the image in the Mathur a inscription-was required to, and
had sought the authorization of the timber merchants to establish his own
shrine or cetiyaku.ti in their vihara, and that it was precisely this sort of
situation that our text envisioned.
If the language in regard to the phrase "for the sake of an individual" is
ambiguous, the language used to express the force of the donor's author-
ity is not. The verb used to express the donor's authority is anujanfte,
"to authorize, allow or permit." This verb occurs hundreds, if not thou-
sands of tImes in canonical vinaya texts and it is its very frequency that
makes its use here at least a little startling. It is the verb used whenever
the Buddha himself sanctions a practice, as he does at the end of our text
or in the text concerning monastic seals already cited. But here in our
text it is not only the Buddha who "authorizes"; the diinapati does so as
well. In this one case-and I can cite no others-a lay man actually per-
forms the same action in regard to the monks as the Buddha himself
does. The danapati here in fact is allowed to determine what the monks
56. But note, however, that the corresponding passage in the Vinayasiitra
(cited above in n.S3) has clearly also adopted this possibility.
57. Liiders, Mathurli Inscriptions, 191-92 (no.IS7).
SCHOPEN 109
can and should do. Like the Buddha and only the Buddha, he too-at
least in regard to his vihara-determines what is allowed. This would
appear to be a remarkable admission of the strength of his rights.
The second text that we might look at that explicitly deals with some of
the continuing' ownership rights of a donor-here again called the
viharasvamin-is yet another text from the . . Our text
describes the proper procedure to be followed in abandoning a vihara.
58The Buddha, the Blessed One, was staying in SravastI, in the Jetavana,
in the Park of Anathapil)<;Iada.
A householder living in a mountain hamlet (ri 'or)59 had a vihara built.
He supplied it with all the requisites (yo byad) and gave it (phul ba) to the
Community of Monks from the Four Directions. Later that householder
was seized in the court of the king. The monks heard about this, and when
they heard they abandoned the vihiira and ran away. Thieves stole the
riches of the Three Jewels (dkon mchog gsum gyi dkor).
In time the householder was released. When the monks heard how the
Owner of theVihara (gtsug lag khang gi bdag po) had been released they
went to that householder. Since he had already heard how the monks had
abandoned the vihiira and run away, and how thieves had stolen the riches
of the Three Jewels, he was ashamed (bskyengs pa) of them. "Noble Ones,"
he said, "why did you run away?"
They said: "We heard how you had been seized in the court of the king,
and when we heard that we were afraid and ran away."
"But, Noble Ones, even if I had been seized in the court of the king, why
did all of you run away? Since my relatives were not seized would they not
have provided your requisites?"
The monks had no response and remained silent.
said: "You should not run away like that. Rather, you should ask the rela-
tives of the Owner of the Vihiira: 'Since the Owner of the Vihiira has been
seized in the king's court are you able to provide the requisites of alms for
us?' (d khyed kyis bdag cag gi bsod snyoms kyi yo byad sbyar nus sam). If
they provide them, that is good. But if they do not provide them you
should for five years beg alms and remain there (ji ste mi sbyor na 10 lnga'i
bar du bsod snyoms bya zhing 'dug par bya'o). If after five years the
58. Tog 'dul ba Ta 343a.2-344b.1 = Derge 'dul ba Tha 230
a.2-231a.2; for the corresponding passage in the Vinayasutra see n.61.
59. Ri 'or is the conventional translation of Sanskrit karva,taka which itself
seems rather to mean "a (mean, poor) village," or "a (small, mean) village";
so Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary, s. v. karpa,taka and karva-
,taka. Though the term occurs frequently in the canonical Vinaya the precise
nature of the settlement that it refers to is not known.
'JIABS 19.1 110
Owner of the Vihiira is released, that is good. But if he is not released then,
after performing a formal act of twofold motion, those who are the
guardians of vihiiras
60
in the neighborhood of that vihiira, and ,their com-
mon acquisitions, and their fortnightly meetings, should remain distinct for
five more years (gtsug lag khang de'i nye 'khor gyi gtsug lag khang dag
yongs su skyong bar byed pa manis dang / myed pa thun mong dang / gso
sbyod tha dad pa dag gis 10 gzhan lnga'i bar du 'dug par bya'o/).
[The standard procedure for making a formal motion is then
described, and the text continues:]
If under these conditions the Owner of the Vihiira comes to the residents
(gnas pa mams) during the ten years, that is good. But if he does not come
then, when the seats and bedding, the vessels' and the requisites have \Seen
stored (bzhag nas) in neighboring vihiiras, and the inner door locked, one
should go away. When the Owner of the Vihiira is released then, when he
claims (phyir blangs te) the goods as they were stored from the neighboring
vihiiras, they must indeed be given to him! If the monks residing in the
neighboring vihiira give them up, that is good. If they do not give them up
they come to be guilty of an offence (,gal tshabs can du 'gyurro).61
60. I am unable to say whether gtsug lag khang dag yongs su skyong bar byed
pa mams, which I have translated "guardians of vihiiras," is an administrative
title that refers to a certain category of monks, or simply refers to the monks
who lived in, used, or looked after the neighboring vihiiras.
61. This text appears to have been summarized at Vinayasutra 35.29ff: na
sahasaiva niriiviisatiikaral;alJ'l vihiirasya / siinunayasya tatriivalokalJ'l(?)diine /
anupanatau / paneapil}tjapiitena / anudbhutav atra
kiile diinapater apariil}i siimantakavihiirel}a siirdham / hidukyo(?)
karal}alJ'l karmakaral}iit / pramflane
vastuniilJ'l / (=Derge Tanjur 'dul ba Wu 28b.4: gya tshom du gtsug,
lag khang dor bar mi bya'o / rjes su ehags pa dang beas pa der srung mar
gzhug go / ma lhags na lo beur 'da' bar bya' 0 / lnga ni bsod snyoms kyis so /
der dus sosbyin bdag ma byung na lo gzhan lnga ni nye 'khor gyi gtsug lag
khang dang lhan Gig tu' 0 / gos sbyong tha dad pa dang myed pa thun mong
ba'i las bya'o / 'gro ba na dngos po mams nye 'khor gyi gtsug lag khang dag
tu gdams par bya'o): "The abandonment of a vihiira should not be done
precipitously. When one who is solicitous has been provided to look after'
that, (and even) when nothing is received he should remain ten years
(maintaining himself) by begging for five (years). If the donor does not
appear in that time, after a further (five then the vihiira) is brought together
with a neighboring vihiira by performing a formal act in regard to their dis-
tinct fortnightly assembly and common property. When closing (the aban-
doned vihiira) the property is deposited in neighboring vihiiras." Note that I
have followed the Tibetan where the Sanskrit is marked as questionable, and
that I have taken pramflana to mean "close"; it normally means "to close the
eyes" (Tibetan has, unaccountably, 'gro ba na). Note too that GUlfaprabha
SCHOPEN 111
As in the text from the Sayaniisanavastu dealing with the Jetavana
where the entire discussion of the donor's rights take;; place in reference
to property that had already been "presented" (niryiitita) to the Commu-
nity of Monks 'headed by the Buddha, so here too in our text the entire
discussion is taken up with questions that concern a vihiira that had
already been given ('bul ba = dadiiti) to the Community of Monks from
the Four Directions. These texts in particular, but in effect all the pas-
sages that have been cited, raise therefore, and fundamentally, the ques-
tion of what verbs like dadiiti, "to give," and niryiitayati, "to present,"
were understood to mean in both a practical and legal sense. All of the
passages we have seen-but again particularly our last two texts-make it
almost impossible to believe that they expressed an outright gift or the
complete alienation of the property involved. However understood the
transaction did not involve the extinction of either the donor's interest or,
apparently, his legal rights. The text from the in fact
indicates that such interests and rights continued to be felt for a very long
time-even after ten years in the case of absence-and, moreover, as in
the case of the donor who had two monasteries, were attached not only to
the vihiira, but to its contents as well: "The seats and bedding, the ves-
sels and the requisites." Notice that neither the vihiira nor its contents
can be merged with the common property of neighboring viharas for at
least ten years after their donor or owner comes to be absent, and that
this is proclaimed by a formal motion. Notice too that even after ten
years, and even after the vihiira itself has been closed down, the contents
of the vihara still cannot be merged with the property of other vihiiras,
they can only be stored in those other viharas: when the vihiirasviimin
returns and claims them they must be returned to him. And the text
explicitly says they must be returned to him (de nyid du sbyin par bya' 0),
not, be it noted, to the original vihara. They could, it seems, only have
remained his property. The same conclusion is reached when we look at
the text from yet another angle.
does not here deal with the claims of the Vihiirasviimin, but rather shifts to
what appears to be a paraphrase of Vibhanga Ja lSa.3-1Sb.l cited above, p.
21-22; see n.4S. Finally, notice that GUI).aprabha uses the title diinapati where
the canonical text has vihiirasviimin, suggesting he too took the titles to be
interchangeable. This suggestion is strengthened further if GUI).aprabha is the
author of the Ekottarakarmasataka-the latter also digests our text and there
the title is gtsug lag khang gi bdag po (Derge, bstan 'gyur, 'dul ba Wu
lS6a.6).
JIABS 19.1 112
Our text the householder the vihlirasvlimin or
"Owner of the Vihliro.." The relationship of the monks to the vihiira is,
however, expressed differently. They are described only as its residents
(gnas pa rnams). Even the monks associated with the neighboring
vihliras are not said to own them,. but only to reside in them (nye 'khor
gyi gtsug lag khang na gnas pa'i dge slong rnams), and, although it.is
less certain, they also seem to be called "the guardians of vihliras," gtsug
lag khang dag yongs su skyong bar byed pa rnams, which-whatever its
precise meaning-strongly implies something other than ownership.
The role of the vihlirasviimin in our text, on the other hand, seems
clear: he builds the vihara and supplies it with the requisites; in' his
absence there is an expectation-confirmed by the Buddha's initial
instructions-that his relatives will or might provide the latter; but in any
case it appears that he continues to own--even though he has "presented"
or "given" them to the Community-both the vihlira and its contents.
The role of the monks is obviously different, but still not entirely what
might have been expected.
The monks' role-indeed their obligation-is first of all to remain
there, to reside in the vihlira. They must not abandon the vihara even if
the vihlirasvlimin is seized by the king; even when the viharasvlimin is
absent and his relatives are unable to meet his obligations the monks are
obliged to remain there for at least five years and to meet their needs by
begging-which apparently they normally do not do-so that they might
do so. The monks, in other words, are under heavy obligation to the
donor or owner to remain in his vihli ra or to use it. The monks, then, do
not have ownership rights to the vihlira, but rather obligations in regard
to it and its owner, and even if it means they must revert to begging
those obligfltions must be met.
The obligation of monks to live in or use the viharas that are "given"
or "presented" to them is even more explicitly addressed in a text from
the Sayanlisanavastu which I have already treated elsewhere from a
somewhat different angle, but which is worth citing here again in a fuller'
form. It not only explicitly articulates the obligation we are here con-
cerned with, it also allows us to see that the monks' obligation to use
what is "given" to them is, in fact, their obligation to make merit for
their donors-they are one and the same.
SCHOPEN 113
62The devout had had many vihZiras built, but few monks entered into the
rainy season retreat in Sravasti, and they stood empty. For the donors there
was no merit resulting from use (dZinapatfnZif!! paribhogZinvayaf!! pUlJyaf!! na
bhavati). And they were inhabited by ne'er-do-wells (vZitaputra).
The Blessed One said: "All vihZiras must be assigned To
each one individually two or three or four, depending on how many there
are. All must be used (sarve paribhoktavyZiM. One should stay iIi one place
in the morning, in another at mid-day, at another in the afternoon, and one
should pass the night in yet another!"
The monks did not then perform the work. The vihZiras fell into
disrepair.
63
The Blessed One said: "The the donor should be encouraged (to make
repairs) (dZinapatir utsZihayitavyaM. If just that succeeds, that is good. If it
does not succeed then they are to be repaired with that belonging to the
Community (sZif!!ghikena).64 If that is not possible, in so far as it is
possible, to that extent restoration is to be done. The rest should be
tolerated !"65
62. SayanZisanavastu, Gnoli 35.1-.10; Tog 'dul ba Ga 284bA-285a.2 = Derge
'dul ba Ga 210a.7-210b.3; for Vinayasiitra see n.65 below.
63. Gnoli reads pralubhyante, but the Tibetan has 'drums par gyur nas, and
one meaning of 'drums is, according to Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo 1427,
'tshe ba, "hurt" or "damage." This might suggest the intended reading was
pralupyante, which would appear to be supported by both what follows in the
text and by the paraphrase in the Vinayasiitra. I have so read.
64. Again, Gnoli reads pratisaf!!startavyaJ:t and refers to Pali pra/samthZira,
but the Tibetan-which he cites-reads phyir bcos par bya, and this would
rather favor pratisaf!!skartavyaJ:t. Since in addition both context and the
Vinayasiitra's pratisaf!!Skurvfta also favor such a reading I have adopted it.
65. Vinayasiitra 78.30-.33 condenses our text into: sarve paribhufijlta I piir-
vZihlJe kvacit Pii.thasvZidhyZiyZivasthanacaf!!kramiilJiif!! kvacid madhyiihne para-
trZinyatra [Tib. suggests reading paratra patra-] cfvarasthZipanam iiviiso
'paratra rZitrZiv ity asya yogaJ:t I khalJr;laphullam upagato vZisavastunaJ:t pra-
tisaf!!Skurvfta I (=Derge Tanjur 'dul ba Wu 62aA: thams cad yongs su spyad
par bya'o Ila lar klog pa dang kha ton dang 'dug pa dang beag pa dag las
gang yang rung ba bya Ila lar lhung bzed dang ehos gos gzhag par bya I la
tar mtshan mo nyal bar bya I la lar snga dro dang gung tshigs dang phyi dro
'dug pas de la sbyar bar bya' 0 I gnas par khas blangs pas gnas kyi gzhi ral ba
dang 'grums pa beos par bya'o I): "In regard to all (vihZiras, one) must make
use of them. The procedure for this is thus: in the morning someplace (is
used) for reading, reciting, staying and walking; at midday he stores his bowl
and robe at some other place; he spends the night at still another. He who has
entered (into residence) must repair the cracks and holes in the property of the
residence."
JIABS 19.1 114
There is much here in common with the passage just
treated. The obiigation for monks to use all vihiiras is here, and in fact
far more explicitly, stated. Here, as in the there are provisions
made for when the donor cannot supply what is required-here not from
absence, but inability-though they are not the same: rather than beg-
ging, the monks in our present text are allowed to use-in so far as it is
available-what belongs to the Community. But in both texts the monks
must continue to use the vihiiras even if it creates some inconvenience by
causing them to have to beg or put up with a certain amount of disrepair.
There are, however, two things that are particularly striking in our pre-
sent text: the explicit connection of use with merit, and the length to
which our text suggests it is necessary to go to make sure that what
donors "give" is used. In regard to the first, our text makes explicit what
seems to be implied in almost all the passages we have seen so far.
Almost all the passages that have been cited promulgate rules that seem-
in one way or another-designed to insure that vihiiras or other property
"donated" would be continuously used. Our text goes one step further
and explains the reason for this by indicating quite explicitly the conse-
quence of their not being used: if viharas stand empty and are not used
the donors are deprived of "the merit resulting from use" (pari-
bhogiinvayal!l pU1}yam, longs spyod las byung ba'i bsod nams). It is,
therefore, the monks' obligation to make sure that this does not happen
or, to phrase it positively, the monks' obligation is to continuously make
merit for their "donors" by using what those individuals have made
available. The expression "merit resulting from use" is, moreover, not
unique to this passage from the Sayaniisanavastu, nor is the idea it
expresses applied only to vihiiras. In the for example, it
is appliedto plates or dishes:
66When devout brahmins and householders gave dishes (sder spyad =
bhiijana) to the monks the monks would not accept them. The brahmins
and householders said: "Noble Ones, when the Buddha, the Blessed One,
had not yet appeared in the world, then those belonging to other religious
groups (mu stegs can, tlrthika) were the ones worthy of receiving reverential
gifts (yon gnas, Now, however, since the Buddha, the Blessed
One, has appeared in the world you are the ones worthy of receiving rever-
ential gifts. If you will not accept them how can we, being deprived of
provisions of merit for the journey (dge ba'i lam brgyags ma mchis par), go
from this world to the other world? You must accept these!
66. Tog 'dul ba Ta 78a.5-79a.2 = Derge Tha 52b.6-53a.6.
SCHOPEN 115
said: "For the sake of the Community (dge 'dun gyi phyir) dishes should be
accepted!"
. When the Blessed One had said that dishes should be accepted for the sake
of the Community the monks, after they had accepted them, put them in the
store-room and left them there and continued to eat in the same way from
their bowls. The devout brahmins and householders saw that and said:
"Noble Ones, are there no dishes that we gave (phul ba)?"
The monks said: "Gentleman, they remain in the store-room."
They said: "Noble Ones, could we not have stored them in our own
houses? Did we not give them to you (bdag cag gis khyed la phullam)?
When they are used then for us there is the merit that comes from use
(yongs su longs spyad na / bdag cag la yongs su longs spyad pa 'i rgyu las
byung ba'i bsod nams su 'gyur ba zhig na), but still you put them in the
store-room!"67
said: "Dishes which are given by donors must be used!" (sbyin bdag gis
byin pa'i sder spyad dag yongs su longs spyad par bya'o).
The argument put here in the mouth of the donors-"If you will not
accept them ... how can we go from this world to the other world"-is
worthy of note. It is in fact something of a trope in this literature,68 but
it nicely encapsulates an important monastic view of the role of the monk
in-the-world: his role is to accept gifts so that their donors might be able
to gain the merit necessary to achieve "the other world." This conception
of the monk makes no mention of the monks' own wishes or religious
goals and seems to leave little room for them. A monk here is one who
accepts gifts so others can make merit, and he is obligated to do so by the
authority of the Buddha. But added to this trope is the further obligation
already met in regard to vihiiras in the Sayaniisanavastu. Acceptance of
movable property-like the acceptance of vihiiras-was not, or came to
be thought not, sufficient to generate the full complement of the donor's
merit. Like vihiiras, all such property had not only to be accepted, but to
be used, and the monks, again, were under obligation to do so; they were
under obligation to ensure that the donor was not denied the "merit
resulting from use." Both texts use the same expression. In the Sanskrit
67. The narrative beginning from "When the Blessed One had said that dishes
should be accepted ... " up until this point is very similar to the narrative used
to describe the acceptance by the monastic community of perpetuities which
gave rise to the rules governing lending on interest in the Miilasarvlistivlida-
vinaya; see Schopen, ''Doing Business for the Lord" 529.
68. See, for example, Tog 'dul ba Ta 7a.5; 15b.I; 293a.l; 294a.1.
JIABS 19.1 116
text of the Sayaniisanavastu this is paribhogiinvayaf!! pU[lyam, which the
Tibetan translators there rendered as longs spyod las byung ba'i bsod
nams. In the we find what can only be another attempt to
render the same expression, a rendering which is, if anything, slightly
more precise: yongs su longsspyad pa'i rgyu las byung ba'i bsod
nams.
69
How strongly the obligation to use was felt might be suggested
by the complexity, if not convolutions, of the rules put in place by the
Sayaniisanavastu to ensure that it occurred.
The Sayaniisanavastu, to ensure that all vihiiras were used, has recourse
to what would have been-if put into practice-a clumsy and inconve-
nient system. Depending on the number of vihiiras and the number of
monks, one monk could be held responsible for, and obligated to use,
two or three or four or more vihiiras in the same day. In order to do so
he is explicitly told to divide his time in such a way that each vihiira was
used for at least a part of each day. Such an arrangement would have
almost certainly been disruptive, requiring each monk to move from
place to place, and hardly conducive to anything like a contemplative
life. That the religious advantages that might accrue to the individual
monk from undisturbed time could be sacrificed in order to meet obliga-
tions to their donors would seem to indicate how strongly such obliga-
tions-especially the obligation to use-were felt. But the monk's obli-
69. It is important to note that the idea of the "merit resulting from use" is by
no means limited to Mi.ilasarvastivadin vinaya sources. It is discussed on more
than one occasion in the Abhidharmakosa, for example (de La Vallee Poussin,
L'abhidharmakosa, t.III, 20; 244: "Le merite du don est de deux sortes: 1.
merite produit par l'abandon (tyiigiinvaya), Ie merite qui resulte du seul fait
d' abandonner; 2. merite produit par la jouissance (parihhoganvaya), Ie merite
qui resulte de la jouissance, par la personne qui regoit, de l' objet donne ... Le
merite du don au Caitya est merite produit par l' abandon:' The same idea-
under the heading paribhogamayalJl pufifialJl vatjtjhatfti-is also a matter of
dispute in the Kathavatthu (A. C. Taylor, Kathavatthu [London: 1894-97]
VII. 5). The Theravadins reject the idea, but the text from Anguttara ii 54-55
cited in the discussion there might well support it and deserves closer study.
The phrase tyaga-paribhoganvayam aupadhikafi ca pU[lyakriyavastv occurs
even once in a remarkable 5th or 6th Century copper-plate grant from Andhra
(see, at least, S. Sankaranarayanan, "Two VishI.llikUI).<;li Charters from
Tummalagudem," Epigraphia Andhrica 2 (1974): 4-20; esp. 11.20; S.
Sankaranarayanan, The Vish"(LUkur4is and Their Times (Delhi: 1977) 154.20;
V. V. Mirashi, "Fresh Light on Two New Grants of the Vishl).ukul).c;lins,"
Journal of Indian History 50 (1972): 1-8; V. V. Mirashi, Indological Research
Papers, vol. 1 (Nagpur:1982), 121-41; esp. 140.20).
SCHOPEN 117
gation to use what donors had provided could take other, though no less
extreme, forms as well. We might cite one last text from the
as an example.
Like the text cited above dealing with the proper way to abandon a
vihiira, the last text we will look at here also deals with disposing of
property that was given by and in some sense still belonged to a lay
donor. In this case although the property involved is cloth the concern is
still with insuring that the full complement of merit accrue to the donor
or owner.
70The monk in charge of physical properties (dge skos, upadhiviirika) put
coverlets (mal stan) on mats that were full of dust and, when they were
ruined, the Blessed One said: "Coverlets are to be spread on mats that have
been beaten."
The monk in charge of physical properties did not know what to beat
them with.
The Blessed One said: "They should be beaten with one of the cloths."
When the monk beat them with a good cloth, the Blessed One said:
"They should be beaten with one of little value."
