jiabs 10-2

THE JOURNAL

OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION Of

BUDDHIST STUDIES

CO-EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

Gregory Schopen Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana, USA

EDITORS

Peter N. Gregory

University of Illinois

Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Alexander W. Macdonald

Universite de Paris X Nanterre, France

Roger Jackson Fairfield University

Fairfield, Connecticut, USA

Ernst Steinkellner

University of Vienna

Wien, Austria

JikidoTakasaki University of Tokyo

Tokyo,Japan

Robert Thurman

Amherst College

Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

:l'olume 10

ASSISTANT EDITOR

Bruce Cameron Hall

College of William and Mary

Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

1987 Number 2

THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIO:t-. OF BUDDHIST STUDIES, INC.

This Journal is the organ of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Inc. It is governed by the objectives of the Association and accepts scholar!; contributions pertaining to Buddhist Studies in all the various disciplines such as philosophy, history, ~eligion, sociology, ~nthro~ology, ~rt, archaeology, psychology, textual studIes, etc. The ]lABS IS pubhshed tWIce yearly in the summer and winter.

Manuscripts for publication (we must have two copies) and correspondence concerning articles should be submitted to the ]lABS editorial office at the address given below. Please refer to the guidelines for contributors to the ]lABS printed on the inside back cover of every issue. Books for review should also be sent to the address below. The Editors cannot guarantee to publish reviews of unsolicited books nor to return those books to the senders.

The Association and the Editors assume no responsibility for the views expressed by the authors in the Association's Journal and other related publications.

Andre Bareau (France)

M.N. Deshpande (India)

R. Card (USA)

B.C. Cokhale (USA)

Gregory Schopen ]lABS c/o Dept. of Religious Studies 230 Sycamore Hall Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 USA

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Joseph M. Kitagawa (USA)

Jacques May (Switzerland)

Hajime Nakamura Uapan)

John Rosenfield (USA) .

John C. Huntington (USA) David Snellgrove (U.K.)

P.S. Jaini (USA) E. Zurcher (Netherlands)

Both the Editors and Association would like to thank Indiana Univer' sity and Fairfield University for their financial support in the production of the Journal. .

The Editors wish to thank Mr. Kevin Atkins for his invaluable help in the preparation of this issue. .

Copyright © The International Association of Buddhist Studies 1987 ISSN: 0193-600X

Indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, American Theological Library Association, Chicago, available online through BRS (Biblio: graphic Retrieval Services), Latham, New York, and DIALOG Info~:i mation Services, Palo Alto, California.

Composition by Publications Division, Grote Deutsch & Co., Madison, WI 53704. Printing by Thomson-Shore, Inc., Dexter, MI 48130.

CONTENTS

1. ARTICLES

pure Land Buddhist Hermeneutics: Honen's Interpretation of Nembutsu, by Allan A. Andrews 7

2 .. Sa-skya Pal).<;iita, the White Panacea and the Hva-shang Doctrine, by Michael Broido 27

Indian Commentaries on the Heart Sidra: The Politics ofInterpretation, by Malcolm David Eckel 69

Notes on Nagarjuna and Zeno in Motion, by Brian Galloway 80

'5. Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Earliness of Tantra, byJohn C. Huntington 88

>.6. The Inscription on the Ku.;;an Image of Amitabha and the Character of the Early Mahayana in India by Gregory Schopen 99

Background Material for the First Seventy Topics in Maitreya-natha's Abhisamayalarhkara, by Gareth Sparham 139

II. BOOK REYIEWS

The Genesis of an Orientalist: Thomas William Rhys Davids and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, by Ananda Wickremeratne (A.P. Kannangara) 161

The Legend of King Asoka: A Study and Translation of the "Asokavadana, " by John S. Strong (Bardwell Smith) 165

3. Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way by David]. Kalupahana (Karen Christina Lang)

4. Tibet-Bon Religion: A Death Ritual of the Tibetan Bonpos, by Per K vaerne (Michael Aris)

III. SPECIAL SECTION

Title/ Author Index ofVols. 1-10, compiled by Bruce Cameron Hall

167

181

pure Land Buddhist Hermeneutics: Borren's Interpretation of lVembutsu 1

'by'Allan A. Andrews

.1. 'Introduction

How do Buddhists understand and interpret the dharma? Several :recent studies have explored this question. Robert A. F. Thurman, in his article "Buddhist Hermeneutics,"2 correctly notes,

One can hardly set out to win liberation and enlightenment, or even to live properly in an ethical'sense, until one has decided which of these teachings [ofthe Buddha] isright, and what ways lead to their realization. Thus, it is clear that the hermeneutical enterprise in the [Buddhist] tradition is an essential part of praxis on whatever level, an essential vehicle on the way of enlightenment. We should note that since the various scriptural passages are contradictory on the surface, scriptural authority alone will not fully settle the hermeneutical questions, since the scriptures are in a sense the basis of discussion (Thurman 1978, 23).3

Thurman than claims, and attempts to substantiate on the basis of the Madhyamika philosophical views of the Tibetan master Tsong Kha pa (1357-1419), that,

In the final analysis, rationality (yukti), inference (anumiina) , or philosophic logic (nyiiya) becomes the highest authority (pramii'fJa) for deciding which scriptural passage is ultimately valid (Thurman 1978, 23) .

. . In a response entitled, "Chinese Buddhist Hermeneutics: T~e Case of Hua-yen", Peter N: Gregory points out that Chinese ~uddhists relied less on logic for their hermeneutics, especially t~? Madhyamika logic of negation, and more on the construction

7

8 JIABS VOL. 10 NO.2

of hierarchical c~assificatio~s of scriI?tures (p'ar:-chiao, hangyo), which served theIr need to mterpret m affirmatIve terms which teachings were more valid than others (Gregory 1983,231-34).

In this paper I propose to look at an instance of interpreta~ tion in the Japanese Buddhist tradition. The instance is Honen's interpretation of the value of the Pure Land scriptures and especially his view of the nemblltsll teachings of the Sidra on the Buddha, of Limitless ~ife. 4 I hope to .demonstrate t~at. although Honen s hermeneutIcs embrace a WIde range of pnnCIples, ultimately they where based on neither reason nor on a doctrinal classification, but upon the authority of a revered teacher, and in the final analysis on Honen's own experience of certainty of salvation achieved through the guidance of that teacher.