The monk in charge of physical properties beat them with one of little
value and when it was old and ruined and incapable of being mended, and
he threw it away, the Blessed One said: "You should cut it into small pieces
and strips and tie it to a piece of wood, then the mats are to be beaten with
that."
When that became completely useless and he threw it away the Blessed
One said: "Even when it is completely useless the cloth should not be
thrown away. You should mix it with dung or mud and use it as a filler for
cracks in the pillars or holes in the wall. The merit of the donor will then
be multiplied over a long period of time (sbyin bdag gi bsod nams yun ring
du 'phel bar 'gyur ro))1
70. Tog 'dul ba Ta 242a.I-243a.2 = Derge 'dul ba Tha 159b.
3-160a.6.
71. Even this text-and in surprising detail-is represented in the Vinaya-
sutra 115.11-.16: sayaniisanaTJ'l malinaTJ'l praspho.tayet / atIva ced dhiivet /
urdhaTJ'l (? - rdhvaTJ'l [confirmed by Tib.]) sekiit SaTJ'lSHtiJ:! [Tib. suggests saTJ'l-
mntiJ:!] / tatas ca prajiiapanam / na praspho!ite sarajaskatiiyiim iidhiire /
prajiiapanfyebhyo vastrasyaikasya praspho!ane viniyogaJ:! / luhasya / pra-
tisaTJ'lskara1Jam asya / asakyatiiyiiTJ'l cfrfkrtya upanibadhya praspho-
!anam / tatkapy ayogyatve gomayamrdii by Tib.])-
re kU1Jya(?)sya [Tib. suggests kuyasya] vii lepanam / pU1Jyiibhiv.rddhiciratiiyai
diitraJ:!(tuJ:!?[confrrmed by Tib.] / (=Derge Tanjur 'dul ba Wu 96a.2: mal cha
dri mas gos pa sprug par bya' 0 / gal te ha cang na bkru' 0 / chag chag btab
pa'i 'og tu phyag bya'o / de'i 'og tu stan bsham mo / gzhi rdul dang bcas pa
JIABS 19.1 118
This set of ruks arose out of a situation in which a donor observed that
an expensive cloth that he had given (phul ba) to the Community had
been ruined and he had complained, using the kind of language now
familiar, saying to the monks: "Now you have gotten my cloth (bdag gi
gos) all dirty." It is also followed by another set of rules which are very
similar and end in exactly the same way: sbyin bdag gi bsod nams yun
ring du 'phel bar 'gyur roo Such passages point-as has already been
noted-to the apparent seriousness with which the obligation to_use was
viewed and the extremes to which the redactors of this Vinaya were will-
ing to go in formulating rules designed to ensure that the obligation was
met. But beyond that, these mundane rules governing seemingly
insignificant domestic matters bear heavily on the monks' ability to dis-
pose of any property as they might want, and therefore carry severe
restrictions that would seriously compromise any claims to ownership the
monks might make on the property made available to them .. We have
already seen in the passage from the Pali or Mahaviharin Vinaya concer-
ning articles for use in one monastery being transferred elsewhere, or in
the similar text in the Ml1lasarvastivadin Vinayavibhmiga dealing with
monks from one vihara borrowing property from another, that monks
could not do whatever they might want with movable properties, and that
in this sense at least-and that is an important sense-they did not own
them. The Ksudrakavastu ruling on dishes only establishes the same
point in a different way. But the passage from the Sayanasanavastu
dealing with building sites in the Jetavana extends the limitations on the
monks' ability to act freely to real or immovable property, limiting, if
ma sprugs pa la mi bya '0 / bsham par bya ba dag la gas geig sprug par spyad
do / ngan pa' 0/ de beos so / mi nus pa nyid. na ras mar byas te shin bu'i rtse
mo la btel-gs nas sprug go / de ltar na yang mi rung ba nyid yin na sbyin pa
po'i bsod nams mdon par speZ pa dang / yun ring ba nyid du bya ba'i phyir lei
ba dang sa bsregs te ka' dang rtsig pa'i ser kar glan par bya'o f): "He must
beat dirty bedding and seats. If (they are) very (dirty) he must wash them.
After watering down (the ground) he should sweep. And then (the bedding
and seats) are to be arranged. [The last two sentences summarize a part of the
canonical text I have not cited.] But not on a support which has not been
beaten (or) on what itself is dusty. For those (seats) that are to be arranged a
single cloth is to be used for beating them. It should be of little value. It
should be mended. When that is no longer possible, after cutting it into strips
and tying it to a stick, the beating is to be done (with that). When iUs useless
even for that, then (mixed) with cow dung and clay, it should be smeared in
cracks in pillars or in the walls, so that the merit of the giver will (continue
to) increase for a long time."
SCHOPEN 119
not denying, their ability to alienate land within a pious foundation estab-
lished by a specific layman. To this then is added the important restric-
tions in the text in regard to abandoning a vihiira where it
is dear that mO.nks could not dispose of either real or movable property
as they might wish. And the inability of monks to dispose of property of
any kind as they might want is then, finally, applied in our last text to
objects even of little or no appreciable value like a worn-out piece of
cloth. The cumulative weight of these rulings is, indeed, substantial.
Monks can neither move, nor alienate, nor dispose of what should have
been their property. They cannot, in other words, exercise any of the
most basic rights that classically define ownership. Put into practice,
these rulings would, of course, have severely restricted, if not entirely
impeded, the ability of MUlasarvllstivadin monastic communities to hold
clear or outright "title" to the property they used, and this, in fact, may
have been the original intention of the Vinaya masters who developed
these ideas. Seen in this light, the passages we have discussed might be
taken as yet another indication of the conservative character of the
Miilasarviistiviida-vinaya. One final point in the last passages, however,
deserves to be noted separately.
It may well be-although this for now remains to be demonstrated-
that the concept of "merit resulting from use" in fact requires that the
monks not own the property they use. Although I have yet to see it
explicitly stated, several passages seem to imply that the merit resulting
from use accrues only to the owner of the property used. If this is so,
and if the monks themselves were to actually own the property they used,
then-paradoxic ally-they, not the donor, would get the merit that
should result from its use. Such a result seems to be clearly contrary to
the spirit of the idea that would have produced it. This point, however,
like almost all of what has been discussed here, will require a great deal
more study.
In a study of this sort the impulse to form conclusions should surely be
suppressed. What has been presented here is only a small sample drawn
from an enormous and largely unstudied body of monastic literature, nor
is it, as noted already at the outset, 'a systematic sample.
72
In short, it
72. One set of passages which has been consciously excluded here, but will
certainly have to have a significant place in future discussions, is made up of
the Sanskrit text of the 6th and 7th infractions in the
Millasarvastivadin (A. C. Banerjee, Two Buddhist Vinaya Texts in
Sanskrit [Calcutta: 1977] 17.3-.14) and their treatment in the Vinayavibhanga
JIABS 19.1 120
does not allow, nor was it intended to produce, defmitive conclusions. It
would seem, however, to at least make possible some observations.
The first and most general observation that might be made ,is that, to
judge by the Malasarviistiviida-vinaya, transactions involving property
between Buddhist monks and laymen may have been far, far more
complicated than has heretofore been realized. So too may have been the
conceptions and facts of ownership of what has usually been thought of
as monastic property. Indeed, the texts which have been presented here
seem to raise fundamental questions concerning the meaning-both lin-
guistic and legal-of religious "giving" in early classical India.
Our texts fairly consistently use forms of the verbs dadiiti, "to give;" or
niryiitayati, "to present," to describe what laymen do with property in
regard to monastic communities. But these same texts just as consistently
continue to refer to the property that was "given" to the monastic com-
munity as still belonging to the "donor": it is "his" or "mine," depending
on whether the donor is speaking or being spoken about. That this is not
simply a necessary linguistic or narrative convention seems fairly certain
from the kinds of obligations, interests and control the donor continues to
have in regard to the property even after it has been given. A donor, for
example, not only provides "his" vihiira with its initial requisites or bene-
fits, but he-or even his relatives in his absence--continued to do so. He
also continued to be concerned about its physical maintenance: he per-
sonany rewards a monk who keeps it up, or he provides endowments for
that purpose. Moreover, the monastic seal of the vihiira bears his name
and its movable property are to be labeled as belonging to "his" vihiira.
More specifically still, building sites on property donated by him cannot
be sold, except for the specific purpose of benefiting the community as a
whole, wit90ut his permission; nor can a vihiira or any movable property
donated oy him be abandoned or disposed of at will by the monks. Even
after being absent for more than ten years he may claim as his own even
(Derge, 'dul ba Ca 240a.1-252a.3), in the Vinayasiitra (25.17ff.), and the
Ekottarakarmasataka (Derge, bstan 'gyur, 'dul ba Wu 141a.4ff), where a ku.ti
or "hut" (?) is characterized as asviimika, "without an owner," and at least a
certain kind of vihiira is called sviimika, "with or having an owner." But the
textual problems here are many: Banerjee's edition of the is
almost unbelievably careless, the Gilgit Manuscript is fragmentary, and the
Tibetan translation appears to reflect a text that differed in at least one signifi-
cant way-all of this, together with the numerous parallels in other versions-
will have to be sorted out before this material can be used with any
confidence.
SCHOPEN 121
property that has been removed from his vihiira and stored in another. In
light of all this it is hard to know what to call. that which the donor did
with his property: If he gave it, that act of giving did not annul or even
necessarily diniinish the donor's obligations, interests or rights in regard
to the property given. This is obviously not what we generally under-
stand as a gift.
But the ownership especially of viharas is complicated in another way
as well. Vihiiras, even in our very small sample, have three different
kinds of owners: a vihiira is once said to belong to an individual monk;
once said to belong to the Community; but vihiiras are most freque?tly
referred to in our sample as the property of lay men who are sometimes
called vihiirasviimins, sometimes diinapatis, and sometimes simply
grhapatis or "householders." How representative our sample is in this
regard I cannot at this stage say. In part this is because most references
to vihiiras in the Mulasarviistiviida-vinaya do not in fact contain any
indication of ownership. My impression-and that is all it is at the
moment-is, however, that if we limit ourselves to references that do
contain some kind of explicit indication of ownership then our sample is
at least not hopelessly distorted. References to the ownership of a vihara
by an individual monk will, I think, tum out to be rare, even extremely
rare.
73
References to corporate ownership by the Community will also
probably not occur nearly as often as one might have expected, and-
conversely-references to, or indications of, lay ownership of vihiiras
will be far more frequent than anyone would have guessed. Although
there are passages like that giving rules concerning monastic seals which
might suggest that the redactors of this Vinaya assumed that all vihiiras
had a vihiirasviimin or lay owner, in the end, and on balance, the evi-
dence will probably show that they assumed, or were familiar with, sev-
eral different patterns of ownership. But one point seems certain: the
redactors of the Mulasarviistiviida-vinaya took it for granted that Bud-
dhist monasteries could be, and were, owned by lay men, and that they
73. Notice that there may be some doubt even about the one case of owner-
ship of a vihara by an individual monk that we have discussed above p.9-12.
The Sanskrit text begins by saying "a certain householder had a vihCira made
for Upananda," but the Tibetan translation-as already noted in n.21-pre-
supposes a different reading that suggests that Upananda prevailed upon the
householder to do so. Such solicitation by a monk would itself be disap-
proved of, and the fact that the individual ownership of a vihCira is here asso-
ciated with Upananda may also point to disapproval of it.
JIABS 19.1 122
continued to be ~ o owned even after they were "given" or "presented" to
the monastic community.
Whether they were making rules in regard to vihiiras owned by lay-
men, or even in regard to those said to belong to individual monks or the
Community, the redactors of our Vinaya seem, however, to have had the
same basic concerns. The rules that they were framing all seem designed
to effect, to encourage, even to force, in one way or another, both the
proper maintenance and upkeep of physical properties, and the residential
stability of the monks. Over and over again the rules promulgated in
these texts are formulated in such a way that their implementation would
require or at least foster the continual residence of a monk at a given
vihiinz-the monk who claims the acquisitions that come to a vihiira must
himself clean and maintain it; for a monk to receive the benefits of the
distributions of cloth at a vihiira he must be physically present; all
vihiiras that are presented must be lived in, even if for only a part of each
day, and minimally maintained, even if that means using what belongs to
the Community as a whole to do so. Rules of this sort may suggest at
least two things about the situation that the redactors of ~ e Miila-
sarviistiviida-vinaya might have be!!n responding to. Such rules may
suggest that-as in the West at the time of St. Benedict-wandering and
itinerancy were, or had become, a problem, at least in the eyes of those
who were engaged in formulating rules for Mulasarvastivadin monastic
communities.74 It is at least fairly certain that, contrary to some standard
theories on the institutionalization and development of monastic Bud-
dhism, itinerancy always remained a significant element in Buddhist
monasticism in India even when a part of the Community might have
permanently settled down. But these same rules may in fact reflect a
period when, or situations in which, property was starting to accrue to
BuddhisdilOnastic groups who did not yet have any very effective mech-
anisms to assure responsibility for it. Clearly, and like so many monas-
ticisms elsewhere, once Buddhist monastic groups got involved with
property-and if they were to survive this was a necessary involve-'
ment
75
-they were no longer able to do whatever they might want. And
this brings us to the last observation we might make.
74. Cf. B. Upadhyay, "The Monastic Economy and Eradication of Beggary in
Ancient India," Journal of the Bihar Research Society 53.1-4 (1967): 45-50.
75. Cf. Dom U. Berliere, Le recrutement dans les monasteres benedictins aux
xiii
e
et xiv
e
siecies, Academie royale de belgique: Classe des 1ettres et des sci-
ences morales et politiques, Memoires (Brussels: 1924) 3: "Assurement la
[monastic] richesse peut engendrer des abus, mais elle est un facteur necessaire
SCHOPEN 123
The study of Buddhist monasticism can gain much from the work of
medieval historians on Western religious orders-they have already
worked much more fertile fields. It is, for example, probably now
coinmonly acceJ?ted in the study of Western monasticism that "in the fIrst
place it is important to understand that the monasteries did not exist
solely or even mainly for the sake of the monks who sought within their
walls a personal salvation." 76 Moreover-and as a kind of corollary to
this-it has been more recently suggested that there is a " ... need to dis-
tinguish much more clearly than is at present customary between what
monks liked to do and what the tyranny of founders and benefactors
often obliged them to do."77 It is not difficult to see how both these
observations might apply to the conception of monasticism that is
embedded in the texts we have seen here. It is clear-if no less surpris-
ing-that both monasteries and their movable property are presented in
our text not in terms of what they can or should do for the monks who
inhabit or use them, but rather in terms of what those monks must do to
ensure that their use properly and fully benefIts their donors or owners.
Monasteries-to put it crudely-are not presented here primarily as resi-
dences for monks to live in, but rather as potential and permanent sources
of merit for their donors.
It is perhaps equally clear that the monks in our texts are, by virtue of
their own monastic rule, monks under heavy obligations, and that those
obligations were not determined by the religious life or needs of monks,
but by the religious needs of donors. Whether or not it might be con-
ducive to his spiritual life and development a MUlasarvastivadin monk
was required by his rule to both accept dishes or plates and to use them;
regardless of how disruptive it might be to anything like a contemplative
life, a MUlasarvastivadin monk was required by his own rule, and under
certain conditions, to spend some time each day in several different
vihiiras-not, be it noted, because he might like to, but because he had an
. obligation to their donors or owners to do so. According to his own
a la prosperite des institutions, et l' on pourrait affirmer avec autant de raison
que 1'appauvrissement des maisons religieuses eut pour consequence necessaire
un arret dans leur developpement et une decadence dans leur discipline."
76. R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages
(Harmondswortb: 1970) 224.
77. Harvey, Living and Dying in England 33-one might, of course, doubt
the suitability of the word "tyranny." English monks-like Indian monks-
undoubtedly chose freely to put themselves under their respective obligations
for their own reasons and with their own advantages in mind.
JIABS 19.1 124
monastic rule such a monk was not even free to decide when to throw an
old rag away-that too was determined by obligations to its donor,
regardless of what the monk himself might choose. The monk redactors
of this Vinaya, therefore, seem to have had a conception of the role and
function of a Buddhist monk that differs very markedly from that found
commonly in our scholarly sources. For these monks-at least in the
texts we have seen-the primary role of their fellow Buddhist monks was
not to "work out their own salvation with diligence," but to diligently
generate merit for lay donors by using what they provided' or what
belonged to them. This is a conception of the Buddhist monk that we
need to know much more about if we are ever to understand the social
history of monastic Buddhism in India, and if we are ever to understand
how Indian Buddhist monks saw themselves. It is possible, of course,
that they would not recognize themselves in our handbooks. 78
78. A final note on the composition of the Vinayasutra and GUJ;laprabha's
sources and methods. The citation of a significant .sampling of extended pas-
sages from the canonical text of the Mulasarviistiviida-vinaya in the body of
the present paper, together with the citation, in the notes, of the corresponding
passages in GUJ;laprabha's Vinayasutra (ns. 20, 29, 34, 35,42,44,45,48,53,
61, 65, and 70), seemed to present an opportunity to-using an unbuddhist
tum of phrase-kill two birds with one stone. Such citations could very eco-
nomically serve a dual purpose. The Sanskrit text of the VinayasiUra-though
itself by no means free of problems--could often supply the basic Sanskrit
vocabulary for canonical texts preserved in Tibetan. Tog 'dul
ba Ta 242a.l = Vinayasutra 115.11 (p. 37 and n. 71), dealing with the obliga-
tion of monks to fully utilize and not throwaway cloth that was given to
them, is a particularly good example. Still others are Tog 'dul
ba Ta lla.2 = Vinayasutra 54.25 (p. 23 n. 48) and Vinayavihhmiga, Derge
'dul ba Ja 15a.3 = Vinayasutra 36.3 and 119.1 (p. 21 n. 45), the first dealing
with monastic seals, the second with monasteries lending their property to
other monasteries and the proper labeling of monastic property; or
Tog 'dul ba Ta 156b.1 = Vinayasutra 76.17 (p. 15 and n.35),
which deals with the recitation of verses for the "owner" and gods of the
vihiira. There is in fact a very large number of similar cases not quoted here;
see, for example, Vinayasutra 33.12 which gives us the Sanskrit vocabulary
behind the passage on lending on interest found at Vinayavihhmiga, Derge
'dul ba Cha 154b.3, discussed in Schopen, "Doing Business for the Lord"; or
Vinayasutra 114.16 which does the same for the text at Tog
'dul ba Ta 335b.6 which deals with paintings and their placement in the
vihiira (cf. M. Lalou, "Notes sur la decoration des monasteres bouddhiques,"
Revue des arts asiatiques 5.3 [1930]: 183-85); or Vinayasutra 54.31 =
Tog 'dul ba Ta 7a.4; 292b.6-294b.2, on the acceptance and
SCHOPEN 125
use by monks of perfumes and garlands; or Vinayasutra 88.16 =
Tog 'dulba Ta 332aA, on.the restrictions imposed on monks
who wear robes. made from burial cloth.
But equally important, the juxtaposition of the canonical texts with the
sutras of the Vinayasutra could allow us to actually catch a glimpse of
GUl'"laprabha at work, to see, in effect, how this important Mii:lasarvastivadin
monastic handbook was composed (for the life of GUl'"laprabha and the date
and influence of the Vinayasutra see G. Schopen, "Ritual Rights and Bones of
Contention: More on Monastic Funerals and Relics in the Malasarviistiviida-
vinaya," Journal of Indian Philosophy 22 [1994]: 63-64, and ns. 63-65 and
the sources cited there.) Such a juxtaposition reveals, indeed, both the precise
sources that GUl'"laprabha used and the remarkable degree to which he
depended on those sources. The mere fact that his sources can so often be
precisely identified, and the mere fact that such a juxtaposition can be made,
already indicate some important things about the composition of the
Vinayasiitra.
Even a quick and very cursory reading of the Vinayasiitra will show that the
correspondences cited in the notes here are only a small fraction of such corre-
spondences. My impression-though it is only that-is that, in fact, there is
probably very little in the sutra that does not occur in the canonical vinaya.
But only when both have been thoroughly studied will we actually be able to
determine this for certain, or to know, in other words, if, and to what degree,
GUl'"laprabha added new material.
There are cases where GUl'"laprabh<l; seems to add details not found in the
canonical text. A good example is Sayaniisanavastu, Gnoli 35.1-10 cited
above p. 33. Here the canonical text says: "All [vihiiras] must be used. One
should stay in one place in the morning, in another at mid-day, at another in
the afternoon, and one should pass the night in yet another." But Vinayasiitra
78.30 (cited in n. 65) says: "In regard to all (vihiiras, one) must make use of
them. The procedure for this is thus: in the morning someplace (is used) for
reading, reciting, staying and walking; at mid-day he stores his bowl and robe
at some other place; he spends. the night at still another." Here GUl'"laprabha
omits reference to the afternoon, but adds explicit references to specific
activities to be performed in the morning and at mid-day which the canonical
text knows nothing about. Another good example-this one not cited above-
concerns the problem of monks dying on bedding that belonged to the
Community. Civaravastu, GMs iii 2, 123.18 says: "Having recognized the
(dying monk's) physical condition, having moved him on a pretext onto his
personal bedding, he is to be laid out" (sarfriivasthiil!! jiiiitvii paudgalike
sayaniisane vyiijeniivatiirya siiyitavya iti). But GUl'"laprabha (11.5) has: "That
one [the attendant], when death is certain, having raised him [the dying monk]
from bedding belonging to the Community, should settle him on his personal
[bedding]. It is to be done on the pretext of its being preparatory to rubbing
[him] with unguents and bathing [him]" (siil!!ghikiid enam asau mara7}iiSal!!-
JIABS 19.1 126
Abbreviations
Derge
Divyiivadiina
GMs
Gno!i
Pii!i Vinaya
Tog
Vinayasiitra
The Tibetan Tripitaka. Taipei Edition. Taipei: 1991.
Cited according to original volume, folio and line number.
Cowell, E. B., and R.A. Neil, eds. The Divyiivadiina. A
Collection of Early Buddhist Legends. Cambridge: 1886.
By page and line.
Dutt, N., ed .. Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. 3. Pts. 1-4. Srinagar
and Calcutta: 1942-1950. By page and line.
Gnoli, R., ed. The Gilgit Manuscripts of the
and the Adhikaranavastu. Serie Orientale Roma 50. Rome:
. .
1978. By page and line.
Oldenberg, H., ed. The Vinaya Pi,taka7J7.. Vols. 1-5.
London: 1879-1883. By page and line.
The Tog Palace Manuscript of the Tibetan Kanjur. Leh:
1979. By original volume, folio and line number.
Sankrityayana, R., ed. Vinayasiitra of Bhadanta
Gunqprabha. Singhi Jain Siistra SiksiipItha, Singhi Jain
Series 74. Bombay: 1981. By page and line.
kiiyii7J7. sayaniisaniid utthiipya paudgalike niveSayet / abhyanganasniipana-
piirvakatiivyiijena). Here too we have in the Vinayasiitra what appears to be
added material-the canonical text says nothing about rubbing with unguents
and bathing. In this case, however, and this case probably also explains the
previous one too, GUJ?,aprabha's additions only explain the otherwise curious
"pretext';;;(vyaja) of the canonical text. They explain what kind of a "pretext"
might be used and in this sense are commentary or gloss, not addition. Seen
in the light of this case, the previous case appears to be of exactly the same
sort: the specification of activities at certain periods of the day to be
simply commentarial. In both cases if you remove the "commentarial" matter
what you have left is a close restatement of the canonical rule; and in both
cases something like the "commentarial" matter itself will also undoubtedly be
found somewhere else in the canonical vinaya (e. g. for rubbing and bathing
the sick see GMs iii 2, 129.15). I would foresee the vast majority of "new" or
"additional" material in GUJ?,aprabha falling into precisely this category. Uris,
of course, is not meant to deny all innovation, nor, especially, to deny
GUJ?,aprabha's remarkable intellectual achievement, but rather to emphasize his
close and careful adherence to the canonical texts that he was dealing with.
This itself is no mean achievement.
CYRUS STEARNS
The Life and Tibetan Legacy of the Indian
Mahapal}tjita Vibhuticandra
The Indian Buddhist master VibhUticandra (Rnal-'byor zla-ba
1
) first
came to Tibet in 1204, and was active and influential for several decades
in the transmission and translation of both sCUra and tantra teachings. He
traveled to Tibet three times, and at least one of the works he translated
himself into the Tibetan language has been passed down to the present as
an important tantric practice in living transmission.
2
Other works have
been the subject of some controversy, although the one which has
received the most attention over the centuries may have been forged by
I should like to express my gratitude to the sublime vajriiciirya Bco-brgyad
Khri-chen Rinpoche, of Bodhnath and Lumbini, Nepal, under whose guidance
I was privileged to study the according to the teachings of 10-
nang Taranatha. I am grateful to Prof. Leonard van der Kuijp, Harvard Uni-
versity, for his suggestions in regard to this paper, and for allowing me to use
his copies of the manuscripts by Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba and Shes-rab mgon
which are listed in the bibliography. I should also like to thank Dr. Franz-
Karl Ehrhard of the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Kath-
mandu, for his kind help in obtaining copies of manuscripts from Nepal.
1. This is the most common Tibetan translation of Vibhliticandra's name,
although the forms Rnam-'byor zla-ba and Rab-'byor zla-ba are also found.
For example, in a prayer to the transmission lineage of these practices in the
lo-nang-pa tradition, Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan (1292-1361) refers to
Vibhliticandra as both Rnam-par 'byor-pa'i zla, and the more common trans-
lation of Rnal-'byor zla-ba. See Dol-po-pa, Bla rna nye, 770, 771. Other than
in the colophons of works he authored and / or translated into Tibetan, his
name is usually just transliterated as Bi-bhil-ti-tsandra. Cf. de long 1979, 164-
167, who was very uncertain whether Rnal-'byor zla-ba and Vibhliticandra
could even be the same person.
2. This is the Rnal 'byor yan lag drug pa, a fundamental text on the practice
of the of the Kiilacakra-tantra, directly revealed to
Vibhilticandra by the legendary rnahiisiddha Savaripa. See below for a dis-
cussion of this text. See Gronbold 1983 for basic information on the

127
128 JIABS 19'.1
an unknown author with polemic motives. The following sketch of the
life and literary activities of VibhUticandra will seek to provide a glimpse
of this fascinating but little known master and clarify his signjficance in
light of the opinions put forth by later Tibetan authors.
THE LIFE3
Vibhiiticandra was born in the later half of the 12th century, in the
region of V arendra in East India.
4
He received full monastic ordination
3. A number of Sanskrit verses and marginal notations in Vibhilticandra's own
handwriting were found in Indian palm leaf manuscripts at Sa-skya by Rah11la
Sarplqiyayana in the 1930s. See Sarpkrtyayana 1937, 11-13. Several western
scholars have utilized these notes, in particular his footnotes, personal
remarks, and scholarly references found in Sarp.krtyayana's edition of
Manorathanandin's Pramii1)ava1plkiivrtti. See Steinkellner 1981, 288.
The following discussion of Vibhiltcandra's life is based upon secondary
sources in Tibetan, of which the most important by far are Padma gar-dbang,
Zab, 23b-28b, and Taranatha, Rdo 481-486. Padma gar-dbang's work was
written in 1538, and Taranatha's about 80 years later. The accounts given by
Taranatha are what he considered to be the miraculous oral biographies
(gtam-rgyud rnam-thar ngo-mtshar che-ba) of the Kalacakra tradition of
VibhUticandra (Taranatha, Rdo 479). Tucci 1949, vol. 1, 129, also knew of
this source.
Padma gar-dbang's text is a lineage history of the Kiilacakrateachings
known as the Sbas pa mig 'byed. Very little is presently known about this
compendium of teachings on the The Sbas pa mig 'byed is
often found mentioned among other traditions related to the Kiilacakra, and
was a special teaching of the Bo-dong-pa school in Tibet. After
the text traces the lives of the following lineal masters: Savaripa,
Vibhilticandra, Chos-sku ' od-zer, 'Phags-' ad Yon-tan rgya-mtsho, Bu-ston
Rin-chengrub, La-chen Byang-chub rtse-mo, La-chen Grags-pa rgyal-
mtshan, Bo-dong Bsod-nams mchog-gyur, Byams-pa
Chos-kyi nyi-'od, and Padma gar-kyi dbang-phyug. The relationship, if any,
between the text known as the Sbas pa mig 'byed, its commentary by
*Kalacakrapada (Dus-zhabs-pa), and this tradition will remain unclear until
more texts which have recently surfaced in Nepal can be examined.
4. Taranatha, Rdo 481, states that Vibhuticandra was born as the son of a mer-
chant in Bha-Iendra: rgya gar shar phyogs bha lendrar tshong dpon cig gi
sras su 'khrungs. But in the colophon to Vibhilticandra's commentary on the
Bodhicaryiivatiira, in the Peking edition of the Tibetan Tripitaka, vol. 100,
#5282, 280.6-7, he is described as born in the caste, in Ba-rendra, an
eastern region of India: shar phyogs ba rendrar rgyal rigs las 'khrungs.
Padma gar-dbang, Zab, 24a, also states that he was from the caste.
The Tibetan rendering of Bha-lendra or Ba-rendra certainly refers to the area
STEARNS 129
in the 11Ulhasammit'i)U (mang-pos bkur-ba) tradition, and studied at such
monastic universities as VikramasIla in the central Indian region of
Magadha, and also in other areas such as Orissa during the final years
before the total destruction of those institutions by Muslim invaders.
5
He
may have first met his future guru, the mahapalJita of Kashmir,
Sakyasribhadra (11277-1225?), at VikramasIla and fled with him to the
monastic complex of Jagaddala in Bengal to escape the Muslim
onslaught, or he may have already been studying there when SakyasrI
arrived.
6
At Jagaddala he became an expert in the traditional fields of
sutra, vinaya, and abhidharma, and also in the non-buddhist sciences.
7
In any case, it seems that he studied under the Kashmiri master for three
years in India before traveling with him to Tibet, in the company of a
large group of fellow Indian scholar-siddhas.
8
In addition to SakyaSri,
VibhUticandra's other early teachers were the scholars Vikhyatadeva (Bi-
khya-ta-de-ba) and *Dharmadasa (Chos-'bangs). From these three gurus
he received many teachings, but especially the Kalacakra-tantra initia-
tions, reading transmissions, explanations, and oral instructions.
9
in northern Bengal which was known during that period as Varendra or
Varendri. See note 6 below.
5. The Tibetan text reads O-di-bi-sha. Dutt 1962, 378, note 2, mentions that
Otivassa is another name for Orissa. For information on VikramasIla, see 358-
362 of the same work.
6. For the life of Sakyasrlbhadra, see Roerich, trans. 1976, 1062-1072, etc.,
and Jackson 1990. For information on the great monastic establishment of
Jagaddala, see Dutt 1962, 376-380. It was located in the northern Bengal area
known then as Varendra or Varendri, and was probably founded by king
Ramapala (reign c. 1077?-1120?). It was destroyed by the Turuska invaders
about 1207.
7. Dutt 1962, 351, states without giving a source, that Vibhuticandra and his
fellow junior palJrjita, DanasIla, wrote original works in Tibetan and translated
Sanskrit works into Tibetan while still at Jagaddala. This seems very unlikely.
It is more probable that they learned Tibetan during their subsequent eleven
year stay in Tibet, and began to translate texts while in Tibet. There is no
evidence to suggest that VibhUticandra himself wrote original works in
Tibetan; every work of his preserved in Tibetan seems to be a translation,
although without Sanskrit originals at hand it is impossible to 1;?e certain.
8. Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya, trans. 1990, 319, state that Sakyasri spent 3
years at Jagaddala, but erroneously places it in Odivisa. Taranatha, Rdo 481,
corre.cdy states that Jagaddala was in Bengal, and that VibhUticandra studied
with SakyasrI for three years in India.
9. Padma gar-dbang, Zab, 24a. Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Khro, 42a-b, specifies
that the pa1}rjita-siddha Vikhyatadeva (Bi-khya-ta-de-ba) was the main teacher
130 JIABS 19.1
Vibhuticandra took S akyasrI as his main guru, and stayed with him for
eleven years in Tibet, learning innumerable topics of secret mantra, as
well as mahiiyiJ:na subjects such as the Five Bhiimi Treatises of Asanga.
10
Soon after his arrival in Tibet, SakyasrI, accompanied by Vibh uticandra
and most of the other palJrJitas of the group, traveled to Central Tibet.
The summer retreat of 1206 was spent at Srin-po-ri.ll During this time
SakyasrI received invitations from the mahiimudrii master 'Bri-gung , Jig-
ften mgon-po (1143-1217), Rgya-ma Sangs-rgyas dbon-ston, and
perhaps the monastery of Mtshur-phu.
12
According to Khro-phu Lo-tsa-
ba Byams-pa'i dpal (1172-1236), who was SakyaSrI's Tibetan inter-
preter, Vibhl1ticandra made the following remark while discussing which
invitation to accept:
The 'Bri-gung-pa is said to have more wealth, but it is also said that this
mahiimudrii adept is a great liar.!3
for tantric subjects of mahiisiddha Buddhasrl, whom Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba
studied with for five years, and later invited to Tibet in 1200. Vikhyatadeva's
main residence (gtan-sa) was at the Mahabodhi in Bodhgaya. Toward the end
of the 12th century we find Vikhyatadeva refusing an invitation from the king
of Bhaktapur, the ha1!l-du priests (7), and the ascetics of the central Kath-
mandu valley to come teach in Nepal (bal yul 'thi! gyi ta pa swi dang I ha1!l
du mam dang I kho pom gyi rgyal pos . .. ). His excuse was advanced age, and
he sent Buddhasrl in his place. My thanks to Mr. Hubert Decleer, Kathmandu,
for suggestions on the translation of this passage. Bu-ston, Bla 90, lists both
Vikhyatadeva and *Dharmadasa before Vibhuticandra in the lineage of the
Gsung rab rin chen 'dus pa.
10. Taranatha, Rdo 481.
11. Mang-thos klu-sgrub, Bstan 156.
12. The earliest available description of this event is Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba,
Khro, 69a-b, which states only that the invitations of the 'Bri-khung-ba and
Rin"chen sgang-pa arrived at the same time. Roerich, trans. 1976, 600, (,Gos-
10, Deb vol.2, 706) mentions all three, but Dpa'-bo, Chos vol. 1, 523, men-
tions only the first two. Padma gar-dbang, Zab, 24b, makes no mention of
the following episode, except for stating that VibhUticandra accompanied
SakyasrI to Srin-po-ri and built an image of Cakrasarp.vara. See Jackson 1990,
20-21, and 1994, 69-70, for important information about the following
events. Bsod-nams dpal-bzang-po's version of the events (in Jackson 1990,
70) is copied verbatim from Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba's original account.
13. Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Khro, 69b: nor 'bri khung ba mang zer te I phyag
rgya chen po ba 'di brdzun che ba yin zer byas pas I. Dpa'-bo, Chos vol. 1,
523, has exactly the same wording.
STEARNS 131
But according to 'Gos Lo-tsa-ba Gzhon-nu dpal (1392-1481), writing
more than two centuries later, Vibhuticandra said:
. This mahiirriudrii adept is said to be a great liar. We should go to the place
of the Bka' -gdams-pa.
14
Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba says that SakyasrI then exclaimed, "[He is a] Bud-
dha! A Buddha! It's not right to say that!"15 He proceeded to explain
that his own special deity Tara had indicated to him that 'Jig-rten mgon-
po was indeed the rebirth of the Indian master Nagarjuna. Khro-phu Lo-
tsa-ba further tells us:
[SakyaSrI said,] "PalJrj.ita, you must go there and confess your sin [sgrib
sbyong]. Build a temple for [a deity] to whom you have devotion."
So the master VibhiHi also went to 'Bri-khung, confessed his sin to Rin-
po-che ['Jig-rten mgon-po] himself, and offered a eulogy. Later he built a
temple on Srin-po-ri.l
6
'Gos Lo-tsa-ba describes the episode like this:
The mahiipalJrj.ita was shocked, and exclaimed "Bhilti! BhiHi! Don't say
that! A buddha has no error. 'Bri-khung-pa is master Nagarjuna. You
14. 'Gos-lo, Deb vol. 2, 706: palJrj.i ta bi bhii ti candras I phyag rgya ba 'di
rdzun che ba yin zer 1'0 skol bka' gdams pa'i sar 'byon pa 'thad zhus pas I.
15. Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Khro, 69b: chos rje'i zhal nas I bud dhal.z bud dhal.z
I de skad byar mi rung ngo I. Dpa'-bo, Chos vol. 1,523, has: rje palJ chen
gyis nii gardzhu na nii gardzhu na de skad mi btub bo I.
16. Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Khro, 69b: palJdi ta yang der song la sgrib sbyong
gyis I rang gang mos pa'i lha khang gcig bzhengs gsung I der bla ma bi bhii
tas kyang 'bri khung du byon nas rin po che nyid la sgrib sbyong byas bstod
pa phul I phyis srin po rir lha khangs bzhengs so II.
Dpa' -bo adds that the }emple contained a SalJ1.vara image which was the
same size as the body of SakyasrI, and which was very blessed and floated in
space. Dpa' -bo, Chos vol. 1, 523: phyis srin po rir palJ chen gyi sku tshad kyi
bde mchog gi Lha khang bzhengs te nam mkha' La bzhugs pa byin rlabs can du
grags I.
It is indeed strange that the available biographies of 'Jig-rten mgon-po, and
his nephew, are silent about Vibhilticandra. The only entry in reference to
these events is in Shes-rab 'byung-gnas, Dgongs voU, 83.5, which may be
dated between the years 1203-1207: de'i dus su palJrj.i ta shiikya shrI dang zhal
mjal du bzhed pa la I gshegs pa ni ma byung I zhabs tog ni rgya chen po
mdzad dol.
132 nABS 19.1
have committed a great sin. Go before him now, and confess. Request
dharma." .
VibhiIti did precisely that. Then the mahapaIJ.fj.ita asked Holy [Tara],
"Does that purify VibhUti's fault?" .
She replied, "If he constructs a SaI!lvara temple at this place, that will
purify it." Hence he properly constructed a temple.also)7
The temple was constructed on Drang-srong Srin-po-ri. Vibhuticandra
lJimself fashioned the terra-cotta image of Cakrasarp.vara, and requested
SakyaSrl to perform the consecration.1
8
This was a very famous temple
in Tibet up until recent times, and recognized as a holy place specially
associated with Cakrasamvara.
19
Returning to Gtsang' from Central Tibet, SakyaSrl stopped at the
monastery of Sa-skya, and spent the rainy season retreat of 1209 at the
Rin-chen-sgangs palace.
20
During this time he met with Rje-btsun
Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (1147-1216), then Patriarch of Sa-skya, and
17. 'Gos-Io, Deb vol. 2, 706: paIJ. chen thugs hur phyung ste I bha ti bha ti de
skad [7071 ma zer I sangs rgyas la 'khrul pa mi mnga' I 'bri khung pa slob
dpon klu sgrub yin I khyod kyis las chen po bsags I da khong ni [sic! 1 drung du
song la bshags pa gyis I chos zhus gsungs pas I bi bha tis kyang de kho na
bzhin du mdzad I de nas rje btsun ma la paIJ. chen gyis I bi bha ti'i nyes pa
des dag gam zhus pas I g:nas 'dir bde mchog gi lha khang zhig bzhengs na des
'dag par' gyur gsung ba bzhin lha khang yang legs par bzhengs so I.
18. Tiiranatha, Rdo 481: drang srong srin po rir bde mchog gi lha khang
bzhengs I 'jim bzo bi bha ti rang gis mdzad I rab gnas kha che paIJ. chen la
zhus I.
19. Taraniitha, Rgyal 65b, records in his autobiography that in the last decade
of the 16th century there were also kept in the temple at Srin-po-ri two
exceptionally fine icons of the maIJ.fj.ala (dkyil thang) of CakrasaJ!lvara accord-
ing to the)radition of Luipa, and of Kalacakra, both definitely of Indian
workmanship, which had been the personal meditation objects of
Vibhilticandra himself. Taraniitha, Rgyud 63, mentions specific iconograph-
ical details concerning the figure of Yamiiri depicted in VibhiIticandra's
CakrasaJ!lvara icon at Srin-po-ri.
Kag-thog Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1880-1925), Gangs, 156, specifies that the
famous image was in the form of CakrasaI!lvara-sahaja (Bde-mchog lhan-
skyes), with the figure and face of a Nepalese person. Curiously, he does not
mention Vibhiiticandra, and says that it was built by an emanated master who
then dissolved into it. He also mentions that the feet of the image didn't touch
the ground, and that it was suspended in space.
20. Mang-thos Klu-sgrub, Bstan 157: sbrullo) dbyar gnas rin chen sgang
du mdzad I. But Sa-skya P ~ ~ i t a , Bla 148, says Sakyasrl spent the summer at
Sa-skya in 1210 (lcags-pho-rta).
STEARNS 133
continued to teach that master's precocious nephew Kun-dga' rgyal-
mtshan (1182-1251), to whom he had earlier given the lasting epithet
"Sa-skya PaJ?q.ita." Vibhuticandra was also in Sa-skya, along with the
other eight par.ujitas in S akyaSrl'S company. According to Jo-nang
Taranatha (1575-1635), he was the most learned of the nine "junior
parpjitas," and already a mahiipal!-ita in his own right.
21
. Historical
records of the Sa-skya tradition mention several meetings between
Sakyasrl and Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, during some of which Sa-pan and
the other pal!-itas were also present. On one occasion S akyaSrl
the prostration which Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan offered to him when the
Kashmiri master visiteg in his private chambers. The junior pal!-itas had
earlier requested that Sakyasrl not prostrate to Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan,
who was a layman, and afterward questioned S akyaSrl about the reason .
for his prostration. He replied that Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan was actually
Mahiivajradhara in the mal!-ala of Guhyasamiija, so he had been
compelled to prostrate.
22
No mention is made in the various Sa-skya chronicles of a refusal by
any of the pal!-itas to prostrate to Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, but T aranatha
records an account in which Vibhuticandra refused to prostrate, although
the other eight junior pal!-itas did so.23 According to this version, Sa-
skya PaJ?qita had already studied grammar with SruighasrI, and logic with
DanaSrI, and also requested teachings from each of the other pal!-itas,
and given each of them gifts. But he did not request teachings from
nor offer him any gifts, even though he was the most
expert of the junior pal!-itas. This was because of the alleged disrespect
Vibhuticandra had shown to Sa-paJ?'s uncle, Rje-btsun Grags-pa rgyal-
mtshan.
24
The Tibetan scholar Dge-'dun chos-'phel (1903?-1951) held
21. Taraniitha, Rdo 485.
22. 'Jam-dbyangs Mkhyen-brtse'i dbang-phyug, Gdams 68b. For other tra-
ditional versions of this episode according to the Sa-skya tradition, see 'Jam-
mgon A-myes-zhabs Sa, 79-80, and Yongs 191. An example of justification
for the junior pa7JrJita's concerns is found in the Gurupanciisikii by
which has been translated as Fifty Verses of Guru-Devotion. See
Translation Bureau of Tibetan Works and Archives 1976, 10.
23. This is only found in Taraniitha, Rdo 484, not in the earlier text of Padma
gar-dbang, Zab.
24. Taraniitha, Rdo 484.7: pal!- chung gzhan mams kyis rje btsun grags pa Ia
phyag phul / [485J bi bha tis ma phul / rje sa pa7J gyis de'i sngon du sanga
shrr Ia sgra dang / dii na shrf Ia tshad ma gsan / de dus pal!- chung gzhan
mams la' ang chos 'breI re tsam zhus / rdzong pa bzang po mdzad pa Ia / bi
bha ti de dus nas pa7J chung dgu'i nang nas mkhas shos yin / de dus pa7J chen
134 JIABS 19.1
the opinion that the melancholy verses written by Vibhiiticandra in a
Sanskrit manuscript preserved at Sa-skya bear witness to the truth of the
account given by Taranatha.
25
However, this version of the story does not ring true for several rea-
sons, and may have been used as a means to show an early rift between
Vibhiiticandra and the Sa-skya 'Khon family, for which there is no ~ t h e r
evidence. First of all, it is difficult to imagine that a young Indian
scholar would refuse to offer a prostration when his own guru and eight
other pa1}t;litas did so. And, as was mentioned above, none of the records
of the Sa-skya tradition itself make this claim.
The account may have been fabricated in order to establish
Vibhiiticandra's estrangement from the Sa-skya family, and thus by
extension his disagreement with Sa-skya doctrinal positions, the only
textual evidence for which is the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba, which
will be dealt with in more detail below. It should be noted that
Vibhiiticandra and the other eight junior pa1}t;litas were not adverse to
paying deference to Tibetans. They had previously shown the greatest
respect for the young Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Byams-pa'i dpal, rising at his
approach and clasping their palms together, after having been convinced
of his learning.