II. Honen's Use of Doctrinal Analysis

Honen's interpretation of the Pure Land scriptures is to be found in his Senchaku hongan nembutsu shu (Senchaku shu or Sen~ jyaku shu),5 "Treatise on the Nembutsu Selected by the Original Vow", composed in 1198. Honen opens this work with a sweeping doctrinal analysis segregating all scriptures and doctrines into two categories, the dharma-gate of the sages and the Pure Landdharma-gate6 (Ohashi 1971,88-93). Unlike schemata based on stages in the teaching career of Sakyamuni Buddha which had dominated Chinese Buddhist hermeneutics (Thurman 1978,29-31; Gregory 1983, 232-33),7 this analysis is founded on an historical view of the flowering and decline of the Buddhist faith; that is, on the widely accepted doctrine of the three periods· of the dharma-the ages of perfect dharma, superficial dharma,; and degenerate dharma. 8 Honen maintains that the world has entered the age of degenerate dharma, when the true teachings have largely been lost and the spiritual capacities of sentient beings have deteriorated as well, and therefore that the scriptures and doctrines on gaining enlightenment through learning and discipline-that is, the dharma-gate of the sages-are no longer applicable and only the teachings on Pure Land rebirth--::. i.e., those of the Pure Land dharma-gate, which were intended by Sakyamuni for the age of degenerate dharma-remain valid.9

Thus Honen's hermeneutical principle for designating the<

PURE LAND HERMENEUTICS 9

''pure Land teachings and scriptures as. more ef~ecti:e (tho~gh "ttruer) than all others was a doctrInal claSSIfcatlOn whICh, >,r~i1ar to those that had dominated Chinese Buddhist her;~eneutics (and indeed J~panese herm:ne~tics until Honen's iBme), asserted on the basIs of a BuddhIst VIew of hIstory that :s~me scriptures were more appropriate to the age and effica-tious than others. .

III. Honen's Interpretation of the Nembutsu of the Eighteenth Vow

As is well known, Honen interpreted the nembutsu of the sutra on the Buddha of Limitless Life's eighteenth vow, the "original vow", as invocational nembutsu, that is, as calling upon the name of Amida Buddha with the utterance, "namu Amida Butsu". Moreover, Honen interpreted this nembutsu as sufficient by itself for achieving salvation through rebirth into Amida Buddha's Pllre buddha-land. This interpretation and its logic are revealed IIlost clearly in the third chapter of the Senchaku shu, entitled :~'Passages Showing that Amida Tathagata Made Nembutsu, and NoOther Works, the Practice of the Rebirth Original Vow". Honen opens this chapter with the citation of three proof texts, thefirst of which is the "rebirth original vow", the eighteenth yow of the Sutra on the Buddha of Limitless Life:

When I become a Buddha, if there should be sentient beings anywhere in the ten regions of the universe having sincere and deep faith and aspiration to be reborn into my buddha-land and who, by making even ten reflections [on me], are not reborn there, then I will not accept perfect enlightenment (Ohashi 1971, 101).10

This scriptural passage has been considered by Pure Land 13uddhists since Honen as the most important Buddha-dharma

:bfall. They see it as the supreme expression of Buddha wisdom and compassion and as a virtual guarantee of the eventual salvation of all sentient beings. Of course what was at issue for Honen in this passage was the meaning of "reflections" (i.e., Buddha-reflections), because he saw this term as defining the practice by means of which beings could gain rebirth in the


Pure Land. The original term, nen (Chinese, nien) is rather ambiguous. 11 It can mean "to recollect", "keep in mind", "think about", and even "one instant". My English rendering is intended to convey this ambiguity. Although Honen's understand_ ing of the meaning of this term is implied in the two other proof texts with which he opens this chapter (citations of the Chinese Pure Land master Shan-tao), before considering these passages let us first examine Honen's explicit, unequivocal interpretation of the eighteenth vow as invocational nembutsu.

In order to clarify the meaning of the nembutsu of the eighteenth vow as invocational nembutsu, Honen examines several of the sidra's forty-eight vows to show that with each vow Dharmakara Bodhisattva (i.e., Amida. Buddha during his bodhisattva career) selected from among the qualities of countless buddha-lands only the pure qualities or characteristics which he wanted his buddha-land to possess. Honen maintains:

As for the eighteenth, the Nembutsu Rebirth Vow, we find that among all those buddha-lands there were some for which the rebirth-practice was generosity, some for which it was moral con- . duct, some for which it was patience and humility, some for which it was tireless effort, some for which it was meditation and some for which it was wisdom (such as faith in the highest truth) .. ~

Or there were various lands for each of which there were several practices, such as erecting reliquaries and dedicating images, supporting monks, or even being filial to parents and revering teachers and elders ... Yet all the above practices from generosity and moral conduct to filial piety were rejected and only the exclusive utterance of the Buddha's name was chosen ... (Ohashi 1971, 104).

With the phrase "exclusive utterance of the Buddha's name"12 Honen leaves no doubt that in his view the meaning of nen in the eighteenth vow, and therefore the practice Amida Buddha (Dharmakara) selected for earning Pure Land rebirth, is invocational nembutsu alone, and not some kind of meditation upon the Buddha.

IV. Contemporary Views of N embutsu

This interpretation of nembutsu as solely sufficient invoca-·


'tion of the Buddha's name was widely at variance with the generally accepted view of nembutsu in Honen's time. The prevailing view was based on the tenth century Tendai treatise on nembutsu,

. the Essentials of Pure Land Rebirth. 13 This work attempted to integrate the Tendai meditative form of nembutsu based upon the Mo-ho chih-kuan l4 ofTendai (T'ien-t'ai) founder Chih-i (538-597), with the devotional forms of nembutsu found in the popular pure Land scripture, Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Limitless Life l5 (Andrews 1973, 107-20). The Essentials maintained that authentic nembutsu is contemplative nembutsu, a rigorous exercise consisting of visualizing the magnificent form of Amida Buddha in order to achieve nembutsu samiidhi, a deep enlightenment experience. Invocational nembutsu, calling upon the name of Amida Buddha, was considered a practice which should accompany contemplative nembutsu in order to bring about a more intense meditative state. As an independent practice, the Essentials considered invocational nembutsu as suitable for only the least spiritually capable of persons, and especially as a sort of last resort for such people as a way to gain rebirth into the Pure Land of Amida when they are about to die and fall into hell or some other painful transmigratory state. 16 Moreover, while the Essentials acknowledged nembutsu as the best of all practices for achieving Pure Land rebirth, it taught that nembutsu was most effective when accompanied by other practices such as performance of good deeds and observance of monastic precepts (Andrews 1973, 72-75, 90-91).