26
In any case, this version of the events may have been
used by 'Bri-gung-pa sympathizers for the purpose of placing
rang du ka yod kyang / chos kyang ma gsan / rdzong pa yang ma mdzad skad
/. Also see Jackson 1994,69, note 165.
25. Dge-'dun chos-'phel, Rgyal, 32: 'di bi bha [sic!] ti tsandra kha che paT}
chen gyi zhabs zhur byon pa de bzhi'i phyag bris yin cing sa skya rang du bris
par mngon / mjug tu sa mtha' la slebs par dka' tshul sogs thugs skyo ba'i
tshigs bcad,gnyis tsam rgya skad du bris pa / tii ra nii tha'i 'khrid yig don ldan
gyi lhan thabs bi bha [sic!] ti rje btsun grags pa la phyag ma 'tshal bas zhabs
tog bzang po ma byas sogs gsungs pa dpang por song nas snang I. The verses
in question are reproduced in devanagari script in SaIplqtyayana 1937, 11-13.
In addition to Vibhiiticandra's Sanskrit manuscripts which Saquqtyayana
examined in Sa-skya, it is interesting to note that a very blessed image of
Cakrasarp.vara, which had been the personal meditation object of
Vibhiiticandra, was housed in the Dbu-rtse byang-gi thig-khang temple of Sa-
skya right next to an image Rje-btsun Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan had made of
himself. Kun-dga' rin-chen, Gdan, 19a: paT}rj.i ta bi bha ta tsandra'i thugs
dam bde mchog byin rlabs shin tu che ba / The author of this text was an
abbot of the ancient Sgo-rum temple in Sa-skya. See Dkon-mchog bstan-pa
rab-rgyas, Yul 8.
26. Dpa' -bo, Chos vol. 1, 496.
STEARNS 135
Vibhiiticandra in opposition to the Sa-skya-pa, for purposes that will be
made clear below.
In 1213 Sakyasn traveled from Khro-phu west to Mnga' -ris, and spent
the summer retreat in Pu-rang.
27
Vibhiiticandra translated a number of
brief tantric works in collaboration with Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab rin-
chen at a location identified only as the royal citadel of Nyi-gzungs (sku-
mkhar nyi-gzungslnyi-gzugs).28 In fact, this is the citadel built at Pu-rang
in the early 10th century by Skyid-Ide Nyi-ma mgon, the son of the
Tibetan king Dpal-'khor btsan (b. circa 892), to be the capital of a new
state which he founded in Mnga' -ris after fleeing the chaotic situation in
central Tibet.
29
This identification allows us to state with some certainty
that Vibhuticandra was in Pu-rang with Sakyasn in 1213, and engaged in
some translation work there. In 1214 SakyaSn returned to his homeland
of Kashmir. 30 Vibhiiticandra may have accompanied him to Kashmir, or
gone directly from Pu-rang to Nepal.3
1
Since all of the translations made
with Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba were either in Pu-rang or Kathmandu, it seems
reasonable to assume that they traveled together from Tibet to Nepal.
27. Mang-thos Klu-sgrub, Bstan 157; 'Jam-mgon A-myes-zhabs, DpaZ166.
28. See #1-3 in the Appendix. Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab rin-chen was a
well known scholar of the time. See Sa-skya 010, for Sa-palf's
reply to questions from Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba. We also know that Glo-bo Lo-tsa-
ba became an important teacher of Chos-rgyal 'Phags-pa (1235-1280), to
whom he gave many initiations and teachings. See Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan, Bla
308-313. Almost all of Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba's translations found in the Bstan-
'gyur collection were translated at Sku-mkhar nyi-(ma) gzungs, identified as
the palace of a religious king (chos-kyi rgyal-po'i pho-brang).
29. This is stated in various sources, the most detailed of which is Tshe-dbang
nor-bu, Rgyal 73, and Bod 185. The king of Pu-rang in 1215 was Bla-chen
Stag-tsha khri-'bar. Petech 1978, 316. It is intriguing that one of the extant
Sanskrit notes by Vibhiiticandra found in Sa-skya is a farewell to a king,
which may well have been addressed to the king of Pu-rang. Sarplqtyayana
1937, 12, thought it might have been addressed to Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, but
this is impossible, because he would never have been referred to as a king.
30. Mang-thos klu-sgrub, Bstan 157; 'Jam-mgon A-myes-zhabs, Dpal 166;
Jackson 1990, 16,51.
31. In one of the Sanskrit notes in Vibhiiticandra's handwriting, found by
he seems about to go to Nepal. Sarp.krtyayana 1937, 13:
pasciinnepalataJ:! sthitvii. Another note (p. 12) mentions that he was going to
return to his own country: svadefameva yiisyiimi. Although Taranatha, Rdo
481, states that VibhUticandra went to Nepal, Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24b, has
India, which could perhaps be understood as the Indian cultural area in gen- .
eral.
136 nABS 19.1
VibhUticandracontinued his studies in the Kathmandu valley of Nepal
under learned and realized Newar Buddhist masters such as Buddhasrl,
receiving various textual and oral instructions he had not heard before.
32
In particular, he mastered the Kalacakra and CakrasG.1J1.vara tantras under
the guidance of the Newar mahiipalJita Most important,
he received from the teachings of the of the
Kalacakra in the tradition of the Indian mahiisiddha
32. Tiiranatha" Rdo, 481. Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, the interpreter for Sakyasn
during the years 1204-1214 in Tibet, had also studied in Nepal with maha-
palJita Buddhasri for five years, and then invited him to Tibet in 1200. Khro
-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Khro 42b, 43a. Also see Roerich, trans. 1976,709.
33. Taranatha, Rdo 481. A number of works by the Newar master
and some in which he collaborated with a Tibetan translator, are
found in the Tibetan Bstan-'gyur. He initiated Ko-brag-pa (1170-1249) into
the cycle of Cakrasrup.vara, and was also the guru of Chag Lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje-
dpal (1197-1264), who studied with him at Swayambhunath in Kathmandu,
also receiving the Cakrasrup.vara, and served as his interpreter when he taught
Tibetan disciples (Roerich, trans. 1976, 726, 1057). VibhiIticandra also trans-
lated at least two texts into Tibetan in collaboration with Chag Lo-tsacba.
Perhaps they met in Kathmandu and translated texts together there.
34. According to Tliranatha, Rdo, 479-480, was an 11th-12th
century contemporary of the famous master Abhayakaragupta. He was born in
Magadha, and received full monastic ordination in the MahasammitIya
tradition. He was skilled in all areas of traditional learning, and also knew the
Kiilacakra-tantra. Taking Avalokitesvara as his personal deity for meditation,
he lived for twelve years in the temple of a self-created image of KhasarpaI).a
in the area of Li-kha-ra (Shing-'phel), in east India, meditating upon the ulti-
mate nature of existence. When not even the slightest sign of success in medi-
tation occured, he became depressed. One night he dozed off briefly, and
KhasarpaI).a appeared in his dream and told him, "Son, go to Vikramapuri and
your wish will be fulfilled."
The next morning he set off, traveling with one of his disciples. On the day
they finally reached Vikramapuri he saw a presentation of a variety of dances
and shows, which served as a catalyst, and he realized all apparent phenomena
to be like an illusion. That night he stayed in a courtyard, and his special
deity, or Kalacakra, came there in the form of a mendicant, who said to him,
"Son, this is reality." Simply hearing that, his experiential realization of the
was instantly perfected, and he beheld the meaning of the nature
of existence. Although he had become a mahiisiddha, he continued to act for
the benefit of living beings for many more years, keeping the same ordinary
human body as before, even though he now had many supernatural abilities.
When he finally actualized the rainbow body of the vajakiiya, he left behind
no physical remains.
STEARNS l37
This lineage later became known in Tibet as the sequential lineage (ring-
brgyud) of VibhU ticandra.35
During this period of study in the Kathmandu valley, VibhUticandra
concentrated his attention upon the huge commentary to the Kalacakra-
tantra, the Vimalaprabhii of the Sambhala emperor KalkI PU:Q.q.arika, and
became an expert mahiipar;.ita in this subject. He had long before com-
posed annotations to the Vimalaprabhii.3
6
He exerted great effort in the
meditation, and is said to have gained control of the subtle
channels and energies, which resulted in exceptional experience and
realization.
Vibhuticandra became abbot of the Stham Bihar in Kathmandu, where
he taught many subjects.
37
There he also established an independent
institute for the study of the major works of Abhayakaragupta such as the
35. Tiiranatha, Rdo 477.
36. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24a. VibhtIticandra's annotations to the Kiilacakra
-tantra and the Vimalaprabhii were very influential in Tibet. They are
frequently cited by Bu-ston Rin-chen grub (1290-1364) in his annotated
editions of both texts, where they are referred to as bla ma bi bhii ti tsandra'i
phyag dpe yi rgya dpe, bi bhii ti'i mchan, or simply rgya dpe. See for exam-
ple, Kalld Yasas, Mchog 101, 118, and 220, and Kalld 'Jig 432,
433,437,466, etc. VibhtIticandra's annotations were the primary source for
Bu-ston's suggested revised translations, which were themselves then accepted
in the last revision of the Tibetan translation made in 1334 by Ma-ti
Blo-gros rgyal-mtshan (1294-1376) and lo-nang Lo-tsa-ba Blo-gros dpal
(1299-1353). This will be discussed in detail in my "The Tibetan Translations
of the Kiilacakra-tantra and its Great Commentary," which is near comple-
tion. Gronbold 1991, 393, briefly discusses Vibhuticandra's opinion about the
identification of some Sambhala emperors.
37. This monastery is said to have been established by Diparpkara Atisa
1054), and is often known by the name Tham-baml, or VikramaSIla-Bihar. It
is in the Thamel district of modem Kathmandu. The earliest mention I have
found in Tibetan literature is in Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba, Khro 42b. The most
extensive discussion of Tham-bahil is in Locke 1985, 404-413. See also
Dec1eer n. d., Macdonald 1987, 114, and Slusser 1982, vol. 1, 87, 297, 360,
etc. Important historical information about the bihar, and other names by
which it was known, is found in Roerich, trans. 1959,6-7, and 55-56. A dif-
ferent version of the events leading to the construction of the monastery by
Atisa is related by Petech 1984,42-43. Further information, and a description
of the present day temple is provided by Bajracharya 1979. This temple,
described as being in N. E. Kathmandu, was visited by Si-tu Chos-
kyi 'byung-gnas in 1723. See Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas, Ta'i 112.
138 JIABS 19.1
Munimatalaf!lkara, the Upadesamafijari, and the A..vali Trilogy.3
8
His
disciples were both Indian and Nepalese, for whom he emphasized
intense study and practice of the Ktilacakra-tantra.3
9
His own spiritual
efforts resulted in visions of a number of tantric deities, among them
Maiijusn and VajravarliliI early in his life, and later CakrasaIp.vara and
Kalacakra. Many extraordinary signs accompanied his bestowal of initia-
tion for these practices.
40
After some time Vibh uticandra traveled once again to Tibet. He had
become extremely fluent in the Tibetan language, and translated many
works on both sutrayana and vajrayana into Tibetan.
41
His translation
work at the temple of 'Bring-mtshams in Gtsang dates from this visIt. 42
Padma gar-dbang also tells us that it was during this time that
38. Taranatha, Rdo 482: 'phreng ba skor gsum I thub pa dgongs rgyan I man
ngag snye ma sogs la'ang rkang tshugs kyi grwa btsugs I.
These early 12th century works by Abhayakaragupta, as found in the Peking
edition of the Tibetan Tripitaka, are as follows:
Thub pa'i dgongs pa'i rgyan (MunimattilaTflktira), vol. 101, #5299, 7Ib.3-
398b.3.
Man ngag gi snye ma shes bya ba rgyud thams cad kyi skyed rdzogs thun
mong du bstan pa (Upadesamaiijarl-nama-sarvatantrotpannopapanna-
vol. 87, #5024, 77.4.5-86.2.4.
DpaZ 'jam pa'i rdo rje la sogs pa'i mngon par rtogs pa kun las btus pa
rdzogs pa'i mal 'byor gyi phreng ba (Srl-maiijuvajradi-kramabhisamaya-
vol. 87, #5023, 47.5.6-77.4.5.
Rdzogs pa'i mal 'byor gyi phreng ba vol. 80, #3962,
126.3.4-154.2.8.
Dkyil 'khor gyi cho ga rdo rje phreng ba (Vajravali-nama-ma/pjalopayika),
vol. 80, #3961, 79.1.1-126.3.4. A somewhat different list of the A..vali
Trilogyis found in Dpa'-bo, Chos vol. 2, 1497.
39. Bu-ston, Bla 93, records the transmission line of a commentary to the
ljamasaitglti in which the lineage is traced from VibhiIticandra to a Gota1!l
Sri, from him to KIrticandra, and from him to the Tibetan translator Grags-pa
rgyal-mtshan.
40. Taranatha, Rdo 482.
41. Taranatha, Rdo 482, and Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24b.
42. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24b. See #8-10 in the Appendix. A dharma-conch
which had belonged to VibhiHicandra, as well as one which had belonged to
his master SakyasrI, were kept in one of the monasteries at 'Bring-mtshams
until the period of fighting between Ta'i Si-tu Byang-chub rgyal-mtshan
(1302-1364) and the Shar-ka-pa rulers at Rgya-rtse, when they were moved to
Khar-chen for safe keeping. See the anonymous genealogy of the Shar-ka-pa,
Dpa166.
STEARNS 139
Vibhl1ticandra composed the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba. 43 Very little
is known of the period, but it is said that he spent time at the monastery
of 'Bri-khung gling, where his activities were very influential.
44
Then
he returned to Nepal.
In Nepal he continued to live and teach at Stham Bihar into his old age.
Then the most significant event in his life occurred. 45
Once, when [VibhiiticandraJ had become very old, a young yogin with
bone loops fixed in his ear lobes appeared. He was briefly entertained, and
then shown to a verandah. A junior par.zrj,ita studying grammar there
watched him. When there were several amazing signs, such as no circula-
tion of breath, and his body changing into various colors and shapes, he told
the master, palJrj,ita [VibhiHicandraJ.
The palJrj,ita invited him in, and he replied immediately and without hesi-
tation to every question [VibhiHicandraJ mentally asked him.
So he asked, "Who are you?"
"I am the siddha Savaripa," he replied.
46
43. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24b.
44. TaraniHha, Rdo 485. Once again, it is strange that the biography of 'Bri-
gung-gling pa, included in Shes-rab 'byung-gnas, Dgongs 96-123, has no
mention of VibhiHicandra during these years.
45. Taranatha, Rdo 482: dgung lo'ang mang rab song skabs I rnal 'byor pa
gzhon nu snyan fa rwa dung bcug pa gcig byung nas I sna len cung zad Gig
mdzad nas grang khang zhig tu bskyal I der sgra slob pa'i palJ chung Gig gis
bltas pas I rlung mi rgyu ba dang Ius kyi mdog dbyibs sna tshogs su 'gyur ba
sogs ngo mtshar ba'i rtags 'ga' re 'dug nas I bla rna pal)di ta la zhus pas
pal)di tas kyang de spyan drangs te yid kyis bri [sic!] ba byas tshad la thogs
med du Zan [483] shar shar byung I nyid su yin zhus pas I grub thob sha ba ri
pa yin gsung I mchog tu dgyes shing gus nas rjes su gzung bar zhus pas sbyor
drug gsungs I yi ger bkod pa da fta'i gzhung chung 'di yin I spyir zab mo'i
gdams pa mtha' yas pas tshims par mdzad cing rgyud byin gyis brZabs I zhag
nyi shu rtsa gGig tsam dngos su bzhugs par yang grags I de nas gang du bzhud
zhus pas I 'di nas 0 rgyan du 'gro I skaZldan 'ga'i don byed I de nas dpaZ gyi
ri Za ka 'gro gsung ste mi snang bar gyur I der sZob dpon bi bhil ti tsandra ni
byin rlabs kyi stobs kyis nyams rtogs mthar phyin pa skad Gig la brnyes I 'dzin
pa'i yon tan mthar thug pa'i rtags thob I.
Taranatha, Rdo 477, states this episode occured at Stham bi-ha-ra in Nepal,
as does Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24b, who specifies that it was in Kathmandu.
Padma gar-dbang, Zab 24b-26a, gives a considerably more detailed account of
the event.
46. The mahiisiddha Savaripa was one of the eighty-four archetypal tantric
adepts of ancient India. It is said that he gained liberation on the basis of the
mystical songs (dohii) of mahiisiddha Saraha. The instructions
'140 JIABS 19.1
which he bestowed upon VibhiltiCandra were also based upon those songs.
Taranatha, Rdo 707.5-6. According to Taranatha, Rdo 459, Saraha himself
based his spiritual practice in the discipline, and the technical
terms specific to that tradition are found throughout his Dohakosa.
Since it is not well known, I will summarize the biographical sketch of
Savaripa given by Padma gar-dbang, Zab 2lb-23b, according to the
yoga tradition:
Savaripa was born into a family of low caste troubadours in southern
India. His father was named Loka and his mother GUJ;la. He had two sis-
ters, On one occasion they went to seek food on a mountain in Bengal
where the master *Nagarjunagarbha (Klu-grub snying-po) was meditating.
The master, who had no qualms about low caste people, called them inside
and gave them much food. Savaripa pointed to an icon of the bodhisattva
*Matiratna (BIo-gros rin-chen), and asked, "Who is this?"
The master replied, "This is the divine youth *Matiratna, the bodhi-
sattva who is my master Saraha's master, and who resides in the thirty-third
heaven teaching the profound dharma of secret mantra. He cannot be seen
by ordinary people."
Savaripa prayed over and over to the master to be given the eyes with
which to see *Matiratna, The master realized that Savaripa was an extraor-
dinary being, and immediately bestowed upon him the initiation of
Cakrasarp.vara in a ma1}aZa of meditative concentration, and also gave him
the complete instructions of the tantra and the esoteric teachings. While
practicing the instructions, Savaripa continued to make his living by beg-
ging and dancing, until his mental stream was purified and he beheld the
bodhisattva *Matiratna. At instant *Matiratna transformed into the great
brahmin Saraha, and sang for Savaripa the dohii of the quintessential mean-
ing of ultimate reality, RealiziI}g the profound nature of reality through the
actualization of mahiimudrii, Savaripa sang Saraha's song in retum as an
offering. *Matiratna then asked, "Do you understand the meaning?"
Savaripa replied, "I don't understand." *Matiratna revealed the true
meaning, blessing Savaripa's mental stream, and his realization was per-
fected. Then *Matiratna gave a prophecy to Savaripa: "Listen well, and
keep this in mind. You are to be known as Savaripa, the Hunter from the
South. Now you must n9t stay here, but dress as a hunter and go south into .
the mountains, such as SrI Parvata, and benefit those who have superior
faculties. "
The great hermit, together with his sisters, did as he was told, and
achieved the sublime attainment of mahiimudrii. He wandered in all direc-
tions, carrying the bow and arrows of skillful means and knowledge which
slay the three poisons. He shot and killed the birds of passion, the snakes of
hatred, and the pigs of ignorance, and in a state of non-duality devoured
their flesh, and tasted the flavor of the fruit of the blissful, sublime and
immutable pristine awareness of mahiimudrii, Having received the ultimate
STEARNS 141
Overjoyed and devoted, [Vibhfiticandra] asked to be accepted as a fol-
lower, and [Savaripa] spoke the [Vibhfiticandra] recorded it
in writing, which is this small extant text.
47
. In general [Savaripa] satisfied him with infinite profound oral instructions,
and blessed his stream of mind. It is also known that he actually stayed for
about twenty-one days.
Then [Vibhiiticandra] asked, "Where will you go?"
"I will go from here to Oddiyana, and benefit a few who are fortunate.
48
Then I will go straight to SrI Parvata [Dpal-gyi-ri]," he replied, and disap-
peared.
49
At that, due to the force of the blessing, the master VibhUticandra instantly
reached the culmination of experience and realization, and achieved the
signs of perfection of the qualities of the branch of dho.rGl}ii.
50
Soon thereafter Vibhuticandra decided that the instructions he had
received from maho.siddha Savaripa, which have since become known as
the direct transmission of Vibhuticandra (bi-bhu-ti'i nye-brgyud), would
be of great benefit to many persons in Tibet. First he questioned anum-
ber of Tibetan mendicant yogins who were in Kathmandu, and learned
that the most renowned meditation master in Tibet was a former disciple
of his, the siddha Ko-brag-pa (1170-1249).51 VibhiIticandra sent a
initiations and teachings of the tantras directly from Vajradhara,
Vajrayogiru, and AvalokiteSvara, the immortal siddha Savaripa is said to
still wander everywhere in this world to bring benefit to human beings.
See also Tatz 1987, especially 703-707, for further information on
Maimgupta and his relationship with his teacher Savaripa.
47. The "small extant text" referred to by Taranatha is the Rnal 'byor yan lag
drug pa Peking Tripitaka, vol. 47, #2091, 258.4.2-
258.5.l. Vibhfiticandra translated it into Tibetan himself. This is a very im-
portant text for the tradition in general, and the 10-nang-pa
t,ransmission in particular. Another transmission of the from
Savaripa was later received by the Indian master Vanaratna (1384-1468), who
taught it extensively in Tibet. See Roerich 1976, 798-805, 821, etc.
48. According to Roerich, trans. 1976, 976, Savaripa stated that he was going
to Kashmir.
49. An inscription has been found indicating that SrIparvata was at Nagarju-
nakol!t;ia in Southern India (Hirakawa 1990, 253).
50. Dho.ralJo. ('dzin-pa), is the fourth of the six branches of the
The signs referred to are signs of exceptional realization which arise from
control of the pro.lJa and bindu.
5l. Rgyal-ba Ko-brag-pa Bsod-nams rgyal-mtshan's dates are given in
Roerich 1976,726-727, as 1182-1261. Mang-thos Klu-sgrub, Bstan 143,
questions this, gives the earlier birth date of 1170, and states that Ko-brag-pa
'142 JIABS 19.1
junior pm:zita, accompanied by the Tibetan mendicants, to deliver gifts
and a letter requesting Ko-brag-pa to come to Nepal for the purpose of
requesting the teachings. 52
Ko-brag pa received the invitation at Ding-ri glang-'khor, and imme-
diately sent a reply and gifts back with the junior paIJita and an escort
of many Tibetan mendicants. He felt that if he went to Nepal and alone
lived to the age of 80 (1249). The dates given by Mang-thos Klu-sgrub are
certainly preferable. Ko-brag-pa's most important disciple was the Bka'-
brgyud-pa master Rgyal-ba Yang-dgon-pa Rgyal-mtshan dpal-bzang-po
(1213-1258). Just before he died, Ko-brag-pa sent for Yang-dgon-pa, telling
him that he would not live beyond that year, which was his eightieth (or
eighty-first). This is recorded in Shes-rab mgon, Chos 9a, and also in the
anonymous biography of Yang-dgon-pa, Rin 44, which adds that Yang-dgon-
pa was not able to go to his master because the Mongol army had blocked the
roads. Therefore it is certain that Yang-dgon-pa was still alive at the time of
Ko-brag-pa's passing, and that the earlier set of dates for him are a better
choice. Cf. van der Kuijp 1994, 186.
Ko-brag-pa is known to have mastered most of the meditation practices in
Tibet, but is usually connected with the Lam-' bras tradition in the lineage of
the lady Ma-gcig Zhwa-ma, and the tradition of VibhiHicandra.
According to Ngor-chen, Lam 116.3.3, Ko-brag-pa meditated upon just the
Lam-'bras for twenty-four years in the cave of Ra-sa chu-phug, and gained
tremendous results. He wrote many texts about the Lam-'bras, but only one is
now available. This is the Lam 'bras snyan brgyud / lam 'bras bu dang bcas
pa'i gdams ngag, mistakenly identified by the modern publisher as a work of
the Sa-skya master Bla-ma dam-pa Bsod-nams rgyal-mtshan (1312-1375).
The colophon (589-590) mentions that it was written at the retreat site of Chu-
phug. The historical texts in this collection of the Zhwa-ma tradition may
well prove to have also been written by Ko-brag-pa, with additions in the
name list oflineal teachers after his time.
52. See Taranatha, Rdo 483, and especially Padma gar-dbang, Zab 226a-27a,
who quotes both VibhiHicandra's letter and Ko-brag-pa's reply.
Shes-rab mgon, Chos 6b-7a, provides the following account of this event in
his biography of Ko-brag-pa: de'j dus na bal po nas palJ. di ta bhi bu ta .
tsandra / zhes pa'j mkhas pa gcig grub pa brnyes pa des / chos rje [7aJ ba Za/
bal po na palJ. di ta nga che / bod na dge bshes khyed che bar 'dug pas / 'dir
byon gsung pa'i yi ge gha dho Ii dang / ka ra'i glang po che la sogs nor khyad
'phags kyi rten dang bcas pa byung zhing / bod la phan pa la dgongs nas a po
byang chub bya ba 'tshams sbyor byed du bcug te / bod du spyan drangs /
glang khor du bsu ba dang / 'bul ba dpag tu med pa mdzad / dbang chos
mang du gsan / paIJ chen gyis kyang / chos rje fa chos gha re gsan / drang
srong srin po ri tshun chad fa byon cing / dbus gtsang du 'gro don rgya chen
po mdzadl.
STEARNS 143
received the teaching it would not be of much use to others, but if
Vibhiiticandra would agree to come to Tibet there would be widespread
benefit. Vibh uticandra accepted his invitation. 53 Ko-brag-pa provided
much assistance and supplies for the trip north to Tibet.
54
After four
months a messenger arrived with the news that Vibhuticandra was
approaching Skyid-grong, near the border with Nepal. Ko-brag-pa sent
word in all directions that the master would soon be coming to Ding-ri
glang-'khor, and then hurried with offerings to Skyid-grong to welcome
him.
55
After Vibhuticandra was escorted to Ding-ri, he bestowed the
initiation of Klilacakra, the explanation of the tantra and the oral instruc-
tions for meditation to a large number of Tibetans who had gathered
there.
56
In particular, he taught the special of Savaripa to
Ko-brag-pa and six other learned men: Dpyal A-mo-gha, Nyeg-po Chos-
ldan, Lho-pa Tshul-gzhon, Mar-ston G.yangs-'bar, G.yung-phug-pa
Rgyal-mtshan bde-ba, and Gnyal-ba Mi-mnyam bzang-po.57 While at
Gronbold 1982,340, mistakenly states that Ko-brag-pa invited the master
Sakyasrl to Tibet.
54. Taranatha. Rdo 483.
55. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 27a-b. In Shes-rab mgon, Chos 6a, it is men-
tioned that when he was ten years old (1223) Rgyal-ba Yang-dgon-pa, who is
referred to as Rin-po-che Lha-gdong-pa'i sprul-pa'i sku, came to receive
teachings from Ko-brag-pa. The same information is found in Yang-dgon-
pa's anonymous biography, Rin 41. This source, on p. 42, states that Yang
-dgon-pa was 21 years old (l233) at the time of his full ordination by Ko-
brag-pa. Shes-rab mgon, Chos 6b-7a, describes Vibhiiticandra's arrival in
Tibet not long after the mention of Yang-dgon-pa's ordination by Ko-brag-pa
(6a). The reference to the Mongols on 6b, just prior to Vibhiiticandra's trip,
speaks of Ko-brag-pa's repulsion of a Mongol army (hor gyi dmag zlog pa),
which may indicate an earlier event than the famous Mongol incursion of
1240. Cf. van der Kuijp 1994, 186.
57. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 27b. Roerich, trans. 1976, 727, and 797, also
specifies that Ko-brag pa invited Vibhuticandra to Ding-ri, and there received
the instructions of Savaripa. Dpyal A-mo-gha also wrote a
text on the basis of Vibhiiticandra's teachings. See Bu-ston, Bla
89, and Phyogs-Ias mam-rgyal, Chos lOa.
There is considerable confusion in the sources about who received these
teachings from Vibhuticandra. Tiiranatha, Rdo 484.2, states that there were
many who received the from Vibhuticandra, and in particular
there were nine disciples who later upheld the lineage of the direct transmis-
sion (nYe-brgyud).
144 JIABS 19.1
Ding-ri glang-'khor Vibhuticandra and the Tibetan translator Mi-mnyam
bzang-po translated the of and several
other Sanskrit works. 58 During this period Vibh ilticandra lived at the
Mkhan-pa charnel ground (Mkhan-pa dur-khrod) west of Ding-ri glang-
'khor. This was Ko-brag-pa's place, and had been the principal resi-
dence of the Indian master Pha-dam-pa Sangs-rgyas in the 11th century,
and the site of his famous meeting with Rje-btsun Mi-Ia ras-pa (1040?-
1123?).59
After teaching the K alacakra three times at Ding-ri glang-'khor,
Vibhuticandra fell seriously ill. He was cured by Ko-brag-pa, who uti-
lized both techniques for removing impediments (gegs-sel) in yoga, and
medicinal treatments. 60 Vibh ilticandra was very grateful, and requested
Bu-ston, Bla, 89 lists Dpyal A-mo-gha, Lho-pa Tshul-gzhon, and Mar-ston
G.yang-'bar after Vibhliticandra in several lineages of Savaripa's
yoga. Bu-ston, Ela, 60, lists Ko-brag-pa after Vibhl1ticandra in both the lin-
eages of the ring-brgyud of and the nye-brgyud of Savaripa.
Ko-brag-pa then passed these lineages on to Gro-lung-pa Gzhon-nu-dpal.
Roerich, trans. 1976, 797, says that the instructions were given to Ko-brag-
pa, Dpyal A-mo-gha, G.yung-phug-pa, Nyeg-po Chos-ldan, and Mar-ston
G.yang-'bar. Taranatha, Rdo 478.5-6, only mentions Mar-ston G.yang-'bar,
Lho-pa Gzhon-tshul, Nyeg-po Chos-ldan, and Dpyal-ston Padma-can as actual
disciples of Vibhliticandra.
Dpa' -bo, Chos voL 1, 523, states that the lo-nang-pa trans-
mission of these teachings passed through Dpyal A-mo-gha, but Dol-po-pa,
Ela ma nye, 770, has Mar-ston G.yang-'bar, as well as, on 771, Dpyal-ston A-
mo-gha.
58. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 27b. See #11-17 in the Appendix.
59. See Zhi byed snga bar phyi gsum gyi skor, vol. 4 (Thimphu: Kunsang
Tobgey, 1979) 351-352, and Rang 'byung rdo rje's Rnal 'byor gyi dbang
phyug mi la bzhad pa rdo rje'i gsung mgur mdzod nag ma, vol. 1 (Dalhousie:
1978) 431.
60. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 27b-28a. Ko-brag-pa is most well known in the
Lam-' bras literature for his expertise in the techniques for removal of imped- .
iments (gegs-sel) during the practice of yoga. He is also said to have gained
incredible realization on the basis of his practice of the Lam-'bras, and the
which he received from VibhUticandra, and is known to have
written texts combining these two systems of tantric practice. In addition to
the traditional techniques for removal of impediments according to the Lam-
'bras teachings, he wrote many texts about previously unknown techniques
which were revealed to him when he directly perceived the network of energy
pathways in the vajia body during meditation. The most famous of his works
is the Gegs sel ha dmigs rgya mtsho. He also authored a text on the elimina-
STEARNS 145
from Ko-brag-pa many initiations, textual transmissions, and oral in-
structions of the Lam-' bras teachings, of which Ko-brag-pa was an
acknowledged master. 61 This is one of the few instances in which an
Indian master is known to have received extensive tantric teachings from
a Tibetan. .
VibhlIticandra stayed in Tibet for three years, two of which were spent
in Ding-ri glang-'khor. During this period, and most probably while
Vibhuticandra was still in Ding-ri, the 'Brug-pa Bka' -brgyud master
Rgod-tshang-pa Mgon-po rdo-rje (1189-1258) also came to receive
teachings from him.62 Vibhuticandra also traveled again to Srin-po-ri in
Central Tibet, and probably made the extant translations done at Srin-po-
tion of illnesses and demonic influences (nad gdon dbyung ba'i man ngag).
The most extensive discussion of his Lam-'bras connections is Ngor-chen
Kun-dga' bzang-po, Lam 116.
61. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 28a. Shes-rab mgon, Chos 7a, also verifies that
Vibhiiticandra received some teachings from Ko-brag-pa. See note 52 above
for the full Tibetan text.
62. Tiiranatha, Rdo 484.2-4. Tiiraniitha states that Rgod-tshang-pa requested
teachings on the short outer, inner, and secret bla-sgrub texts, and even wrote
annotations and a topical outline for them. He mentions that this is clear if
one consults the written works of Rgod-tshang-pa, but that there is no mention
of their meeting in his hagiography because his disciples kept it secret.
Despite a careful search of all the texts related to practices such as guruyoga in
The Collected Works of Rgod-tshang-pa, I have been unable to locate any col-
laborating evidence of contact between Vibhiiticandra and Rgod-tshang-pa.
The three texts referred to are, according to the titles. in the Peking edition
of the Tibetan Tripitaka, vol. 87: Bla ma sgrub pa'i rgya gzhung phyi sgrub
tillo pas mdzad pa, #5014, 14.1.3-14.2.3, Bla ma sgrub-pa'i rgya gzhung
nang sgrub nil ro pas mdzad pa, #5016, 14.4.2-15.2.7, and Bia ma gsang
sgrub kiu grub gyis mdzad pa, #5017, 15.2.7-16.2.6. All three texts were
translated into Tibetan by Vibhiiticandra. The gsang-sgrub text was translated
at the monastery of Ding-ri, and the phyi-sgrub text at the charnel ground of
Mkhan-pa (Mkhan-pa'i dur-khrod). The nang-sgrub was no doubt translated
at the same time as the two other related texts. These texts are also found in
the Gdams ngag mdzod, vol. 7 (Delhi: N. Lungtok and N. Gyaltsan, 1972) 97-
107.
Following the phyi-sgrub text is another small text composed by
Vibhiiticandra himself: Phyi sgrub kyis rten 'breI palJ. chen bhi bu ti tsantras
mdzad pa, #5015, 14.2.3-14.4.2. Tiiraniitha, Khrid 352, in his supplement to
the history of the 10 nang khrid brgya of his predecessor Kun-dga' grol-
mchog (1507-1566), refers to this text by Vibhiiticandra as the essential basis
for the bla-sgrub practices of the 'Brug-pa Bka' -brgyud tradition: gdams ngag
ngo bo ni / bi bhil ti tsandra'i gzhung gi rjes su 'brangs so.
146 JIABS 19.1
ri during this visit.
63
Rgwa-Io Rnam-rgyal rdo-rje (1203-1282) also
invited VibhiIticandra to Rong Dben-dmar in Gstang, as well as Kyog-po
monastery and Sham-bhar, and requested all the initiations alld instruc-
tions of the Kalacakra.
64
Finally, VibhiIticandra was invited by the
famous teacher Kun-mkhyen Chos-sku 'od-zer (1214-1292) to Gser-
sdings in the upper Nyang valley cif Gtsang. He bestowed upon Chos-sku
'od-zer many initiations, such as Kalacakra and Cakrasrupvara, and many
teachings such as the Avali Trilogy of Abhayakaragupata., and especially
the received directly from Savaripa.
65
As will be empha-
sized below, it is very significant that VibhiIticandra also taught the Sdom
gsum 'od kyi phreng ba to Chos-sku 'od-zer. 66 At this time Rgyus-pa
Bzhon-seng and Zhang-sgom Rin-chen seng requested many instructions
from VibhiIticandra, such as the Ye shes spyan sgrub
sadhana).67
After three years in Tibet, Vibh iIticandra returned to Nepal, and lived
for many more years. Tli.ranlitha states that he achieved the siddhi of
indivisibility, and the realization of the total integration of bliss and
emptiness through his perfection of dhararli, the fourth branch of the
As a result he is said to have left no body at death. 68 ..
63. TaranlHha, Rdo 484. Shes-rab mgon, Chos 7a. Padma gar-dbang, Zab
28a. See #18-19 in the Appendix.
64. Padma gar-dbang, Zab, 28a. Stag-tshang Lo-tsa-ba, Shes-rab rin-chen (b.
1405), Dpal57-60, provides the most detail about Rgwa-Io, and mentions that
VibhiIticandra was one of his teachers. See also Roerich, trans. 1976, 790.
65. Padma gar-dbang, Zab, 28a, 34b. The biography of Kun-mkhyen Chos-
sku 'od-zer given in this text, 28b-39b, is the most extensive available discus-
sion of his life. Bu-ston, B la, also places Chos-sku 'od-zet after VibhiIticandra
in one of the transniitted by Savaripa. See note 38
above for the identification of the.A vali Trilogy of Abhayakaragupta.
66. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 35a.
67. Padma gar-dbang, Zab 28b. In Bu-ston, Eta 89, Zhang-sgom Rin-chen
seng-ge is listed after VibhiIticandra in the transmission lines for both the Ye
shes spyan sgrub and the Nyi zla sgrub pa. Zhang-sgom is listed as Bla-ma
Zhang Ratnasirpha in the transmission line the colophon of the Bla ma gsang
sgrub. See #16 in the Appendix.
Roerich, trans. 1976, 671, mentions a Bka' -brgyud-pa master named Bzhon-
nu seng-ge (1200-1266) who may be our Rgyus Bzhon-seng. Bu-ston, Bla
90, lists Rgyus Gzhon-seng after VibhiIticandra in the lineage of the Gsung
rab rin chen 'dus pa, and on 92, lists him after Sa-skya Pal).<;J.i-ta in the
lineages of several different practices.
68. Taranlitha, Rdo 484.
STEARNS 147
THE LEGACY
The legacy of VibhUticandra has come down to the present day in the
form of texts which he authored and translated into Tibetan, and in the
practice of the directly transmitted to him by mahiisiddha
Savaripa. In the following centuries, it was these teachings of the
which were regarded in Tibet as the most significant spiri-
tuallegacy of Vibh Uticandra. From among the other texts which he au-
thored and/or translated, the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba is the one text
which has received the most attention from critics.
VibhiIticandra is the author of at least eight texts found in the Peking
edition of the Tibetan Bstan-'gyur. Six of those eight he translated into
Tibetan by himself or with a Tibetan translator, as well as at least another
twenty-five works written by other Indian teachers. All but four of these
are tantric texts. 69 He translated works in Tibet at the ancient royal
palace in Pu-hrang, at 'Bring-mtshams in Gtsang, at Ding-ri glang-'khor
near the border with Nepal, and at Srin-po-ri in Dbus. Others he trans-
lated at Stham Bihar in Kathmandu, Nepal.
The Rnal 'byor yan lag drug pa (Y
The Rnal 'byor yan lag drug pa spoken by mahiisiddha
Savaripa to VibhiIticandra at Stham Bihar in Kathmandu is the most
important core text (mula, rtsa-ba) for the direct transmission (nye-
brgyud) of the perfection stage practices of the Kalacakra-
tantra as practiced in Tibet. 70 The very succinct verse definitions of .each
of the six branches of the practice found in this short work are quoted as
authoritative speech in virtually every instruction text writ-
ten in Tibet. The special importance of this transmission for the Jo-
nang-pa tradition is underscored by the fact that Kun-spangs Thugs-Ije
brtson-grus (1243-1313), the founder of Jo-nang monastery, wrote the
only known commentary to it.?1
69. A complete list of these texts is found in the Appendix.
70. See #17 in the Appendix. The. most important core text for the sequential
transmission (ring-brgyud) of the in Tibet is the Sbyor ba yan
lag drug gi man ngag rje dus 'khor zhabs kyi mdzad pa 'i snyan rgyud zhal gyi
gdams pa of
*Kalacakrapada (Dus-'khor zhabs), translated in the 11th century by the
Kashmiri pa1Jita Somanatha and the Tibetan lo-tsii-ba 'Bro Shes-rab grags.
Peking, vol. 47: 245.5.8.-247.1.3.
71. Kun-spangs-pa was responsible for first gathering together all the extant
lineages of the in Tibet, and then furthering their propagation.
148 JIABS 19.1
Kun-spangs-pa wrote a number of important texts on the
although only one seems to have survived to the present day.72 This is
the earliest available Tibetan work on the the Dpal dus kyi
'khor lo'i mal 'byor yan lag drug gi 'grel pa snying po bsdus pa, written
by one Dpal Mi-bskyod rdo-rje, a yogin of the Kalacakra, who is identi-
fied as the siddha Yu-mo-ba in an editorial note at the end of the text. 73
This is, of course, a false attribution. The Snying po bsdus pa is a com-
mentary upon the revealed by Savaripa to Vibhilticandra.
As discussed above, Vibhilticandra came to Tibet as a young man in
1204, whereas the Tibetan K1Hacakra master Yu-mo-ba Mi-bskyod rdo-
rje was born in the first cycle of the Tibetan system of reckoning dates,
which began in 1027.74 In fact, Thugs-rje brtson-' gros is only one of the
many names of the founder of Jo-nang. He was also known as Kun-
spangs Chos-rje, Zhang Thugs-rje brtson-'grus, Kun-tu bzang-po, and
Dpal Mi-bskyod rdo-rje.
75
He occupies a central position in the transmission lines of these teachings as
received by both Bu-ston Rin-chen grub and Dol-po-pa Shes rab-rgyal
mtshan. Kun-spangs-pa received and practiced seventeen different lineages of
the and then synthesized them. Taranatha, Rdo 476-47S, gives
a clear and succinct sketch of these seventeen lineages, many of which are
associated with the different Tibetan translators of the Kalacakratantra and
Vimalaprabhii. In his treatment of the history of the in Tibet,
'Jam-mgon Kong-sprul (1813-1899), Theg vol. 1,549-551, simply copies
verbatim Taranatha's entire discussion.
72. See Bu-ston, Bla, 92 for a list of Kiilacakra texts by Kun-spangs-pa, but
without clear titles.
73. Dpal Mi-bskyod rdo-rje, Dpa124. What may be another copy of this com-
mentary is preserved in the library of the Cultural Palace of Nationalities,
Beijing, under the title Dpal sha ba ri pa'i gzung chung / gzhung chung de'i
'grel pa kun spangs thugs rje rtson 'grus gyis mdzod, in six folios. See van
der Kuijp 1994, 193, note 40.
74. Ngag-dbang blo-gros grags-pa, Dpal18.
75. Ngor-chen Kun-dga' bzang-po, Lam 117.4.2, gives both the names Kun-tu
bzang-po and Dpal Mi-bskyod rdo-rje. Jo-nang Phyogs-Ias mam-rgyal (1306-
1386) notes that Byang-sems Rgyal-ba ye-shes (1257-l320) received this
commentary on the of Savaripa from Kun-spangs-pa himself.
See Phyogs-las mam-rgyal, Chos 9a, where it is referred to as sha ba ri pa'i
gzhung 'grel. Mkhas-btsun Yon-tan rgya-mtsho also received this text from
Kun-spangs-pa himself. See Dol-po-pa, Bla ma yon 304.
Kun-spangs-pa is clearly stated to be the author of the commentary in 10-
nang Kun-dga' grol-mchog's biography of PaJ.l-chen Shakya mchog-Idan
(1428-1507), and in the biography of the 16th century 10-nang throne-holder
STEARNS 149
Kun-spangs-pa's Snying po bsdus pa is significant for several reasons.
First of all, he collected in it the scattered oral instructions (man-ngag
kha- 'thor-ba) of the teachings Savaripa bestowed upon Vibhuticandra.7
6
Special instructions from Kun-spangs-pa's work can later be seen in the
instruction manual of Io-nang Taranatha, especially the
teachings of the first branch of pratyiihilra (so-sor sdud-pa/gcod-pa),
where the oral instructions of mahilpar-ita Vibhuticandra are presented
on the basis of the explanations in the Snying po bsdus pa, although not
identified as drawn from that source.
77
Kun-spangs-pa's text is also im-
portant as the earliest available Tibetan work concerning the Killacakra,
and specifically as the only commentary on the teachings of the
gayoga as passed down in the direct transmission of Vibhuticandra (bi-
bhu-ti'i nye-brgyud).78
Sgo-rum Kun-dga' legs-pa (1477-1544), written by the Sa-skya master 'Jam-
dbyangs mkhyen-brtse'i dbang-phyug (1524-1568). Kun-dga' grol-mchog,
Par-i, 53: sha wa ri'i rdo rje'i gzhung chung I .. rdo rje gzhung chung gi 'grel
pa thog mtha' bar dge rnams kun spang kun tu bzang pos mdzad pa dang I.
'Jam-dbyangs mkhyen-brtse'i dbang-phyug, Rje, 278: sbyor drug gi gzhung
shwa ba ris mdzad pa I de'i man ngag jo nang kun spangs chen pos mdzad
pal.