This view of the true meaning and proper use of nembutsu is reflected in an interesting document contemporary with Honen, the Kofukuji sojo, or Kofukuji Temple Petition for the Suppression of Sole Nembutsu Practice, submitted to the throne in protest of Honen's movement in 1205. It includes a criticism of Honen's interpretation of nembutsu typical of the view of establishment Buddhism in that age. In Article Seven of the Petition, "The Error of Misunderstanding Nembutsu", we find the following charge:

First, the Buddha reflected upon has a name and a person. With regard to the person there is the phenomenal and the noumenal aspects. With regard to the nembutsu itself, there is vocal nembutsu and mental nembutsu. The mental nembutsu includes both reflection upon and contemplation of the Buddha. Contemplation can

12 ]IABS VOL. 10 NO.2

be either non-meditative or meditative, performed with either deluded or enlightened mind. The degree~ of shallowness and depth are manifold; the shallow is inferior, the deep superior. Thus to invoke the name orally is neither contemplative nor meditative nembutsu; it is inferior and superficial nembutsu. ' .. Concerning the passage, "even ten reflections", of that [eighteenth] vow, this is provided for the most ·inferior beings. With contemplative nembutsu as the foundation, yet extending all the way down to invocational nembutsu, with many Buddha_ reflections as the primary teaching, yet not discarding even ten reflections, this shows the great compassion and power of the Buddha. The way of easy guidance and sure rebirth is by contemplative nembutsu and many Buddha-reflections (Kamata and Tanaka 1971, 38-39)Y

For the author of the Kofukuji Petition, 18 as for most contemporary clerics, nembutsu was primarily a meditative practice. Invocational nembutsu-callingupon the name of a Buddha-was considered merely an aid to meditation on the Buddha's form ("phenomenal aspect") or essence ("noumenal aspect"). By itself, invocation was considered a practice suitable only for those most burdened with bad karma, and then only marginally effective for their Pure Land rebirth in certain circumstances. To totally reject the efficacy of other practices as Honen did in the Senchaku shu was considered by establishment Buddhism of the time as absolutely blasphemous and heretical. Honen's position was therefore audacious and even foolhardy. 19

V. Honen's Hermeneutics: The Appeal to Reason

What was the basis of Honen's bold reinterpretation of nembutsu as solely invocation and sufficient for Pure Land rebirth?20 In other words, what were his hermeneutical principles? As we indicated above, in the final analysis ?onen had recourse to the authority of a revered teacher for his different and challenging interpretation of nembutsu. Yet he does not dispense with reason entirely as a means of discovering the Buddha's meaning. The initial justification we find in the Senchaku shu for his interpretation is based on reason. Following his assertion, which we have examined above, that Amida choose only nembutsu as the practice


of the original vow, Honen poses this question from a hypothet-ical interlocutor: .

It seems correct to survey the various vows, applying the principle of [Amida's] rejecting the gross and evil and choosing the good and refined. But why in the case of the eighteenth vow did Dharmakara [i.e., Amida Buddha] reject all the other practices and exclusively choose only the single practice of nembutsu as that of the rebirth original vow?

Honen responds:

The holy one's21 intentions are difficult to fathom and not easy to set out, but I will attempt to explain them by means of two principles-(l) that of superiority versus inferiority and (2) that of ease versus difficulty.

First, with respect to superiority versus inferiority, nembutsu is superior while the other practices are inferior because the Buddha's name is the bearer of infinite karmic merits. All of Amida Buddha's inner meritorious qualities, such as his four kinds of wisdom, three Buddha-bodies, ten powers of comprehension, and four certainties, and all of his outer meritorious functions, such as his Buddha-marks, his brilliance, his dharmapreaching and his saving of sentient beings, each and everyone of these resides in Amida's name. Thus the karmic merit of his name is superior. The other practices are not like this. Each practice has only its own merit. Thus the other practices are inferior. ...

Thus, is it not because the karmic merit of the Buddha's name is superior to the merits of the other practices that the inferior practices were rejected and the superior adopted as the practice of the original vow? (Ohashi 1971, 104-05)

Although Honen is literally telling us why he thinks Amida Buddha choose the invocation of his name as the original vow's practice for Pure Land rebirth, he is also revealing some of the reasoning he pursued in coming to the conclusion that nen of the eighteenth vow meant only calling upon Amida's name. He reasoned that to call upon Amida's name gains for the cultivator all the karmic merit of Amida himself-all the merit implied in his Buddha-wisdom and compassion and all the merit achieved in Amida's use of these as well. Other practices, reasoned Honen,


merely earn for the cultivator a limited amount of merit frorn the cultivator's performance of that particular meritorious deed or act itself.

To return to Honen's reasoning:

Regarding the principle of ease versus difficulty, nembutsu is easy to cultivate while all other practices are difficult to cultivate .... Because nembutsu is easy it can be used by all sentient beings, but because all other practices are difficult, they cannot be used by all those with various spiritual abilities. And thus was it not for the purpose of bringing about the universal rebirth of all sentient beings that the difficult practices were rejected and the easy adopted as the practice of the original vow?

Let us suppose that donating images and founding temples had been made the practices of the original vow. Then those in poverty would have no hope of rebirth. But the poor and lowly are much more numerous than the rich and high-born. If wisdom and intelligence had been made the condition of the original vow, then the dull and foolish would have no hope of rebirth. Yet the dull and foolish are much more numerous than the intelligent. If wide learning and experience had been made the condition of the original vow, then those with little learning and experience would have no hope of rebirth. Yet the unlearned are much more numerous that the learned. If moral conduct and observance of the precepts had been made the practices of the original vow, then those who violate or who have not adopted the precepts would have no hope of rebirth. Yet those who violate the precepts are much more numerous than those who observe them. We should see that it is the same with the various other practices. It is important to understand that if any of those practices had been made the condition ofthe original vow, then those gaining rebirth would be few and those not reborn would probably be many.

Thus it was that Amida Tathagata, conceiving in the distant past when he was the monk Dharmakara a great and universal compassion, in order to embrace all sentient beings selected not the donation of images, the founding of temples or any other of the sundry practices for his rebirth original vow, but only the single practice of the nembutsu of calling upon his name (Ohashi 1971, 105-06).

We find here once again that although Honen is ostensibly explaining why Amida decided to select invocational nembutsu


asthe practice for rebirth, he is revealing as well the reasoning that went into his own decision to interpret the nembutsu of the VOW as easy invocation of the name. In short, Honen reasoned that the compassion of Amida would not exclude even the least spiritually capable of sentient beings, those capable of no other good deed th~n. to call upon Amida Bu?dha in to~al reli~nce. This passage IS Justly famous for affirmmg the umversahty of pure Land salvation. It is also a remarkable expression of Honen's insight in discerning this breadth and of his courage in teaching it.

VI. Honen's Hermeneutics: The Appeal to Scripture

Recourse to reason was not the only way in which Honen arrived at and justified his interpretation of the eighteenth vow. In fact, reason was for him and his contemporaries a rather unreliable tool. As Honen says, "the holy one's intentions are difficult to fathom and not easy to set out. ... " A more reliable

. criterion for interpreting scripture was recourse to alternative scripture. Toward the end of the third chapter of the Senchaku shu Honen poses this hypothetical question:

The Sidra [on the Buddha of Limitless Life] says "ten reflections", while the interpretations [of the Sutra]22 have "ten utterances". What is the difference between reflections and utterances (Ohashi 1971, lOS)?

He responds:

The terms reflection and utterance23 are one and the same. How do we know this? In the section of the Contemplation Sutra24 on the lower rebirth of the lower grade of beings it says, "Urged to call unceasingly, he completes ten reflections; when he calls 'namu Amida Butsu', by calling on the Buddha's name he sets aside with each reflection the evil deeds generated during eight billion eons of transmigration". According to this passage it is clear that utterance is the same as reflection a.nd reflection the same as utterance.