76. Dpal Mi-bskyod rdo-rje, Dpal24.
77. Taranlitha, Zab 369-370.
78. The oldest available Tibetan treatise concerning the sequential transmis-
sion (ring-brgyud) of the is the Dus kyi 'khor lo 'i gegs sel mig gi
sgron me, by Kun-spangs-pa's disciple La-stod Dbang-rgyal, who was also
known as Gnyos Dbang-rgyal. This text has survived unnoticed among the
numerous volumes of the collected works of Bo-dong PaI).-chen Phyogs-las
rnam-rgyal (1376-1451). See La-stod Dbang-rgyal, Dus. It is an instruction
manual dealing with the last four branches of the and focusing
upon methods for the removal of impediments (gegs-sel) which may arise
during the advanced practice of those yogas.
The most detailed treatment of La-stod dbang-rgyal's views, especially in
connection with the and the Lam-'bras teachings, is found in
Kun-dga' bzang-po, Lam, 117.2.4-117.4.1. Here it is made clear that his
synthesis of these two systems was soundly rejected by the Sa-skya-pa lineage
holders of the Lam-'bras. In particular, his view is said to have been exactly
the same as that of the Chinese master Ha-shang (rgya-nag mkhan-po ha-
shang), whose view had been refuted centuries before in Tibet by the Indian
par-rj.ita KamalaSIla. This is particularly interesting since it is known that La-
stod Dbang-rgyal's teacher, Kun-spangs-pa, actually transmitted the teachings
of the notorious Chinese monk. Kun-spangs-pa taught the Chinese Ha-shang's
esoteric instructions to 'Phags-'od Yon-tan rgya-mtsho (b. 1268), the teacher
150 JIABS 19.1
The Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba (Ttisarp.varaprabhamala)
This work is concerned with the three most important vows which may
be taken by a Buddhist: those of the the bodhisattva, and the
vidhyadhara.7
9
This is an area of exegesis in which scholars of the Sa-
skya school have long excelled, beginning with the Rtsa ltung 'khrul
spong of Rje-bstun Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, dealing with the nature of the
sacred commitments inherent in vajrayana Buddhist practice, and the
renowned Sdom gsum rab dbye of his nephew Sa-skya dealing in
depth with all three vows. Both of these have been, to say the least, con-
troversial works. 80 In addition, the master of 'Bri-gung, Jig-rten mgon-
po, and his nephew Shes-rab 'byung-gnas (1187-1241), wrote very influ-
ential works, known collectively as the Dgongs gcig yig cha, some of
which touch on these same subjects, often at odds with the interpretations
of the Sa-skya-pa.
81
As mentioned above, Vibhuticandra had contacts with the 'Bri-gung
tradition before he visited Sa-skya in 1209, and later was very active at
'Bri-gung monastery during his second trip to Tibet. Padma gar-dbang
specifies that Vibhuticandra wrote the Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng ba at
this time. 82 The earliest mention of the Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng"'ba is
by the scholar Bcom-ldan Rig-pa'i ral-gri (c.1235-c.1315?). In his cata-
logue of works translated into Tibetan, which was most probably written
before 1283, he specifically lists the text as a work composed by
of Bu-ston, who should not be confused with Mkhas-btsun Yon-tan rgya-
mtsho (1260-1327), the teacher of Dol-po-pa. See A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang
kun-dga' bsod-nams (1597-1659), Dpa1133: rgya'i ha shang gi man ngag gi
skor rnams gnang ngo I. Some of the texts of the Chinese Ha-shang were still
preserved at Io-nang in the time of Taranatha, who mentions that he had read
the Mdo sde brgyad bcu khungs of Ha-shang, and felt that the absolute deni-
gration of Ha-shang's teachings in Tibet were based on ignorance of their
actual content, and were judgments based upon isolated quotations taken out
of context. See Taranatha, Dge 542-544. .
79. See #31 in the Appendix. Peking, vol. 81, #4549, 214.3.4-215.4.1. Derge,
#3727, vol. TSHU, 54b.2-56b.7. Cone microfiche edition, vol. TSHU, 54b.1-
56b.7. Another version is found in Go-ram-pa Bsod-nams seng-ge, Sdom,
written in 1461. The entire text is quoted on 228.1.1-229.3.4, and followed
by Go-ram-pa's refutation.
80. See Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, Rtsa, and Sa-skya Sdom.
81. Most of these 'Bri-gung works were apparently written down in about
1226.
STEARNS 151
Vibhuticanclra.
83
From this information it can be seen that before the
tum of the 14th century the text was accepted as an authentic work com-
posed by VibhUticanclra.
On the other hand, while Jo-nang Taranatha also stated that the text of
the Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng ba first appeared after Vibhuticanclra's
second visit to Tibet, he believed it to be a forgery:
After that [trip to 'Bri-gung], the short text called Sdom gsum 'ad 'phreng,
in which there are refutations of the philosophical position of the Rtsa ltung
'khrul spong of the great Rje-btsun, was composed, perhaps by a scholar of
Srin-po-ri, it is said, or perhaps by a partisan of the 'Bri-khung-pa, it is also
said, and with the attribution "composed by Vibhaticandra." It also does
contain the philosophical position held by Vibhilticandra.
Later followers of the Sa-skya-pa had no experience in regard to Tibetan
compositions and Indian compositions, and when they saw those refutations,
they were deeply offended. Since the text of the 'Od- 'phreng has clear and
obvious signs of being a Tibetan composition, it was definitely not com-
posed by Vibhiiticandra.
There is no need to be that angry at him. It is the same, for example, as
Vajradhara not being at fault even though there is wrong view and conduct
in a false tantra.
Henceforth, if there are [points] in the tradition of the Sdom gsum 'od
'pheng which can be refuted with scripture and reasoning, cite them!
To have deep animosity just about a prostration not offered to Rje-btsun
Grags-rgyal, and a refutation, is merely narrow-minded and not the conduct
of a scholar. So if you hope to be a scholar, it would be preferable if you
acted in a manner fit for a scholar.
84
83. Bcom-ldan Rig-pa'i ral-gri, Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi me tog, 32b:
pa1}r!i ta bhi bu ris rang gis byas pa spyod 'jug gi 'brei pa dang I bsdom gsum
'od gyi phreng ba dang I nang gi snye ma a nu pa ma'i sbyor drug gi bzhung
dang I rmi lam rtag pa dang I mgon po'i sgrub thabs dang I 'jams pa'i rdo
rje'i mchod pa dang I phyogs kyi glang po'i dzad 'brei lags pa bsgyur I. I am
grateful to Prof. Leonard van der Kuijp, Harvard University, for this
reference.
84. Taranatha, Rdo, 485: de rjes srin po ri pa 'i dge bshes cig yin nam yang
zer I 'bri khung pa'i phyogs 'dzin cig yin nam yang zer te I rje btsun chen po'i
rtsa ltung 'khrul spong gi grub mtha' la dgag pa yod pa'i sdom gsum 'od
'pheng zer ba'i gzhung chung de brtsams nas I bi bha ti candras mdzad do
zhes kha 'phangs byas 'dug I grub mtha' bi bha ti'i bzhed pa ni yin yod par
yang gda' I phyis kyi sa skya pa mams bod rtsom dang rgya rtsom gyi nyams
ni med I dgag pa de mthong bas snying na ba yin te I 'od 'phreng gi gzhung
de bod rtsom sang sang sngon rtags can yin pas I bi bha tis ma mdzad par
nges I khong la tshig pa de tsam za mi dgos I dper na rgyud brdzus rna gcig gi
'152 JIABS 19.1
These comments raise a number of interesting points. To begin with,
Taranatha informs us that the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba refutes posi-
tions laid forth in the Rtsa ltung 'khrul spong of Rje-btsun. Grags-pa
rgyal-mtshan, which the Sa-skya tradition to this day considers the
definitive text on the nature of the fourteen fundamental sacred commit-
ments (samaya, dam-tshig) of the vajrayiina, following the tradition of
the Indian mahiisiddha Virupa.
85
This opinion is shared by the important
Sa-skya scholar Go-ram-pa Bsod-nams seng-ge (1429-1489), who
repeatedly mentions the specific points in the 'Khrul-spong which he
feels have been attacked in the brief verses of the Sdom gsum 'od kyi
phreng ba, and then proceeds to strongly refute those attacks.
86
How-
ever, the Bka' -brgyud-pa historian Dpa' -bo Gtsug-lag 'pheng-ba (15031
4-1566) states that Vibhuticandra wrote his text after seeing Sa-skya
PaI).<;lita's explanation in the Sdom gsum rab dbye that the three vows are
transmutable (gnas-' gyur). 87 Another early commentator upon the Sdom
gsum rab dbye, Kun-mkhyen Dga' -gdong-pa, identified the specific use
of the examples of sun, moon, and stars by Vibhuticandra to be a refu-
tation of the position that the three vows possess a single essence (ngo-bo
nang na I Ita spyod log pa 'dug kyang I de rdo rje 'chang la khag med pa
dang 'dra liar sdom gsum 'od 'phreng gi lugs de la'ang lung rig gis gnod
byed yod na khyogs shog I rje brtsun grags rgyal la phyag ma phul ba dang I
dgag pa byas pa tsam la snying 'kham [486] pa ni gu dog tsam yin gyi I
mkhas pa'i bya ba ma yin no I des na mkhas pa yin du re na mkhas pa la 'os
pa zhig byas na dga' '0 I.
85. The Rtsa ltung 'khrul spong was later the object of a refutation by Tsong-
kha-pa, Blo-bzang grags-pa (1357-1419) in his Gsang, which was in turn
refuted by the Sa-skya master Gser-mdog PaI).-chen Shakya mchog-Idan
(1408-1507) in his 'Khrul.
86. See for example, Bsod-nams seng-ge, Sdom 234.4.4-235.2.1, where he
quotes the relevant passage from Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, Rtsa 258.4.3- .
258.4.6, on the issue of gnas-'gyur and ngo-bo-gcig, which is refuted in the
'Odphreng.
87. Dpa' -bo, Chos vol. 1, 524: phyis sa pal) gyi sdom gsum rab dbye brtsams
nas sdom gsum gnas 'gyur du gzigs nas I deng sang bstan pa'i zabs 'di ru.
sdom pa gsum gyi rnam gzhag la I mkhas pa'i rgyu skar 'ga' zhig gis I phyogs
re'i cha tsam rtogs gyur mod. sogs nas I bdag blo nyi ma'i dkyil 'khor gyis I
phyogs las rgyal bar byas te 'god I ces dang I gsum ldan gsungs pa'i dgongs
pa ni I zhes sogs kyi sdom gsum 'od phreng brtsams I I have not located any
reference to this in Sa-skya PaI).<;li-ta's Sdom gsum rab dbye.
STEARNS 153
gcig), which had been stated in the Rtsa ltung 'khrul spong of Grags-pa
rgyal-mtshan.
88
The Bka' brgyud master Karma 'phrin-las-pa (1456-1539) would later
remark, "Since there have been very many statements in Tibet about the
three vows bemg identical in essence or different, I will not elaborate
upon it here." 89 Although many of the issues being dealt with in these
texts are exceedingly complex, it seems appropriate to at least briefly
outline the positions of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan and Vibhuticandra in
regard to the question of the identical or different nature (ngo bo gcig
dang tha dad) of the three vows, and whether they are transmutable
(gnas-'gyur). It was perhaps these two points which provoked the strong-
est reactions from many critics of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's work.
90
Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan defines the nature of the Vow' as
renunciation of everything which is harmful to others. In addition to
that, the bodhisattva vow is the commitment to benefit others. The
vidyadhara vow is to carry out the former vows while sustaining the
pristine awareness of oneself as a deity. There is thus no contradiction
between the three vows.
91
When a person who has taken full ordination
88. See Bsod-nams seng-be, Sdom 233.2.5-6: sdom gsum rab dbye'i 'grel
byed kha cig (Dga ') na re I da ni 'di dpyad par bya ste I kha cig sdom pa
gsum po rje btsun chen pos rtsa ltung 'khrul spong du ngo bo gcig du gsungs
pa I par.zdi ta bi bha ti candras sdom gsum 'od kyis phreng bar nyi zla skar
gsum gyi dpes ngo bo gcig pa bkag nas rdzas tha dad du bzhad zer ro I.
The commentary by Kun-mkhyen Dga' -gdong-pa is not presently available,
but is mentioned in the autobiography of Jo-nang Kun-dga' grol-mchog
(1507-1566) as one of the four great authentic commentaries (tshad-thub
'grel-chen bzhi). See Kun-dga' grol-mchog, Zhen 361.3.
The examples of the sun, moon, and stars are found in the 'Od pheng,
Peking edition, 215.1.4-5. The section of the Rtsa ltung 'khrul spong which is
being refuted with the use of those examples is the same passage cited in note
86 above.
89. Karma 'phrin-las-pa, Dri Ian padma, 101: sdom gsum ngo bo gcig dang
tha dad ces bod na lab brjod shin tu mang bas 'dir ma spros II
90. For example, Bu-ston rin-chen grub later said that the statement "the
three vows are transmutable and have a single essence" was a perverse Tibetan
invention, for which there were no believable scriptural sources. See Bu-ston,
Gtsang 256: sdom pa gsum gnas gyur ngo bo gcig ces pa bod Icyi ngan rtog
yin I yid ches thub pa'i lung khungs med II And according to Karma 'phrin-
las-pa, Dri Ian drang 124, Karma pa VII Chos-grags rgya-mtsho (1454-1506)
held the opinion that the idea of the vows being transmutable contradicted the
idea of their single essence.
91. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, Rtsa, 258.4.
154 JIABS 19.1
according to the pratimok!ja becomes motivated to attain Buddhahood for
the benefit of all sentient beings, all the pratimok!ja vows become bodhi-
sattva vows. When that same person enters into a malJr;lala to receive
tantric initiation, all the vows are then referred to as vidyadhara vows. 92
Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan used a series of examples drawn from scripture
to illustrate his position. In the scriptural quotation it is pointed out that
when some varieties of stone are smelted, they yield iron, copper, and
silver. But a single gold-transforming tincture can transmute them all
into gold. Likewise, the different vows determined by specific attitudes
are all referred to as vidyadhara if one enters into a great malJr;lala.
Finally, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan notes that the example of the stone obvi-
ously designates ordinary persons, while the iron is the fravaka disci-
pline, the copper is the pratyekabuddha discipline, the silver is the disci-
pline of the bodhisattva, and the gold-transmuting tinture is the discipline
of the vidyadhara.
93
In the view of later Sa-skya-pa commentators, such
as Go-ram-pa, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's intention was to show that the
lower vows are sequentially transformed into the higher ones as those
vows are later taken. When one is thus endowed with all three vows,
they may be said to have a single essence. 94
In regard to the nature of the vows, the following lines are often
quoted from the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba, where they are found
soon after Vibhuticandra's refutation of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's inter-
pretation of the scriptural quotation summarized in the previous para-
graph:
Therefore, when one endowed with the pratimok!ja takes the [bodhisattva
vow] of the mind of sublime enlightenment, the former resides in the alaya
in a dormant fashion.
When the vidhyi1dhara vow is received, both the lower ones become
dormant.
For example, while the stars shining in the sky provide some light, when
the orb of the moon shines the starlight becomes dim, but the world is
bright.
When the hot rays of the sun appear, the moonlight becomes dim, but the
world is bright. 95
92. Ibid.
93. Ibid. The scripture which is quoted is identified as the Rgyud 'bum pa'i
lung de kho na nyid ye shes grub pa.
94. Bsod-nams seng-ge, Sdom 235.2.
95. Bi-bhU-ti-tsandra, Sdom 215.1: des na so sor thar ldan pas / byang chub
mchog gi sems blangs na / dang po de ni kun gzhi la / bag la nyal ba'i tshul
STEARNS 155
Here Vibhuticandra clearly disagrees with Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's as-
sertion that the former vows transform into the latter vows. Instead, he
states that they all remain individual, although the latter ones may seem
to dominate the former. While agreeing with Vibhuticandra, the Sde-srid
Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho (1653-1705) would later give another example
to illustrate the same point. If water, beer, and milk are mixed together
in the same vessel, the smell of the beer and the color of the milk will
dominate, but this does not prove that the water is gone.
96
According to the Sde-srid, the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba also states
that the three vows are substantially different (rdzas tha-dad). 97 This, of
course, contradicts Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's position that they have a sin-
gle essence. The following lines illustrate Vibhuticandra's argument.
Therefore, it is not correct that one becomes endowed with the three
[vows] when [receiving] the single vidhyadhara [vow]. If it were correct,
the former two would arise without the necessity of rituals. The Great Sage
did not teach a common ritual for the three vows. 98
Here the Sde-srid comments that the three vows which are present in the
mental continuum of an individual are substantially different for a num-
ber of reasons. They are different at the point of arising, because the
former must be present as the basis for the latter ones. They are different
in duration, because the endures as long as one lives, whereas
the latter two remain until the attainment of Buddhahood. And they are
different in that the former is lost at death, but the latter two are not.
99
As mentioned by Karma 'phrin-Ias-pa, there were numerous textual dis-
cussions in Tibet of these and many other questions raised in Grags-pa
rgyal-mtshan and Vibhuticandra's works. Hopefully these same topics
will receive detailed scholarly treatment in the future which is not possi-
ble in this paper.
du gnas I rig' dzin sdom pa thob pa na I 'og rna gnyis ka bag la nyal I dper na
mkha' la skar rna shar I cung zad snang bar byas gyur mod I zla ba'i dkyil
'khor shar ba'i tshe I skar 'od nyams mod 'jig rten gsal I rta bdun tsha zer
byung ba na I zla ba'i ' od nyams 'jig rten gsal II
96. Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, Dpal 480.
97. Ibid., 479.
98. Bi-bhu-ti-tsandra, Sdom 215.2: des na rig 'dzin gcig pu la I gsum ldan
sbyor ba 'thad rna yin I gal te 'thad na 'og rna gnyis I cho ga mi dgos skye bar
'gyur I sdom gsum cho ga thun mong du I thub pa chen pos gsungs pa med II
99. Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, Dpal479.
"156 JIABS 19.1
The next issue Which was mentioned above by Taranatha is the ques-
tion of authenticity. He states that the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba
contains the attribution (kha-'phangs) "composed by Vibhliticandra (bi
bha ti candras mdzad do)." This is indeed the case, but it should be noted
that all the colophons of texts composed or translated by Vibhl1ticandra
alone are written in the third person, using the honorific verb "to com-
pose" (mdzad).lOO Not a single colophon is in the first person, using
another ordinary verb such as sbyar-ba, 'bri-ba, or bkod-pa. In other
words, Vibhl1ticandra wrote none of the colophons to his own works, and
it seems that the unknown author of the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba
1
if
it is indeed a forgery, may have simply copied a standard formula usually
found at the end of a work by Vibhl1ticandra, to the effect of "(The
work) composed by Vibhl1ticandra, the mahapa1}rj.ita of Jagaddala in
eastern India, and translated himself, is complete."lOl
Taranatha then makes the very significant statement that the views
within the Sdom gsum ' od kyi phreng ba do actually coincide with those
ofVibhl1ticandra himself. His source for this knowledge is not specified,
but he seems to make the point, both here and further below in the quote,
that the doctrinal content of the text presents no problem for him, and a
few lines further on he invites debate upon this very subject. It is other
evidence within the text, such as style, diction, and so forth, which pre-
sumably caused him to state that it was obviously not by Vibhl1ticandra,
and must have been written by a Tibetan. 102 The specific refutation by
100. In this context it is very interesting to note that Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan
lists seven treatises concerning the nature of vows attributed to early masters
such as *Mafijusrlyasas (' J am-dpal grags-pa), * Anandagarbha (Kun-dga'
snying-po), and Lady * L a k ~ m I (Learn Legs-smi), which he states are certain
forgeries, even though he received them in a living transmission from his own
guru, and had even taught them a bit himself! He also emphasizes the use of
the third person honorific "mdzad" used in the forged colophons. See Grags-
pa rgyal-mtshan, Rtsa 238.3.3-4: gzhung dang don gyi 'grel pa bdun po de
dag kho bos kyang bla rna las thos shing I gzhan la' ang cung zad 'chad mod
kyi I de dag ni log par smra ba 'ba' zhig yin fa I mdzad do zhes zer ba'i slob
dpon chen po de dag gis kyang rna mdzad pa nyid du rig par bya' 0 I.
101. For example, see the 'Od-phreng colophon of the Peking edition, 215.
4.1: rgya gar shar phyogs dza ga ta la'i pa1Jcji ta chen po bi bha ti candras
mdzad te rang' gyur du mdzad pa rdzogs so I.
102. In Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, Rtsa 249.4.2-4, there is a pertinent discussion
of how to deal with texts attributed to the Buddha, or to other great masters,
which were not composed by them: yang sangs rgyas sam slob dpon chen po
dag gis ma mdzad pa la mdzad par ming btags pa dag mthong na de legs par
STEARNS 157
an Indian pa7}rj.ita of points in a contemporary Tibetan text is also, to my
knowledge, unprecedented. This may have been another factor con-
tributing to Taranatha's judgment that the Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng ba
was not composed by Vibh -uticandra himself. It is conceivable that
Vibhilticandra taught the basic positions found within this text, which
was then written in verse form with a specific polemic aim by someone
who had heard them during his stay at 'Bri-gung or Srin-po-ri.
Taranatha also states that later Sa-skya authors were not able to discern
the difference between authentic texts of Indian origin, and those com-
posed in Tibet. In particular, later scholars of the Sa-skya tradition crit-
icized and ridiculed Vibhtlticandra, which Taranatha dismisses as mere
bluster.
103
He gives as a reason the episode which was discussed above,
in which Vibhilticandra is said to have not prostrated to the Sa-skya mas-
ter Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, therefore arousing the ire of those in the Sa-
skya tradition.
As we have seen, the Sa-skya-pa thinkers, as represented by Dga'-
gdong-pa and Go-ram-pa, believed the Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng ba to
have been composed by Vibhiiticandra. As mentioned above, the strong-
est witness for the authenticity of the text is the fact that it was taught by
Vibhuticandra to Kun-mkhyen Chos-sku 'od-zer.
104
This shows that the
Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng ba was also accepted as an authentic work of
VibhUticandra in the lineage of the Bo-dong-pa tradition of the ~ a r j . a n
gayoga masters whose lives are recorded by Padma gar dbang in 1538.
The Sdom gsum 'ad kyi phreng ba is also included in all the available
editions of the Tibetan Bstan-'gyur. Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub included it in
his landmark edition, and his index to the collection states that it was
composed by Vibhuticandra, with no mention of any uncertainty of
authorship. 105 Bu-ston also translated at least one of Vibhuticandra's
works from Sanskrit into Tibetan, and certainly did possess the ability to
distinguish between Indian and Tibetan compositions.