What is happening here is that Honen is interpreting one


passage of scripture on the basis of another. Both constituted for him Buddha-preachments,25 and therefore ttue Buddha_ dharma. The passage in question is the eighteenth vow of the Sutra on the Buddha of Limitless Life; the passage being used as a guide to its meaning is that on the rebirth of the worst of sentient beings26 as described in the Contemplation Sutra. The Contempla_ tion Sutra describes how such a person, even though he is destined for hell because of extremely bad karma, gains salvation on his death bed by calling upon the Buddha ten times. In this passage the term "reflection" (nen) is clearly used in such a way as to mean invocational nembutsu, in for example, "urged to call unceasingly he completes ten reflections", and "by calling on

.. the Buddha's name he sets aside with each reflection .... " By justifying his interpretation in this way, Honen reveals one of the bases for this interpretation-the authority of an alternative scrIpture.

VII. Honen's Hermeneutics: The Appeal to the Teachings of a Revered Master

What were Honen's hermeneutical criteria? On what basis did he interpret the all important nembutsu of the eighteenth. vow as invocation? We have already seen that he had recourse to several criteria-the use of his own limited human reason and the authority of an alternative Pure Land scripture. As his most important hermeneutical criterion,. however, Honen useg a quite different standard-the judgement of an authoritative teacher. In the,final analysis Honen based his interpretation of the eighteenth vow upon the teachiIlgs of the T'ang Chinese Pure Land master, Shan-tao Qap. Zenda, 613-681).

As we have mentioned, Chapter Three· of the Senchaku sku opens with three scriptural citations, the eighteenth vow of the Sutra on the Buddha of Limitless Life (whkh we have already . examined), and two quotations, actually paraphrases, of this vow by Shan-tao. Here is the way Honen presents these:

In the first volume of the Siitra on the Buddha of Limitless Life it is written: "When I become a Buddha, if there should be sentient beings anywhere in the ten regions of the universe having


sincere and deep faith and aspiration to be reborn into my buddha-land and who, by making even ten reflections [on me], are not reborn there, then I will not accept perfect enlightenment" ..

Qupting this passage, the Amida Buddha Contemplation Method27 has: "When I become a Buddha, if there should be sentient beings anywhere in the ten regions of the universe aspiring to be reborn into my buddha-land who call upon my name with at least ten utterances, in dependence on the power of my vow, and are not reborn into my land, then I will not accept perfect enlightenment".

Quoting the same passage, the Hymns to Rebirth28 has: "When I become a Buddha, if there should be sentient beings anywhere in the ten regions of the universe who call on my name with at least ten utterances and are not reborn [into my land], then I will not accept perfect enlightenment." That Buddha, having perfected buddhahood, now resides in his land. Thus we should know that the vows he originally made were not in vain, and that sentient beings who call upon him will assuredly be reborn into his land (Ohashi 1971, 101).

Having presented these three proof texts, Honen does not . comment upon the relationship of the second and third of these (the two passages by Shan-tao) to the first (the eighteenth vow) until the end of Chapter Three, where he poses the question

. and answer we examined above about the discrepancy between ."reflection" and "utterance". We have seen that he considered the former to mean the latter, that is, Buddha-reflection to mean utterance of the name of the Buddha. However, there at the .beginning of Chapter Three we see that it is strongly implied in this juxtaposition of the text of the eighteenth vow with these paraphrases of it by Shan-tao that based upon Shan-tao's rendering Honen had already interpreted the nembutsu of the eighteenth vow as invocation.

Who was this Shan-tao whose understanding of the ~ighteenth vow Honen seemed to value so highly? Shan-tao was a prominent Pure Land master of the early Tang period (618-907) who taught and evangelized in the vicinity of the capital, Changan. Although he was a specialist in Buddha contemplation, having composed the important treatise Amida Buddha Contemplation Method (cited above) on the subject of this demanding


discipline, he was also concerned with the salvation of the aver_ age, karmicaUy burdened lay person. Especially important for Honen's thought and for us, he was the first Pure Land Buddhist thinker to explicitly relate the eighteenth vow to the Contempla_ tion Sidra's passage on the rebirth of the worst of beings, and thus the first not only to interpret explicitly and unequivocally the n;embutsu of the vow as invocation, but also to assert that every instance of this invocation, every utterance of the name of Amida Buddha, is therefore endowed with the compassionate, saving power of Amida's vow.

We have already seen two important passages in which this position was set out. The first of the two passages by Shan-tao which Honen cites at the beginning of Chapter Three has,

.. .if there are sentient beings ... who call on my name with at least ten utterances in dependence on the power of my vow . ...

The emphasized phrase (my emphasis of course) is not literally stated in the vow, but is Shan-tao's contribution. The second of the two passages concludes, as we have seen, in this fashion:

That Buddha, having perfected buddhahood, now resides in his land. Thus we should know that the vows he originally made were not in vain, and that sentient beings who call upon him will assuredly be reborn into his land.

The assertion here is that because Amida'svow has been fulfilled in his acceptance of perfect enlightenment, the condition of that acceptance-rebirth for all those who call upon Amida-has also been fulfilled. 29

Honen first encountered Shan-tao's writings in Genshin's Essentials oj Pure Land Rebirth. Later he found Shan-tao's detailed commentary on the Contemplation Sutra 30 and there discovered his teachings on the unfailing efficacy of the invocational nembutsu of the original vow (Tamura, 1972,90-92). This discovery, in 1175, was crucial to Honen's teachings and career, for it· brought about his conversion to the Pure Land path. In the conclusion to the Senchaku shu Honen reveals:

A long time ago in my own humble searchings when I first


o'pened this scripture [of Shan-tao's Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra] and came generally to comprehend its fundamental truths, I immediately ceased cultivation of other practices and took refuge in nembutsu. From that day to this, whether for my own practice o_r for teaching others, I have madenembutsu my sole concern (Ohashi 1971, 162) .

... Here we have Honen's own confession that it was in Shan-tao's teachings that he found the true meaning of the original vow, ~ndmoreover a powerful influence upon his subsequent career.

Honen openly admits that his reliance upon Shan-tao was total. In answer to the following hypothetical question:

the various masters of the Kegon, Tendai, Shingon, Zen, Sanron and Hoss6 schools have written many works on the Pure Land dharma. Why do you rely exclusively on the one master Shan-tao and not on these other masters?

.Honen responds:

Even though these other masters have composed Pure Land works, they do not base themselves upon the Pure Land way, but rather only upon the way of the sages.31 Thus I do not rely on them. Master Shan-tao bases himself exclusively on the Pure Land way and not upon the way of the Sages. Thus I rely solely upon Shan-tao (Ohashi 1971, 158).32

Finally, so profound for H(>nen were the teachings on nembutsu of Shan-tao, so impressive the impact of these upon him, that he was convinced that Shan-tao had been a very manifesta

'tion, an avatara, of Amida Buddha himself.33 In the conclusion < (:lfthe Senchaku shu we find this eulogy:

When we reverently seek the fundamental reality we realize that it is the Dharma Prince of the forty-eight vows [Amid a Buddha]. The teaching arising form his ten eons-long path to perfect en-lightenment is reliance on the nembutsu. When we humbly search for the derived manifestation we find that it is the Path Master of sole nembutsu practice [Shan-tao]. The message of his perfectly realized samadhi is complete faith in Pure Land rebirth. Though the fundamental reality and the derived manifestation34 are not identical, their guidance to emancipation is one (Ohashi 1971, 162).