1
0
6
brtags te I don log par mthong na ni snga ma bzhin brda sprad par bya la I
don la skyon med cing tshig ni 'phags pa dag gis ma mdzad pa'i nges pa dang
ldan na 'di nyid don yin mod kyi I tshigs gi sdeb sbyor 'di ni 'phags pa dag
gis ma mdzad do zhes brda sprad par smra ba 'di la' ang nyes pa med do I.
103. Taranatha, Rdo, 484: ... 'ur 'brag langs pa kho nar zad do I
104. Padilla gar-dbang, Zab 35a.
105. Bu-ston Rin-chen grub, Bstan 566: bi bhil ti candras mdzad pa'i sdom
gsum 'od kyi phreng ba I de nyid kyi rang 'gyur I
106. Sgrub thabs mdor byas kyi dka' 'grel (Pi1}cjlk,rta-siidhana-pafijikii),
Peking, vol. 62, #2701: 263.1.6.-265.2.6. See #25 in the Appendix. This
158 JIABS 19.1
The Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng. ba was also accepted as authentic in the
Dge-Iugs-pa tradition, since we find Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang grags-pa
using a verse from it when quoting Vibhuticandra.1
07
Morf<over, the
Sde-srid Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho gives Vibhfiticandra's opinions from
the Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba a prominent place in his treatment of
the controversy about whether the three vows can be considered tran&-
mutable.1
08
He specifically quotes the concluding lines of
Vibhuticandra's work, and states that they clearly show he was following
the views of his master S akyaSrl in maintaining that the vows are differ-
ent in nature. 109
The Bka' -brgyud teacher Karma 'phrin-Ias-pa, writing in 1502 imd
1509, engaged in a fascinating discussion of the issues raised in the Sdom
gsum 'od kyi phreng ba, while clearly considering the text to have been
composed by Vibhuticandra.
110
As noted above, the Bka' -brgyud histo-
rian Dpa' -bo Gtsug-Iag phreng-ba also mentions the composition by
Vibhllticandra, with no hint of controversy about authorship. Finally,
the later Sa-skya scholar Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims rin-chen (1697-1774)
included the text in the Sde-dge edition of the Bstan-' gyur, without spe-
cial comment. 111
. CONCLUSIONS
During three separate trips to Tibet, which totaled at least fifteen years,
the Indian mahiipa1Jita VibhUticandra made significant contributions to
text concerning the practice of the Guhyasamiija-tantra was translated on the
basis of the Indian manuscript by Bu-ston at his primary residence, the retreat
site of Dpal Ri-phug above Zha-Iu monastery, in the year 1340. Ruegg 1966,
149, also mentions that Bu-ston translated the small SaTJ'lvarasiidhana by
VibhUticangra in 1357, but I have not located this text in the Peking edition of
the Tibetan Bstan 'gyur.
107. Blo-bzang grags-pa, Gsang 471.
108. Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, DpaZ 475-481.
109. Ibid, 479.
110. Karma 'phrin-Ias-pa, Dri Zan padma 101, where the Sdom gsum 'od
phreng is quoted, and especially Karma 'phrin-Ias-pa, Dri Zan drang 122-130,
where the'Od phreng is quoted on 123, and the issues are dealt with in detail
from the viewpoints of VibhiHicandra, Rje-btsun Grags-pa, the 'Bri-gung-pa,
and so forth. Karma 'Phrin-Ias-pa places the greatest emphasis upon the
opinions of his teacher, the seventh Karma-pa, Chos-grags rgya-mtsho.
111. Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims rin-chen, DpaZ 770: sdom gsum ~ od kyi phreng
ba zhes bya ba rgya gar shar phyogs dza ga ta Za'i par;zi ta chen po bi bhii ti
candras mdzad te I de nyid kyi rang 'gyur I.
STEARNS 159
the transmission of Buddhist knowledge from India and Nepal at a time
when it was being destroyed by the Islamic invasions in India. In partie-
ular, the practice of the of the Kalacakra, as taught to him
by the immortal mahasiddha Savaripa, has continued until the present
day to be of special importance for the Kalacakra traditions maintained in
Tibet. A number of works composed and translated by VibhUticandra are
preserved in the Tibetan Bstan-'gyur, some of which hold promise for
future research, especially his compositions concerning the Klilacakra-
tantra and the Bodhicarya.vata.ra.
The Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba is certainly the most controversial
work attributed to Vibhuticandra. Rje-btsun Taranatha was of the opin-
ion that it was definitely a forgery, although the ideas within it corre-
spond to positions Vibhuticandra accepted. Representatives of the other
traditions all seem to have accepted it as an authentic work. Final con-
elusions on this issue will have to await more thorough research into the
Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba itself, and the numerous issues raised by
the opinions found therein.
APPENDIX
Works in the Peking Edition of the Tibetan Bstan-' gyur
Composed and / or Translated by VibhiIticandra
Texts composed andJor translated at the Royal Palace in Pu-rang, Tibet:
1. Rdo rje tsar tsi ka'i las sgrub pa'i thabs (Vajracarciklikarma-sa.d-
hana), vol. 86, #4824: 46.2.5.-46.4.3.
Composed by Srldhara
Translated by VibhiIticandra and Glo-bo Lo-ts a-ba Shes-rab rin-chen,
at Chos-kyi rgyal-po'i pho-brang sku-mkhar nyi-gzugs.
2. Dpal rdo rje dbyangs can ma'i sgrub thabs (Srzvajrasarasvati-slid-
hana), vol. 86, #4826: 47.1.8.-47.5.6.
Composed by SrIdhara.
Translated by VibhiIticandra and Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab rin-chen at
Chos-kyi rgyal-po'i pho-brang sku-mkhar nyi-gzungs.
3. Rdo rjedkar mo'i rjessu 'dzin pa'i sgrub thabs (Vajragauryanu-
graha-slidhana), vol. 86, #4827: 47.5.6.-48.3.3.
Composed by Srldhara.
Translated by Vibhuticandra and Glo-bo Lo-ts a-ba Shes-rab rin-chen,
at Chos-kyi rgyal-po'i khab sku-mkhar nyi-gzungs.
160 JIABS 19.1
Texts composed and/or translated at Stham Bihar in Kathmandu, Nepal:
4. Dpal bde mchog gi dkyil 'khor kyi cho ga (SrlsalJ'lvara-mal}r;!alavidhi),
vol. 52, #2226: 74.1.7.-85.5.3.
Composed by Tathagatavajra,
Translated by Vibhl1ticandra, at Thang bi-ha-ra.
5. 'Phags pa don yod zhags pa'i sgrub pa'i thabs (.Aryamoghapasa-si14-
hana), vol. 86, #4841: 102.4.2.-102.5.8.
Composed by Vibhl1ticandra, who was blessed by SrI Cakrasarp.vara.
Translated with Glo-bo Lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab rin-chen, at Bal-yul Thang-
gi bhi-har gi gtsug-Iag-khang.
6. 'Phags pa don yod zhags pa'i sgrub thabs (.Aryamoghapasa-s"ad-
hana), vol. 86, #4840: 101.3.7.-102.4.2.
Composed by Sakyasrlbhadra.
Translated by Vibhl1ticandra and GIo-bo Lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab rin-chen.
Transmitted from Vibhuticandra to GIo-bo Lo-tsa-ba, by him to his
(spiritual?) son (sras) Blo-gros bzang-po, and by him to Slob-dpon A-
mo-gha.
7. Dpal rdo rje phag mo'i sgrub thabs (Srlvajravarahl-sadhana), vol.
86, #4825: 46.4.3.-47.1.8.
Composed by SrIdhara.
Translated by Vibhl1ticandra, and revised and finalized (zhus te gtan la
phab) by BIo-bo Lo-tsa-ba Shes-rab rin-chen, at Dpal chos-kyi-dbyings
kyi gtsug-Iag-khang rang-byung.
112
Texts composed and/or translated at 'Bring-mtshams, in Gtsang, Tibet:
8. Sbyor ba yan lag drug pa'i 'grel pa vol. 47,
#2084: 238.2.5.-242.4.2.
by RavisrIjfiana.
Translated by VibhiIticandra, at Ru-Iag gi snying-po 'bring-mtshams
kyi sa'i-chaJ dpal rgya-rtags kyi gtsug-Iag-khang.
9. Byang chub kyi spyod pa la 'jug pa'i dgongs pa'i 'grel pa khyad par
gsal byed vol. 100,
#5282: 235.5.8.-281.3.4.
Composed and translated by Vibhuticandra.
Translated at Ru-Iag gtsang-stod 'bring-'tshams kyi sa'i-cha dpal rgya-
rtags kyi gtsug-Iag- khang.
112. Roerich, trans. 1959, 55, states that the Indians referred to Stham-Bihar
by this name.
STEARNS 161
10. Rnal 'byor yan lag drug gi brjed byang yon tan gyis 'gengs pa
(Gur;zabharalJI-niima vol. 47, #2103: 283.1.5.
-294.4.8.
Composed by Ravisrljfiana.
Originally translated by Vibhuticandra, but later retranslated by Dpang
Lo-tsa-ba Blo-gros brtan-pa (1276-1342) at the insistence of Chos-
grags dpal-bzang.l
14
The original translation by Vibh titicandra was of only half the text. 115
Texts composed and lor translated at Ding-ri,
near the Tibet-Nepal border:
11. Sbyor ba yan lag drug pa (!jJatjangayoga), vol. 47, #2083: 234.2.4.-
238.2.5.
Composed by Sri Anupamaralqita.
Translated by Vibhuticandra and Gnyal Lo-tsa-ba Mi-myam bzang-po,
at La-stod Ding-ri glang-skor mkhan-pa (dur) khrod. See #22 below
for the later retranslation by Dpang Blo-gros-brtan-pa.
12. Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i gdams ngag nyi ma zla ba sgrub pa (Sri-
klilacakropadea-siiryacandra-siidhana), vol. 47, #2085: 242.4.2-
244.5.6.
Translated by VibhUticandra, at Dpal Ding-ri glang-'khor.
116
13. Bla ma sgrub pa'i rgya gzhung phyi sgrub ti llo pas mdzad pa
(Guru-siidhana), vol. 87: 14.1.3.-14.2.3.
Composed by yogevara Tilopa.
Translated by VibhUticandra, at Dpal mkhan-pa'i dur-khrod (in Ding-
ri.)
113. This text has been translated into Gennan by Gunter Grobold (1969).
114. This master may be identified as Kun-spangs Chos-grags dpal-bzang
(1283-1363), one of the great disciples of Kun-mkhyen Dol-po-pa at Jo-nang
monastery. He was also a translator of several texts from Sanskrit. See Ngag-
dbang blo-gros grags-pa, DpaZ 32-33, and Mang-thos klu -sgrub, Bstan 180.
115. Dpang-Io mentions in his colophon that although there are several
instances of questionable meaning in the text, and many corrupt grammatical
constructions, he had consulted an authoritative original document, and find-
ing them there as well, had strictly adhered to the original in his work. Padma
gar-dbang, Zab 24b, states that this text was translated at 'Bring-mtshams
rgya-rtags.
116. According to the Derge Index, this text #1369, PHA, 216b.2-221b.4,
was composed by Rigs-gsum mgon-po.
162 JIABS 19.1
14. Phyi sgrub kyis rten 'brei par chen bhi bu ti tsandras mdzad pa
(B iihya-siddhi-pratftyasamutpiida), vol. 87, #5015: 14.2.3 .-14.4.2.
No colophon, but the composition and translation are attriQuted to
Vibh liticandra.
15. Bla ma sgrub pa'i rgya gzhung nang sgrub nii ro pas mdzad pa
(Guru-siddhi), vol.87, #5016: 14.2.4.-15.2.8.
Composed by SrINaropa.
Translated by VibhUticandra, probably at Ding-ri.
16. Bla ma gsang sgrub klu sgrub gyis mdzad pa (Guru-guhya-siddhi),
vol. 87, #5017: 15.2.8.-16.2.6.
Composed by pa1}r;lita Nagarjuna.
Translated by Vibh Uticandra, at Dpal Ding-ri glang-'khor gyis dgon-
pa.
Transmission lineage: Vajradhara, Vajrapal)i, Nagarjuna, Tillopa,
Naropa, Pham-thing-pa, Sakyasrlbhadra, Vibhliticandra,
RatnasrIbhadra, Bla-ma zhang RatnasiIpha.
17. Rnal 'byor yan lag drug pa vol. 47, # 2091:
258.4.2.-258.5.1.
Spoken by SrI Savaresvara.
Translated by Vibhliticandra, probably at Ding-ri.
Transmitted by Savaripa directly to Vibhllticandra, at Stham Bihar in
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Texts composed and/or translated at Drang-srong Srin-po-ri, in Dbus,
Tibet:
18. Lu yi pa'i mngon par rtogs pa'i 'grel pa sdom pa'i 'byung ba
(Liihipiidiibhisamaya-v.rtti-salJ1varodaya), vol. 52, #2224: 58.2.1.-
63.1.7.
Composed by Tathagatavajra.
Translated by VibhUticandra, at Drang-srong Srin-po-ri.
19. Lu yi pa'i mngon par rtogs pa'i 'grel pa'i ti ka khyad par gsal byed
(Liihip vol. 52, #2225: 63.1.7.-
74.1.7.
Composed by Tathagatavajra.
Translated by VibhUticandra, at Drang-srong Srin-po-ri.
Received by' Jam-dpal gzhon-nu from Vibhllticandra himself.
Other texts:
20. Ye shes spyan sgrub pa vol. 47, #2086:
244.5.6.-245.3.7.
Composed by Kalacakrapada.
Translated by Vibhuticandra.
STEARNS 163
Transmission lineage: Kalacalaapada, jiianadakinf Suryadharma,
Ratnasrlbhadta, S akyaSribhadra, VibhiIticandra. .
21. Nang gi snye ma (Antarmafijarf), vol. 47, #2093: 259.2.1.-264.5.3.
Edited and translated by VibhiIticandr:!.117
22. Sbybr bayan lag drug pa ({)amigayoga), vol. 47, #2102: 274.3.7.-
283.1.5.
Composed by
A revision of #llabove, which was translated by VibhiIticandra and
Gnyal Lo-ts a-ba Mi-yam bzang-po. This new translation is by Dpang
Lo-tsa-ba Dpal-Idan blo-gros brtan-pa at the insistance of the great
Kalacakra master Chos-grags dpal-bzang-po.118
23. Rmi lam brtag pa (Svapnohana), vol. 59, #2621: 110.3.8.-111.2.5.
Composed and translated by Vibhuticandra.
24. Rimpa lnga'i dgongs 'grel zla ba'i 'od zer (Paficakrama-mata-.tlka-
candraprabha), vol. 62, #2700: 252.3.1.-263.1.6.
Composed by Abhyakaragupta.
Translated by Vibhuticandra.
119
25. Sgrub thabs mdor byas kyi dka' 'grel (PiIJ-fk,rta-sadhana-pafijika),
vol. 62, #2701: 263.1.6.-265.2.6.
117. Rong-pa Shes-rab seng-ge (1251-1315) and Rdo-rje rgyal-mtshan
(1283-1325) strongly criticized Vibhuticandra. Both these teachers had been
fellow students with Bu-ston Rin-chen grub under Thar-Io Nyi-ma rgyal
mtshan, who had been the abbot of Bodhgaya, India, for six years. See
Taranatha, Myang 142. Rdo-rje rgyal-mtshan later became one of Bu-ston's
most important teachers. See Roerich 1976,792-793, and Ruegg 1966, 87-
89. According to Taranatha the criticism by Shes-rab seng-ge and Rdo-rje
rgyal-mtshan was because of an awkward translation by VibhiIticandra of his
own anthology of Kalacakra related teachings, the Nang gi snye rna (Antar-
rnafijari). They had found what they considered to be serious mistakes in
meaning, but according to Taranatha this was due to the lack of fluency in the
translation, and they had therefore been unable to correctly comprehend
Vibhuticandra's intended meaning. Taranatha, Rdo 484: nang gi snye rna'i
'gyur rna bde ba zhig 'dug pas 'khrul gzhi byung nas don rna dgongs par . .. /
118. The colophon states: dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'j tshulla lhag par rnos shing
blo gros kyi snang ba cher rgyas pa'i slob dpon chen po chos grags dpaZ
bzang po 'i bkas bskul/ See note 114 above for the identification of Chos-
grags dpal-bzang.
119. Ruegg 1966, 123, mentions that Bu-ston completed VibhiIticandra's
translation of this text.
164 JIABS 19.1
Composed by VibhITticandra.
Translated by Bu-ston Rin-chen-grub, at the retreat site of Dpal Ri-
phug, on the Dpa'-bo year of 1340.1
20
26. 'Jam pa'i rdo rje mchod pa'i cho ga (Mafijuvajra-pujii-vidhi), vol.
66, #2766: 59.2.3.-60.5.8.
Composed by Srldatta.
Translated by VibhITticandra, with revision by Blo-gros seng-ge.
27. A ra pa tsa na'i sgrub thabs (Arapacana-siidhana), vol. 79, #3538:
85.3.4.-85.5.2.
Composed by Ajitarnitra.
Translated by VibhITticandra and Chag Lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje dpal.
28. Rmugs 'dzin 'chol ba'i sgrub thabs
vol. 81, #4565: 225.2.5.-226.1.8.
Composed by Abhayakaragupta.
Originally translated by Alarpkadeva and Tshul-khrims 'byung-gnas
sbas-pa, but retranslated by VibhUticandra and Chag Lo-tsa-ba Chos-rje
dpal.
29. 'Phags ma gdugs dkar mo can gzhan gyis mi thub pa sgrub pa'i
thabs (.Arya-sitiitapatriipariijitii-siidhana), vol. 80, #3935: 20.3.8.-
20.5.6.
Translated by VibhiHicandra and (GIo-bo Lo-tsa-ba) Shes-rab rin-chen.
30. 'Phags ma sgrol ma sgrub pa'i thabs (.Arya-tiirii-siidhana), vol. 81,
#4519: 97.4.6.-98.1.4.
Composed by SakyasIibhadra.
Translated by VibhiHicandra.
31. Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba (Trisa1J1varaprabhiimalii), vol. 81,
#4549: 214.3.4.-215.4.1.
Composed and translated by VibhUticandra.
32. Chos fnngon pa'i mdzod kyi 'grel pa gnad kyi sgron ma (Abhi-
vol. 118, #5596: 275.5.8.-332.5.1.
Composed by Dignaga.
Translated by VibhITticandra and 'lam-dpal gzhon-nu.
33. 'Chi ba med pa'i mdzod kyi rgya cher 'grel pa 'dod 'jo'i ba mo
vol. 140, #5788: 157.4.1-183.2.7.
Composed by Vibhl1ticandra (Rab-'byor zla-ba).
Translated by Rgya-gar gyi mkhan-po Kirticandra and Yar-Iungs-pa
Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (13th-14th cent.) in Kathmandu, Nepal.
120. Ruegg 1966, 122, also mentions Bu-ston's translation of this text.
STEARNS 165
BIBLIOGRAPHY
European Language Sources
Bajracharya, Puma Harsha. 1979. "Than Bahil, an Ancient Centre for
Sanskrit Study." Indologica Taurinensia 7: 61-64.
Chimpa, Lama, and Chattopadhyaya, Alaka, trans. 1990. Taranatha's History
of Buddhism in India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Rpt. of 1970 ed.
Dec1eer, Hubert. N.d. "Jowo Atisha in Nepal: the Tham Bahil and Five
Stupas' foundations according to the Dromton Itinerary." Unpublished
paper forthcoming in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
Gesellschaft?
Dutt, Sukumar. 1962. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India. London:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Gronbold, Gunter. 1969. $atjaitga-Yoga: Ravisrzjiiana's GUl}-abharal}-z nama
$atjaitgayoga.tippanz mit Text, Ubers. u. literarhistor. Komm. Diss. Ludwigs
-Maximillians-Universitat zu Munchen.
----. 1982. "Materialien zur Geshichte des III. Die Guru-
Reihen im buddhistischen Zentralasiatische Studien 16:
337-347.
----.1983, "Der Sechsgliedrige Yoga des Kalacakra-tantra." Asiatische
Studien / Etudes Asiatiques 37-1-1983.
----. 1991. "Das Datum des Buddha nach tantrischen Texten." The Dat-
ing of the Historical Buddha / Die Datierung des historischen Buddha. Ed.
Heinz Bechert. Pt. 1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 385-402.
Hirakawa, Akira. 1990. A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to
Early Mahayana. Trans. and ed. by Paul Groner. Asian Studies at Hawaii
36. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Jackson, David P. 1990. Two Biographies of Sakyasrzbhadra: The Eulogy of
Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba and its "Commentary" by bSod-nams-dpal-bzang-po.
Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies 4. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
----. 1994. Enlightenment by a Single Means. Vienna: der Oster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
de Jong, J. W. 1979. "La Iegende de Santideva." Buddhist Studies. Ed.
Gregory Schopen. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. 119-140.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. 1994. "Apropos of Some Recently Recovered
Texts Belonging to the Lam 'bras Teachings of the Sa skya pa and Ko brag
pa." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17.2: 175-
202.
Locke, John K. 1985. Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi
Press.
166 JIABS 19.1
Macdonald, Alexander W. 1987. "A Little-read Guide to the holy places of
Nepal-Part II (in collaboration with Dvags-po rin-po-che)." Essays on the
Ethnology of Nepal and South Asia. Vol. 2. Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak
Bhandar. 100-134.
Petech, Luciano. 1978. "The Sect in Western Tibet and
Ladakh." Proceedings of the Csoma de Koros Memorial Symposium. Ed ..
Louis Ligetti. Budapest. 313-325.
----,. 1980. "Ya-ts'e, Gu-ge, Pu-rang: A New Study." Central Asiatic
Journal 24.1-2: 85-111.
----. 1984. Mediaeval History of Nepal. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente. .
Ruegg, David Seyfort. 1966. The Life of Bu ston rin po che. Serie Orientale
Roma 34. Rome, Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Roerich, George N., trans. 1959. Biography of Dharmasvamin. Patna: K.
Jayaswal Research Institute.
----, trans. 1976. The Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.
Sruplqtyayana, Rahula. 1937. "Second Search of Sanskrit Palm Leaf Manu-
scripts in Tibet." Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 23.1: 1-
57.
Slusser, Mary Shepherd 1982. Nepal Mandala. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Steinkellner, Ernst 1981. "Philological Remarks on Sakyamati's Pramal!a-
varttika!Ika." Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag. 283-295.