In the final analysis, the "ten reflections" of the eighteenth , vow meant to Honen ten utterances of that prayer of hOmage

to Amida Buddha because, many years before he had composed the Senchaku shu, Honen realized in utterance of that prayer of homage the fulfillment of his own personal search for an assured means of rebirth into the Pure, Land. 35

VIII. Conclusions

To summarize, we have seen several hermeneutical princi_ ples at work in Honen's reinterpretation of the nature and pOwer! of nembutsu: 1) A doctrinal analysis based upon a Buddhist view,' of history; 2) recourse to imperfect but helpful human reason;' 3) the use of scriptural authority; 4) reliance upon the authority of an enlightened teacher; and 5) the weight of personal religious experience-an experience of certain salvation. One mayi question whether Honen's personal experience was a hermeneutical principle or merely a compellinginfluence upon his views. I would suggest that in so far as Honen advances this experience as evidence of the correctness of his interpretation, as we have seen him do above, it becomes for him a criterion of interpretation, that is, a hermeneutical principle. ;'w~

In conclusion, although Honen does use reason to justifr;; his interpretations, reason is much less important and reliable~ in his eyes than scriptural authority or the teachings of an en-.~ lightened master. In general, there s'eems to be little concern~ here for the rational inference and philosophical logic which:i~ Robert Thurman sees as the highest authority for deciding scrip.:)! tliral validity. Doctrinal analysis of the kind Peter Gregory finds~ typical of Chinese Buddhist hermeneutics is important for] Honen, but only to establish the priority of Pure Land teachIngs 1 and scriptures in general. -It is clear that Honen relies most1; heavily upon the authority of an enlightened master, a master.~ whose teachings were instrumental in his own conversion to the] Pure Land path and to his own assurance of salvation. And;j ~hough we have examined only one instance of interpretation,;: by Honen, this interpretation was his major contribution to his.:~ age and to Japanese religious history.;~

We cannot generalize any farther from this single instance] "'j


with any confidence, yet the important place of patriarchal authority and personal experience in Honen's thinking raises a number of questions. Is a preference for these hermeneutical principles peculiar to Honen, to the new Buddhism of which Honen was precursor, toJapanese Buddhism in general, to the pure Land tradition as a whole? Would close examination of important interpretations of other Buddhist thinkers reveal a similar hermeneutics? We would like to suggest that the case of Honen is not exceptionaL The more we know about the career ofa Buddhist thinker, especially the nature of his or her crucial religious experiences, the more clearly would we see that such experiences were central to that figure's thinking, and in particular to his or her interpretation of scripture.

In the religious life we find again and again that human reason must give way before sacred power, or that at best, reason is but a means to try and make understandable what is ultimately beyond reason.

REFERENCES

. AKAMA TSU Toshihide 1966 Zoku Kamakura Bukkya no Kenkyft (Further studies on Kamakura Period Buddhism). Kyoto.

ANDREWS, Allan A. 1973 ... The Teachings Essential for Rebirth: A Study of Genshin's Ojayashu. Tokyo. COATES, Harper Havalock and Ryugaku Ishizuka 1925

Honen the Buddhist Saint: His Life and Teachings. Kyoto. GREGORY, Peter N. 1983

"Chinese Buddhist Hermeneutics: The Case of Hua-yen", journal of the American Academy of Religion, 5112, 231-50.

lKAWAJokei, ed. 1967 Hanen ShOnin den zenshu (The complete biographies of Honen Shonin). Reviseded. Takaishi, Osaka Pref. .

INAGAKI, Hisao, trans. 1966 Zenda's Exposition on the Merit of the Samiidhi of Meditation on the Ocean-like Figure of Amida Buddha. Kyoto.

rNAGAKI, Hisao, trans. 1984 "Shan-tao's Method of Meditation on Amida Buddha", Ryukoku Daigaku ronshu, no. 425, 20-41.

ISHII Kyodo, ed. 1955 Shawa shinshu Hanen ShOnin zenshu (Showa Period revision of the com plete works of Honen Shonin). Tokyo.


KAMATA Shigeo and TANAKA Hisao, eds. 1971 Kamakura kyu-Bukkyo [Nihon shiso taikei 15] (Traditional Kamakura Period Buddhism [A collection of Japanese thought, Vol. 15]). Tokyo.

MOCHIZUKI Shinko 1942 ChUkoku jodo Kyorishi (History of Pure Land Doctrines in China). Kyoto.

MORRELL, Robert E. 1983 "Jokei and the KOfukuji Petition," japanese journal of Religious Studies 1011,6-38.

NAKAMURA Hajime, HAYASHIMA Kyosho and KINO Kazuyoshi, trans. 1963

j8do sambukyo (The three part Pure Land scripture), 2 vols. Tokyo. OHASHI Toshio (Shunno), ed. 1971

Honen-Ippen [Nihon shiso taikei 10] (Honen and Ippen [A collection of Japanese thought, Vol 10]). Tokyo.

SHIGEMATSU Akishisa 1964 Nihon j8dokyo seiritsu katei no kenkyu (Studies on the process of establish_ ment of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism). Kyoto.

T. 1924-32 Taisho shinshU daizokyo (Taisho Period revised edition of the Chinese Buddhist Canon). Ed. by Takakusu Junjiro, 100 vols. Tokyo.

TAMURA Encha 1956 Honen ShOnin den no kenkyu (Studies on the biographies of Honen Shanin); Kyoto.

Teihon Shinran 1976 Teihon Shinran ShOnin zenshu, 5; Shuroku hen, 1 (The authentic complete works of Shinran Shonin, V; Compilation section, I). Ed. by the Shinran Shonin zenshu kankokai. Kyoto.

THURMAN, Robert A.F. 1978 "Buddhist Hermeneutics", journal of the American Academy of Religion, 4611 19-40.

NOTES

1. An earlier version of this paper was delivered to the Japan-American Buddhist Studies Conference commemorating one hundred years of Buddhism in Hawaii held in Honolulu, July, 1985.

2. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, especially of the mean-. ing of scripture. The term ultimately derives from the name of the Greek' deity, Hermes, messenger of the gods.

3. Bracketed additions are mine. 4. T. 360 (Taisho shinshu daizokyo text no.), Fo-shuo Wu-liang-shou ching

(Jap., Bussetsu Muryoju kyo), the most influential Chinese version of the larger Sukhiivatf-vyuha-sutra.

5. T. 2608. We will use the version annotated by Ohashi Toshio (Ohasqi 1971).


6: Shodo mon and Jodo mon, respectively. , 7. This method of ,evaluation assumed that the sutras which Sakyamuni

had presumably deli~ered later in his teaching .career (such as, for exam?I?, he Lotus Sutra) contamed more advanced doctrmes for more advanced dlSCl

;t Ies. Each school tended, naturally, to place its texts at the end of this prop ession, that is at the end of the Buddha's life or teaching career, and claim ~at its doctrines were therefore truer than those of other schools. One of the inost influential of Chinese schemata, that of the T'ien-t'ai master Chih-i (538-597), was accepted by much of Japanese Buddhism in Honen's day.

8. Shi5bi5, zoho and mappo, respectively. 9. As Honen acknowledges, this analysis was actually developed by the

chinese Pure Land master Tao-ch'o (Jap., Doshaku, 562-645). 10. It is interesting and significant that Honen omits from his citation

of this vow its last phrase, "excepting those who have committed the five irredeemable evils and slandered the true Dharma" (T. 360, XII, 268a).

11. Extant Sanskrit versions of the Sutra on the Buddha of Limitless Life indicate that nien is a translation of citta, "mind", "thought", "consciousness", (Nakamura et al. 1963, I, 283, n. 136). Of course Honen had no access to Sanskrit originals.

12. Moppara shi5 Butsugo. 13. T. 2682, Ojo yoshu. 14. T. 1911, Jap., Maka shikan, "Geat Quiescence and Insight". 15. T. 365, Fo-shuo kuan Wu-liang-shoujo ching (Jap., BussetsukanMuryoju

Butsu kyo. . 16. This view of the function of invocational nembutsu was based upon

a passage of the Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Limitless Life describing the rebirth of an extremely evil person by calling upon the name of Amida Buddha (see treatment below, p. 11). One tendency of the Essentials of Pure Land Rebirth, however, was to consider almost everybody then living to be such a person because Sakyamuni's buddha-world had by then entered the age of degenerate dharma (Andrews 1973,44-45).

17. For an alternative rendering see Morrell 1983, 30-31. 18. The Hosso priest Jokei, 1155-1213 (Morrell 1983,7-15). 19. He was of course exiled for this stand in 1207. As Morrell noted,

the one intolerable religious attitude in this eclectic age was intolerance (1983, 13).

20. Honen's interpretation was undoubtedly influenced by the growing popularity of invocational nembutsu. However, here we will be concerned with how Honen himself justified his interpretation of scripture, rather than with the historical influences at work upon him.

21. Amida Buddha's. 22. Interpretations of the eighteenth vow of the sutra by Chinese master

Shan-tao. See below. 23. Nen and shi5, respectively. 24. Sutra of Contemplation on the Buddha of Limitless Life. See ns. 15 and 16. 25. Both the Sutra on the Buddha of Limitless Life (which presents Amida's

~ighteenth vow) and the Contemplation Sutra are considered sermons of Sakyamuni Buddha.


26. This passage, called gebon geshO, "lowest rebirth of the lowest class" in Pure Land doctrinal discussions, is possibly the most important passage fo; the history of Pure Land Buddhism next to the eighteenth vow itself. For the text see T. 365, XII, 346.

27. T. 1959, Kuan-nien A-mi-t'ojo hsiang-hai san-mei kung-te fa-men (Jap. Kannen Amida Butsu sakai sammai kudoku hOmon). See the translation of Inaga~ (1966 and 1984).

28. T. 1980, Wang-sheng li-tsan chiehGap., Ojo raisan gel. 29. See also Shan-tao's Commentary. on the Sutra of Contemplation on the

Buddha of Limitless Life, T. 1753, section four on non-meditative practices XXXVII, 272a-b and 277 a-c. '

30. T. .1753, Kuan Wu-liang-shoujo-ching shu Gap., Kan Muryojubutsu kyo sho).

31. The reference here is to the dharma-gate of the sages and the Pure Land dharma-gate discussed above.

32. We should note that in the first chapter of the Senchaku shu Honen specified Shan-tao as one of the patriarchs of his Pure Land School (Ohashi 1971,93).

33. This view of Shan-tao did not originate with Honen, but had apparently been current in China (Mochizuki 1942, 182-83).

34. Honji and suijaku, respectively. 35. There is evidence of an even closer nexus between Honen and Shan

tao. Honen's biographies, including those compiled shortly after his death,' relate that after his conversion experience in 1175 Shan-tao appeared to him in a dream and commended him for propagating the exclusive cultivation of' nembutsu. Such an event would have meant to Honen a personal transmission of the dharma from master to disciple and a clear mandate to interpret the nembutsu of the original vow as he did. This episode is related in, for example, the Genku shOnin Shinikki (Teihon Shinran 1976, V, 177) and the lchigo monogatari (Ikawa 1967, 774a), both composed before 1227, and of course in the forty-eight chapter biography (Coates' and Ishizuka 1925, 205-06). Another early text, the Mukan shOsoki, records that the dream occurred in

. 1198 (Ishii 1955, 862). The Shinikki ("The Private Life of Saint Genku") has:

After considering carefully for awhile this [discovery of Shan-tao's teachings],' while sleeping he had a dream .... He climbed a high mountain and immediately saw the living Shan-tao. From the hips down he 'was golden, from the hips up [he appeared] as usual. The eminent priest said, "Even though you are of humble status, the nembutsu has arisen everywhere under the heavens. Because you will spread the sole invocation of the name to all sentient beings, I have come. I am Shan-tao". Because of this, he propagated this dharma and year by year it came to flourish more and more until there was nowhere to which it had not spread (Teihon Shinran, V, 177).

Tamura (1956, 248~56) argues against the actual occurrence of this event, proposing that it was invented to generate a patriarchal line of transmission

. between Honen and Shan-tao for the developing Pure Land School, but Shigematsu (1964, 447-87) and Akamatsu (1966, 204-05) consider the account credible.

PURE LAND HERMENEUTICS

Japanese and Chinese Terms

Chih-i 1/ ~ Fo-shuo kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo ching (Bussetsu Kan

:MuryojuButsu kyo) 1h ~ft !i,I .:ff-1£"\ \~k Fo-shuo Wu-liang-shou ching

: (BusSetsu Muryoju kyo) "b. ~ ~, t ~ M:: Gebon gesho f ~" f 'i.. • Genku Shonin shinikki ;t 'il .t. f-- ~ r1 ~b Genshin ~, f~ }Icmen ~ !.1: Honji, suijaku JF.- M .f J.f.. Ichi~o monogatari -" }!~ ~ W Jakel ~ It .A:1 ~ ~. ~ . ' Kofukuji sojo ~ 1iit .q- /~'-JfK

25

Kuan-nien A-mi-t'o-fo hsiang-hai san-mei kung-te fa-men (Kanen Amida Butsu sokai sammai kudoku homon)