Tatz, Mark. 1987. "The Life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitrigupta." The
Journal of the American Oriental Society 107.4: 695-711.
Translation Bureau of the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. 1976.
Fifty Verses of Guru Devotion. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and
Archives.
Tucci, Guiseppe. 1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Rome: Libreria DelIo Stato.
Rpt. Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1980.
Tibetan Sources
Anonymous. Dpal [dan shar ka pa'i gdung rabs brgyan gyi 'phreng ba, in
Sngon gyi gtam me tog gi phreng ba. Dharamsa1a: Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives, 1985. 51-78.
Anonymous. Rin po che lha gdong pa'i rnam thar bstod pa mao Collected
Works (Gsung 'bum) of Yang dgon pa Rgyal-mtshan-dpal. Vol. 1.
Thimphu, Bhutan: Kunzang Topgey, 1976.21-103.
STEARNS 167
Kanna 'phrin-Ias-pa. Dri Zan drang ba dang nges pa'i don gyi snang byed ces
bya ba ngo gro bZa ma'i dris Zan. The Songs of Esoteric Practice (Mgur)
and Replies to Doctrinal Questions (Dris Ian) of Karma-'phrin-Ias-pa. New
Delhi: Ngawang Topgay, 1975. 108-139.
----. Dri Zan padma dkar po'i chun po zhes bya ba rgya ston dris Zan.
The Songs of Esoteric Practice (Mgur) and Replies to Doctrinal Questions
(Dris Ian) of Karma-'phrin-Ias-pa. New Delhi: Ngawang Topgay, 1975.
92-108.
KalkI Yasas. Mchog gi dang po'i sangs rgyas Zas phyung ba rgyud kyi rgyaZ
po chen po dpaZ dus kyi 'khor Zo'i bsdus pa'i rgyud go sla'i mchan bcas.
The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Pt. 1. Ed. and anno. Bu-ston Rin-chen
grub. Sata-pitaka Series 41. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian
Culture, 1965. 1-299.
KalkI 'Jig rten khams kyi Ze'u'i 'grel bshad dri rna med pa'i 'od
mchan bcas. The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Pt. 2. Ed. and anno. Bu-
ston Rin-chen grub. Sata-pitaka Series Vol. 41. New Delhi: International
Academy ofIndian Culture, 1965.301-603.
Kun-dga' grol-mchog, Jo-nang rje-btsun. PalJdi ta chen po shiikya mchog
[dan gyi rnam par thar pa shib mo rnam par ' byed pa. The Complete
Works (Gsung-'bum) of Gser-mdog paIf-chen Shakya mchog-Idan. Vol. 16.
Thimphu, Bhutan: Kunzang Tobgey, 1975. 1-233.
----,. Zhen pa rang grol gyi lhug par brjod pa'i gtam skal bzang dad
pa'i shing rta 'dren byed. The Autobiographies of Jo-nang Kun-dga' grol-
mchog and His Previous Embodiments. Vol. 2. New Delhi: 1982. 285-
534.
Kun-dga' bzang-po, Ngor-chen. Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i man ngag gi
byung tshuZ gsung ngag rin po che bstan pa rgyas pa'i nyi 'od. The
Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of Tibetan
Buddhism (Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum). Vol. 9 Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,
1968. 108-126.
Kun-dga' rin-chen. Gdan sa chen po dpaZ Zdan sa skya'i gtsug lag khang
dang rten gsum gyi dkar chag. Ms., 58ff.
Dkon-mchog bstan-pa rab-rgyas, Brag-dgon-pa. YuZ mdo smad kyi ljongs su
thub bstan rin po che ji ltar dar ba'i tshul gsal bar brjod pa deb ther rgya
mtsho. Kan-su'u Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1987.
Khro-phu Lo-tsa-ba Byams-pa'i dpal. Khro Zo chen pos mdzad pa'i dpag
bsam 'khri shing. Ms., 90 ff.
Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, Rje-btsun. Bla rna bstan pa'i thabs shZo ka lnga bcu
pa'i gsaZ byed. The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya
168 JIABS 19.1
Sect of Tibetan Buddhism (Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum). VoL 3 Tokyo: The
Toyo Bunko, 1968. 87.4.1-94.2.2.
----. Rtsa ba'i ltung ba bcu bzhi pa'i 'grel pa gsal byed 'khrul spong.
The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of Tibetan
Buddhism (Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum). Vol. 3 Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,
1968. 235.1-265.3.
Dge-'dun chos-'phel. "Rgyal khams rig pas bskor ba'i gtam rgyud gser gyi
thang rna (stod-cha)." Dge 'dun chos 'phel gyi gsung rtsom. Vol. 1. Bod-
ljongs bod-yig dpe-rnying dpe-skrun-khang, 1990. 1-426.
Mgon-po rdo-rje, Rgod-tshang-pa. The Collected Works of Rgod-tshang-pa.
Vol. 1. Thimphu, Bhutan: 1981. .
'Gos-lo Gzhon-nu dpaL Deb ther sngon po. 2 vols. Si-khron mi-rigs dpe-
skrun-khang, 1984.
Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho, Kal;1-thog Situ. Gangs ljongs dbus gtsang gnas bskor
lam yig nor bu zla shel gyi se mo do. Tashijong, Khams-sprul Don-brgyud
nyi-ma, 1972.
Chos-kyi 'byung-gnas, Si-tu pal)-chen. Ta'i si tur 'bod pa karma bstan pa'i
nyin byed kyi rang tshul drangs por brjod pa dri bral shel gyi me long. Pub.
as The Autobiography and Diaries of Si-tu PalJ-chen. Sata-Pitaka Series 7.
New Delhi: 1968.
'Jam-mgon Kong-sprul, BIo-gros mtha'-yas. Theg pa'i sgo kun las btus pa
gsung rab rin po che 'i mdzod bslab pa gsum legs par ston pa'i bstan bcos
shes bya kun khyab. 3 vols. Mi-rigs dpe-skrun khang, 1982.
'Jam-mgon A-myes-bzhabs Ngag-dbang kun-dga' bsod-nams. Dpal gsang ba
'dus pa'i dam pa'i chos byung ba'i tshullegs par bshad pa gsang 'dus chos
kun gsal ba'i nyin byed. Dehradun: Sakya Centre, 1985.
----. Yongs rdzogs bstan pa rin po che 'i nyams len gyi man ngag gsung
ngag rin po che'i byon tshul khog phub dang bcas pa rgyas par bshad pa
legs bshad'dus pa'i rgya mtsho. The Tshogs-bshad Tradition of the Sa-
skyaLam-'bras. Vol. 1. DehraDun: SakyaCentre, 1983.1-314.
----. Sa skya gdung rabs ngo mtshar bang mdzod. Mi-rigs dpe-skrun-
khang, 1986.
'Jam-dbyangs Mkhyen-brtse dbang-phyug. Gdams ngag byung tshul gyi zin
bris gsang chen bstan pa rgyas byed ces bya ba kha 'u brag rdzong pa'i
bzhed pa ma nor ba ban rgan mkhyen brtse'i nyams len. The Slob-bshad
Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam- 'bras. VoL 14. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre,
1983. 1-154.
laranatha, Jo-nang rje-btsun. Khrid brgya'i brgyud pa'i [0 rgyus kha skong.
Gdams ngag mdzod. VoL 12. Delhi: N. Lungtok and N. Gyaltsen, 1972.
341-358.
STEARNS 169
---- Dge bshes dpallda:t shakya bstan 'dzir. gyi dris Ian gnad kyi gsal
byed. The Collected Works of Jo-nang rje-btsun Taranatha. Vol. 13. Leh:
Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemdzod, 1983. 511-565.
-"'----. Rgyal khams pa ta ra na thas bdag nyid kyi rnam thar nges par
brjod pa'i deb 'therl zhin tu zhib mo ma bcos lhug pa'i rtogs brjod, Paro:
Ngodrupp. and Sherab Drimay, 1978.
----. Rgyud rgyal gshin rje gshed skor gyi chos 'byung rgyas pa yid
ches ngo mtshar. The Collected Works of Jo-nang rje-btsun Taranatha. Vol.
10. Leh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemdzod, 1983. 1-147.
----. Rdo rje'i mal 'byor gyi 'khrid yig mthong ba don ldan gyi lhan
thabs 'od brgya 'bar, The Collected Works of Jo-nang rje-btsun Taranatha.
Vol. 3. Leh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemdzod, 1983. 447-805.
----. Myang yul stod smad bar gsum gyi ngo mtshar gtam gyi legs
bshad mkhas pa'i 'jug ngogs. Bod-Ijongs mi-dmangs dpe-skrun-khang,
1983.
----. Zab lam rdo rje'i mal 'byor gyi 'khrid yig mthong ba don ldan.
The Collected Works of Jo-nang rje-btsun Taranatha. Vol. 3. Leh:
Smanrtsis Shesrig Dpemdzod, 1983. 345-446.
Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan. Bia ma nye brgyud la gsol 'debs rgya mtsho
mao The Collected Works (Gsung 'bum) of Kun-mkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-
rab rgyal-mtshan (1292-1361). Vol. l. Paro: Bhutan / Delhi: Lama
Ngodrup and Sherab Drimay, 1984. 770-774.
----. Bia ma yon tan rgya mtsho'i mam thar dngos grub 'byung gnas.
The 'Dzam-thang Edition of the Collected Works (Gsung-'bum) of Kun-
mkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-rab rgyal-mtshan. Vol 7. Pt. 1. Delhi: Shedrup
Books, 1992. 279-386.
Padma gar-dbang, Bya-tang. Zab chos sbas pa mig 'byed kyi chos bskor las
palJ. che sha wa dbang phyug gi snyan rgyud rdo rje sum gyi bla ma rgyud
pa'i rnam thar dad pa'i rnga chen. Ms., 127 ff. Nepal-German Manuscript
Preservation Project. Running #L-4703. Reel #L-450/6.
Dpa'-bo Gtsug-lag phreng-ba. Chos byung mkhas pa'i dga' ston. 2 vols. Mi-
rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1986.
Dpal Mi-bskyod rdo-rje (= Kun-spangs Thugs-rje brtson-'grus). DpaZ dus kyi
'khor lo'i mal 'byor yan lag drug gi 'grel pa snying po bsdus pa. Gdams
ngag mdzod. Vol. 10. Delhi: N. Lungtok and N. Gyaltsan, 1972. 15-24.
Phyogs-Ias mam-rgyal, Jo-nang. Chos kyi rje byang chub sems dpa' chen po'i
rnam par thar pa yon tan rin po che'j gter mdzod kun las btus pa. Ms.,
32ff.
Bi-bhiHi-tsandra, Pal}-chen. Sdom gsum 'od kyi phreng ba. The Tibetan
Tripitaka, Peking Edition. Vol. 81. Tokyo-Kyoto: 1957. 214.3-215.4.
170 JIABS 19.1
Bu -ston Rin-chen grub. Bstan 'gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi
rgyal po'i phreng ba. The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Pt. 26. Satapitaka-
Series 66. New Delhi: 1971. 401-644.
----. Bla ma dam pa rnams kyis rjes su bzung ba'i tshul bka' drin rjes
. su dran par byed pa. The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Pt. 26. Satapitaka-
Series 66. New Delhi: 1971. 1-142.
----. Gtsang chu mig ring mo'i mkhan po dkon mchog dpal gyis zhus
Ian mdor bsdus pa. (Title taken from the colophon.) The Collected Works
of Bu-ston. Pt. 26. Satapitaka-Series 66. New Delhi: 1971. 53-56.
Blo-bzang grags-pa, Tsong-kha-pa. Gsang sngags kyi tshul khrims kyi rnam
bshad dngos grub kyi snye mao The Collected Works (Gsung 'bum) of the
Incomparable Lord Tsong-kha-pa Blo-bzang grags-pa. Vol. l. New Delhi:
1978. 373-512.
Mang-thos klu-sgrub rgya-mtsho. Bstan rtsis gsal ba'i nyin byed lhag bsam
rab dkar. Bod-Ijongs rni-dmangs dpe-skrun-khang, 1987.
Tshul-khrims rin-chen, Zhu-chen. Dpal ldan bla ma dam pa rnams las dam
pa'i chos thos pa 'i yi ge don gnyer gdengs can rol pa 'i chu gter. Record of
Teachings Received. 2 vols. Dehradun: D. Gyaltsen, 1970.
Tshe-bang nor-bu, Kah-thog rig-'dzin. Rgyal ba'i bstanpa rinpo che byang
phyogs su 'byung ba'i rtsa lag bod rje lha btsan po'i gdung rabs tshig
nyung don gsal yid kyi me long. In Bod kyi 10 rgyus deb ther khag lnga.
Bod-ljongs bod-yig dpe-mying dpe-skrun-khang, 1990. 55-86
----. Bod rje lha btsad po'i gdung rabs mnga' ris smad gung thang du
ji ltar byung ba'i tshul deb ther dwangs shel 'phrul gyi me long. In Bod kyi
10 rgyus deb ther khag lnga, Bod-ljongs bod-yig dpe-mying dpe-skrun-
khang, 1990. 87-194.
Ye-shes rgyal-mtshan. Bla ma dam pa chos kyi rgyal po rin po che'i roam
par thar pa rin po che'i phreng ba. The Slob-bshad Tradition of the Sa-
skya Lam-'bras. Vol. 1. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre, 1983. 290-338.
Shakya mchog-ldan, Gser-mdog pal).-chen. 'Khrul spong gi brgallan rnam
par nges pa'i dam tshig rab tu gsal ba. The Complete Works (Gsung 'bum)
of Gser-mdog pal).-chen Shakya mchog-ldan. Vol. 23. Thimphu: Kunzang
Tobgey, 1975. 105-296.
Shes-rab mgon, La-stod-pa. Chos rje ko brag pa'i rnam thar. Ms., 10 ff.
Shes-rab 'byung-gnas, Dbon-po. Dgongs gcig yig chao 2 vols. Bir: D.
Tsondu Senghe, 1975.
Shes-rab rin-chen, Stag-tshang Lo-tsa-ba. Dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i spyi don gyi
sgo nas gtan la 'bebs par byed pa'i legs bshad bstan pa'i rgya mtsho. New
Delhi: Trayang and Jamyang Samten, 1973.
STEARNS 171
La-stod Dbang-rgyal. Dus kyi 'khor lo'i gegs sel mig gi sgron me. The
Collected Works of Bo-dong Pa,!-chen Phyogs-las rnam-rgyal.
Encyclopedia Tibetica. Vol. 118. Delhi: Tibet House New, 1969. 795-
834.
Sa-skya Pa'!q.i-ta Kun-dga' rgyal-mtshan. Glo bo lo tsa ba'i zhu Ian. The
Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of Tibetan
Buddhism (Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum). Vol. 5. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko,
1968. 414.2.2-415.2.3
----. Sdom pa gsum gyi rab tu dbye ba'i bstan bcos. The Complete
Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of Tibetan Buddhism (Sa
skya pa'i bka' 'bum). Vol. 5. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968. 297.1-
320.4.
----. Bla ma rje btsun chen po'i rnam thar. The Complete Works of
the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of Tibetan Buddhism (Sa skya pa'i
bka' 'bum). Vol. 5. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1968. 143.1.1-148.3.3.
Sangs-rgyas rgya-mtsho, Sde-srid. Dpalldan gso ba rig pa'i khog 'bubs legs
bshad bairjurya'i me long drang srong dgyes pa'i dga' ston. Kan-su'u mi-
rigs dpe-skrun-khang, 1982.
Bsod-nams rgyal-mtshan, Ko-brag-pa. Lam 'bras snyan brgyud/ lam 'bras bu
dang bcas pa'i gdams ngag. Gzhung bshad klog skya rna and Other Related
Esoteric Sa-skya-pa Texts. Vol.l. Tashi Dorje: Tibetan Bonpo Monastic
Centre, 1975. 405-590.
Bsod-nams seng-ge, Go-ram-pa. Sdom gsum rab dbye'i spyi don yid bzhin nor
bu. The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of
Tibetan Buddhism (Sa skya pa'i bka' 'bum). Vol. 14. Tokyo: The Toyo
Bunko, 1968. 199.4.1.-240.3.4.
JIABS 19.1 173
Books Received
Abe, Masao. Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue. Ed. Steven Heine.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995.
Bocking, Brian. Nagarjuna in China: A Translation of the Middle Trea-
tise. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995.
Clark, Barry, trans. The Quintessence Tantras of Tibetan Medicine.
Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1995.
Cozort, Daniel. The Sand Mandala of Vajrabhairava. Ithaca, NY: Snow
Lion Publications, 1995.
Dagyab Rinpoche, Loden Sherab. Buddhist Symbols in Tibetan Culture.
Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Deshung Rinpoche. The Three Levels of Spiritual Perception. Trans.
Jared Rhoton. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. The Excellent Path to Enlightenment. Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion, 1996.
Dunnell, Ruth W. The Great State of the White and High: Buddhism
and State Formation in Eleventh-Century Xia. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1996.
Edou, Jerome. Machig Labdron and the Foundations of Chad. Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1996.
Faure, Bernard. Visions of Power: Imagining Medieval Japanese Bud-
dhism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.
French, Rebecca Redwood. The Golden Yoke: The Legal Cosmology of
Buddhist Tibet. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Galtung, John, and Daisaku Ikeda. Choose Peace. London: Pluto Press,
1995.
174' nABS 19.1
Gregory, Peter N. Inguiry into the Origin of Humanity: An Annotated
Translation of Tsung-mi's Yuan jen lun with a Modern Commentary.
Kuroda Institute Classics in East Asian Buddhism. Honolulu: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press, 1995.
Gyatrul Rinpoche. Generating the Deity. Ihaca, NY: Snow Lion Publica-
tions, 1996.
Heisig, James W., and John C. Maraldo, ed. Rude Awakenings: Zen, the
Kyoto School, and the Question of Nationalism. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press, 1994.
Hopkins, Jeffrey. Meditation on Emptiness. Rev. ed. Boston: Wisdom
Publications, 1996.
Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye. Myriad Worlds: Buddhist Cosmology in ,
Abhidharma, Kiilacakra and Dzog-chen. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publi-
cations, 1995.
Kalupahana, David J. Ethics in Early Buddhism. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press, 1995.
Karma Lekshe Tsomo, ed. Buddhism Through American Women's Eyes.
Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1995.
Kelsang Gyatso, Geshe. Ocean of Nectar: Wisdom and Compassion in
Mahayana Buddhism. London: Tharpa Publications, 1996.
Kvaeme, Per .. the Bon Religion of Tibet. Boston: Shambhala, 1996.
Lamrimpa, Gen (Ven. Jampal Tenzin). Calming the Mind: Tibetan
Teachings on Cultivating Meditative Quiescence. Trans. B. Alan
Wallace. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Lopez, Jr., Donald S., ed. Buddhism in Practice. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1995.
Lopez, Jr., Donald S., ed. Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Bud-
dhism Under Colonialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
nABS 19.1 175
Lepez, Jr., Denald S. Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart
Sutra. Princeten, NJ: Princeten University Press, 1996.
Lepez, Jr., Den'a,ld S., ed. Religions of China in Practice. Princeten, NJ:
Princeten University Press, 1996.
Lepez, Jr., Denald S., ed. Religions of India in Practice. Princeten, NJ:
Princeten University Press, 1995.
Milarepa. Drinking the Mountain Stream: Songs of Tibet's Budloved
Saint, Milarepa. Trans. Lama Kunga Rinpeche and Brian Cutillo..
Besten: Wisdem Publicatiens, 1995.
Namai, ChisM. Rinne no Ronsho: Bukkyo ronrigaku ha niyoru yuishiki-
ron hihan. ToM shuppan, 1996.
Namkhai Nerbu, ChOgyal. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State. Ithaca,
NY: Snew Lien Publicatiens, 1996.
, Prayudh Payutte, Phra. Buddhadhamma: Natural Laws and Values for
Life. Trans. Grant A. Olsen. Albany, NY: State University ef New
Yerk Press, 1995.
Ruegg, David Seyfert. Ordre Spirituel et Ordre Temporel dans la Pensee
Bouddhique de l'Inde et du Tibet: Quartre Confeences au College de
France. Cellege de France. Publicatiens de l'Institute de Civilisatien
Indienne, Fascicule 64. Paris: De Beccard, 1995
Santideva. The Bodhicaryiivatiira. Trans. with intreductien and netes by
Kate Cresby and Andrew Skilton. Oxferd: Oxferd University Press,
1995.
Scheening, Jeffrey D. The Siilistambha Sutra and Its Indian Commen-
taries, Volume I: Annotations. Wiener Studien Zur Tibetelegie und
Buddhismuskunde, Heft 35, 2. Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien UniversWit Wien, 1995.
Scheening, Jeffrey D. The Siilistambha Sutra and Its Indian Commen-
taries, Volume II: Tibetan Editions. Wiener Studien Zur Tibetelegie
176 JIABS 19.1
und Buddhismuskqnde, Heft 35, 1. Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studiert Uillversitat Wien, 1995.
Sharma, Arvind. The Philosophy of Religion: A Buddhist Perspective.
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Silk, Jonathan A. The Heart Sutra in Tibetan: A Critical Edition of the
Two Recensions Contained in the Kanjur. Wiener Studien Zur
Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Heft 34. Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr
Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1994.
Skorupski, Tadeusz. The Buddhist Forum. Vol. 4. London: School of
Oriental and African Studies, 1996.
Sonam Gyaltsen, Sakyapa. The Clear Mirror: A Traditional Account of
Tibet's Golden Age. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1996.
Stewart, Jampa Mackenzie. The Life of Gampopa: The Incomparable
Dharma Lord of Tibet. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1995
Sumedho, Ajahn. The Mind and the Way: Buddhist Reflections on Life.
Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Tauscher, Helmut. Die Lehre von den Zwei Wirklichkeiten in Tson Kha
Pas Madhyamaka-Werken. Wiener Studien Zur Tibetologie und Bud-
dhismuskunde, Heft 36. Wien: Arbeitskreis fUr Tibetische und Bud-
dhistische Studien Universitat Wien, 1995.
G. Chinese Religion: An Introduction. Fifth ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1996.
Tshe Ring Dbang Rgyal. The Tale of the Incomparable Prince. Trans.
with an introduction by Beth Newman. New York: Harper Collins,
1996.
Wallace, B. Alan. Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the
Mind. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1996.
Wangchen, Geshe Namgyal. Awakening the Mind. Boston: Wisdom Pub-
lications, 1995.

Jiabs 19-1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Jiabs 19-1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of the International Association of

Вам также может понравиться