',f!%, f~ 1r- ~ 1A,f£1 ~ ~ ~;:jM~· * p.j ;I{uan Wu-liang-shou-fo-ching shu : (Kan Muryojubutsukyo sho) it!, t Jr- 4~ :-!: ~ Mo-ho chih-kuan (Maka s~ikan) it ~if ;:. Jt Moppara sho Butsugo ..t ~~?-. t .Mukan shoso ki "}~ ~ ~ ~ . Namu Amida Butsu ® !:. ~ ;:r, fit 1?\ Nembutsu 1; 4p. Nen (nien) ~ ~:?, ~ho _r,r;. If; uc OJO yoshu J."f. ':J. :t- Jf:.p'an-chiao (hangyo) 1') ~ S~nchaku hongan nembutsu shu it:!" ,k..d.~ t 1~ j( Sh~n~tao_ (Z_endo) t ~ Shobo, zoho, mappo if.. ;J:.. . f! 'l~, :f. * Shodo mon, J odo mon 1i it M 1f f- p~. T ... aisho shinshu daizokyo h-.if. *1f 1'~ f-./A' ~ Tao-ch'o (Doshaku) li 1l \ Tendai (Tien-t'ai) f:.-- '(j _ ' >. _ ~. Wang-sheng li-tsan chieh (Ojo raisan ge) f~ 'f ;f{J pt ~ ';fJ

Sa-skya PalJ-Qita, the White Panacea cind the H va-Shang Doctrine *

hyMichael Broido

1. Introduction

ngo-bo ... skyes-pa'i dus-naldkar-po chig-thub gcig-shes kun-grol song-basi

-sGam-po-pa l

rjod-byed tshig-gisteng-du glegs-bam mangl Ibrjod-bya don gcig ston-la thams-cad 'khrill Ide phyir gcig-shes kun-grol bka '-rgyud-kyil Ibla-ma'i zhabs-la rnam-kun phyag bgyi'ol

-Padma dKar-po'

According to Sa-skya Pal).<;iita, the White Panacea (dkar-po 'chig-thub) is a mahiimudra doctrine newly adopted by unnamed ,persons, evidently the bKa'-brgyud-pas as specialists in ~11/,ahiimudra, and bearing a suspicious relationship with the noxt.ious doctrines of H va-shang Mahayana, the Chinese Ch'an master defeated by Kamalsaslla at the bSam-yas debate.3 As a result

;:of this debate, the Buddhist doctrines officially permitted in '}fibet were those of the gradual, staged (rim-gyis-pa'i) variety; "and Sa-skya Pal).<;iita is complaining that doctrines of the sudden ·(cig-car-ba'i) variety are being reintroduced into Tibet by the 'bKa'-brgyud-pas and the rNying-ma-pas. ", The colloquial use for dkar-po chig-thub is of a medical plant, .perhaps ginseng. Now the point of the analogy between ginseng and mahiimudra is not merely that just as ginseng cures all dis.~ases, mahiimudra cures all defects of the personality. When the bKa'-brgyud-pas use the word on their own account, as does Zhang Tshal-pa (1123-93) in his important mahiimudra work phyag-che,n lam-mchog mthar-thug,4 the idea is rather that once the disease, whatever it was, has been cured by means of ginseng there is no need to take any further medicine to cure it, and similarly

27


0r:ce mahamud:a has been attained th.ere is no need to do any_ thmg further m order to remove defllements. Thus, following attainment it is unnecessary and useless to enquire what the defilements were; in this form the analogy is connected with an old Buddhist one, according to which the person who is suffering from a disease wants it cured, and does not want to be told its name. Ginseng (mahamudra) is the cure. In more specifically vajrayana language, the White Panacea (dkar-po chig-thub) is thus connected with seals (mudra).

However, in the sDom-gsum rab-dbye Sa-skya Pa1).<;iita ignores the views of the bKa'-brgyud-pas and takes the word to stand for a complete quietism, a "do-nothing" attitude towards the doctrine, and claims further that this is the heresy of the Hvashang. The present paper presents Padma dKar-po's replies to some of these attacks, mainly as given in his Phyag-chen ganmdzod. Evidence will be given for the following theses:

A. The term dkar-po chig-thub was used by Zhang Tshal-pa in the Phyag-chen lam-mchog mthar-thug in the sense of "(mahamudrii as) the only cure for defilements" (kleSa, nyon-mongs), that is, to convey the idea that once mahamudra has been attained, there is no more effort to be made, and the practitioner should act effortlessly (anabhogacarya, lhun-gyis grub-pa'i spyod-pa). The text of the dKar-po chig-thub chapter of this work is in Appendix A, and a summary is in Section 1 below; it is straightforward, and the thesis stated here is plainly supported by it. From the materials given in Appendix A we see also that the notions of "sameness" (mnyam-pa-nyid) and non-duality are precisely not dealt with under the White Panacea (dkar-po chig-thub) but in an earlier chapter of the Lam-mchog mthar-thug.

B. There is no evidence for the systematic use of dkar-po chig-thub by bKa'-brgyud-pas earlier than Zhang Tshal-pa. The word has certainly been used once or twice by sGam-po-pa, but not in any technical sense or as part of a doctrinal scheme.

C. dKar-po chig-thub used by Padma dKar-po only when replying to the attacks of Sa-skya Pa1).<;iita and to questions from people in other traditions. Pad rna dKar-po never uses the term on his own account. It plays no independent role in the bKa'brgyud-pas' own rather complex conception of.mahamudra (part of which is sketched below). Nevertheless, Padma dKar-po does

THE WHITE PANACEA 29

: accept the ~hesis expressed by Zhang Tshal-pa (see A above) in "terms of thIS word.

D. In the sDom-gsum rab-dbye, Sa-skya Pa1)<;iita is not working ~ith any clear conception either of the White Panacea (dkar-po chig-thub) or of the Hva-shang doctrine.

E. Notwithstanding Padma dKar-po's qualified acceptance ofthe dKar-po chig-thub notion (C), he rejects completely the thesis that his tradition merely follows the views of the Hva-

shang. F. In rejecting this identification of the bKa'-brgyud-pa

view with that of the Hva-shang, Padma dKar-po mainly follows the orthodox position as setout in the third Bhavanakrama.· Though he does not give a full exposition of the Hva-shang

"doctrine (as he sees it) he does set out certain matters (independently of KamalaSlla) on which he is in agreement with the fIva-shang. Thanks to the valuable work of Japanese and other scholars, ably summarized and continued in a recent article by Luis Gomez, we now have a fair idea, independent of Kamalaslla, of what the views of Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen reallywere. 5 In section 3, I set out some of these views of Mo-ho-yen, following Gomez, "andcompare them with observations about the Hva-shang which Padma dKar-po puts forward in his Phyag-chen gan-mdzod and elsewhere. In making this comparison, the crucial point to be grasped on the bKa'-brgyud-pa side is the particular notion of "no mental activity" (amanasikara) which is in use, namely that based on the ideas of Maitripa. 6 Padma dKar-po contrasts this notion ofamanasikara with the view of the Hva-shang, and shows that they are incompatible. The failure to grasp this essential point is probably the most serious defect in the polemic of Sa-skya Pa1)<;iita (insofar as it is directed towards the bKa'-brgyud

"" pas). G. Sa-skya Pa1)<;iita and others identify the "quick entry to

the path" (cig-car 'jug-pa'i lam) of the bKa'-brgyud-pas with the "sudden gate" (cig-car 'jug-pa'i sgo, ston-mun) of the Chinese. According to Padma dKarcpo, this identification is confused; the two views differ in two quite general ways, independently ()f the point about "no mental activity" (amanasikara) briefly

.". mentioned under F. First, the Hva-shang view is a view about the nature of goal-attainment in Buddhism quite generally, while the view which Padma dKar-po does hold is a view about the


path, and not the goal, applying only to certain people and not others. Second, the Hva-shang view is part of the hetuyiina and has no application to the vajrayiina, while Padma dKar-po's cig_ car jug-pa'i lam is part of the vajrayiina' and is irrelevant to the hetuyiina. 7 These points about the Hva-shang view, as made by Padma dKar-po, seem to be adequately confirmed by the Tun_ huang materials.

H. As is well-known, Sa-skya Pal).<;iita objected to the bKa'_ brgyud-pa view according to which there is a mahiimudrii in the sutras as well as the tantras. According to G, it might seem as though Padma dKar-po is going to be in difficulty defending this bKa-brgyud-pa view, at least for the "sudden" (cig-car) type of person. Padma dKar-po's general defence of the notion of mahiimudrii in the sutras has been presented elsewhere. 8 But his notion oj a sudden type oj person applies only to the tantras, indeed, only to the anuttarayogatantras; so in the sutras the problem never anses.

K. Of the detailed mahiimudrii doctrines propagated by the bKa' -brgyud-pas, Sa-skya Pal).<;iita has attacked the "five aspects" (lnga-ldan) system of the'Bri-gung-pas with particular force. I suggest that these attacks may be explained by personal animosity of the Sa-skya-pas towards Phag-mo Gru-pa rDo-rje rGyal-po, the originator of the "five aspects" system.

2. The bKa'-brgyud-pas on the White Panacea

2.1 sGam-po-pa used the phrase dkar-po chig-thub occasionallt but there is rio reason to think he associated any technical sense with the word. It is not found where we might expect it (in relation to the subject-matter) in the sGom-tshul zhus-lan. Generally speaking, sGam-po-pa avoided as far as possible the use of specialized technical terms. For example, if anything in Buddhism is ever invented by anybody sGam-po-pa was the inventor of the lhan-cig skyes-sbyor (sahajayoga) system of mahiimudrii. (While the idea of a goal common to both sutras and tantras goes back to Naropa,10 sGam-po-pa was the first person to teach them both on a parallel basis). YetsGam-po-pa himself avoids the term lhan-cig-skyes-sbyor, preferring to substitute a brief explanation of what it stands for. Similarly he avoided the words dkar-pochig-thub and yid-la mi-byed-pa (amanasikiira) , preferring just to


directly whatever it was that he wanted to say. The standard bKa' -brgyud-pa source for dkar-po-chig-thub,

a.nd the one usually mentioned by bKa'-brgyud-pa writers and scholars, is the chapter of that name in Zhang Tshal-pa's Phyag'rgya chen-po. lam-mchog m.thar-thu.g. There is not the sli?hte~t reason to thmk that what IS descnbed by Zhang Tshal-pa III thIS famous work has anything to do with quietism or with the views MHo-shang Mo-ho-yen (regardless of whether the Ho-shang was really a quietist or not). As we see from the text, given in Appendix A, the whole chapter is a series of aphorisms listing the various stages of Buddhist practice and saying what has to be the case for them to be complete. This question of completeness is adumbrated for the momentofabhisambodhi ll (v. 1), for [refuge in] the three jewels (vv. 2-4), for bodhicitta (vv. 5-6), for the six paramitas (vv. 7-9), for the two accumulations of merit and awareness (v. 10), for the four stages of abhi~eka (vv. 11-12), for the stages of generation and completion in sadhana practice (v. 13), for various paths and bodhisattva-levels (v. 14), for the three buddhakayas (v. 15), and for the four stages of view, culti

Ovation, action and goaP2 (v. 16). The very last verse alone is not Jb~ this topic of completeness; but it emphasizes that right up :to buddhahood, karma and its ripening continue to exist and it is necessary to renounce evil and to accumulate merit. The White Panacea doctrine, as thus set out by Zhang Tshal-pa, is 'clearly a doctrine applying both to the vajrayana and to the lah,ar],ayana. And in the vajrayana, it applies to both the "sudden" and "gradual" types, as Padma dKar-po understood these terms, ,since the difference between these two types is primarily in the specific content of their practices, and not in the generalities adumbrated by Zhang Tshal-pa or in their both having to traverse an extended path.

I have gone to some trouble to exhibit this text, not only because of its intrinsic interest but because it is older than Sa-skya Par;l(;lita's criticisms and is therefore not open to the charge of having been produced as a way of averting those criticisms.

2.2 The bKa'-brgyud-pas have used mahamudra in various ways:

(a) for one of the four mudriis (b) as a synonym of, or close varient on, madhyamaka


(c) as a name of various techniques of meditation (d) as a name for various systems of meditation practice

(a) Mudra means "seal," and mahainudra means "the great seal"; the Tibetans use it in this sense in both masculine and feminine forms. While the karmamudra is a real woman and the jnanamudra is a visualized image, the word mahamudra does not stand for any particular thing which symbolizes something else; it is the sealing or binding together of items experienced in nirvikalpajnana with that nirvikalpajnana itself and as such has ground, path and goal phases (see (b) below). The Tibetans emphasize the notion of "not going beyond" as part of "seal" (phyag-rgya); as Guenther has rightly pointed out, on the basis of Padma dKar-po's Gan-mdzod itself, this idea goes back to Mi-la-ras-pa. This is the point at which the dkar-po chig-thub notion connects with the notion of mahamudra as one of the four mudras.

(b) For the bKa'-brgyud-pas, mahamudra has another, related sense similar to one sense of madhyamaka. In particular there is a sutra-mahamudra and a tantra-mahamudra, and they represent the same attainment (only the methods involved are different.)13 This point has been strongly disputed by the siskya-pas; there is also a slight difference here with the dGe-Iugs. In the tantras, mahamudra is often described as "the origin of all dharmas" and identified with the dharmakiiya. This does not mean that all the dharmas originate from mahiimudra in the sense of some causal theori4 but that the dharmas, as concepts or descriptions of the items of experience, have mahamudra as their place of origination (skye-gnas). (There is an important element of metaphor in this phrase.) In the tantras, this is symbolized by taking mahamudra to be the yonE or bhaga or dharmodaya. The parallel with madhyamaka is emphasized by the parallel way in which the tantras (and sometimes the sutras) take Prajnaparamita as a deity and as the dharmodaya. In as much as mahamudra is the place of origin of the dharmas-the descriptive part of experi~ ence-the realisation of mahamudra as the great seal means just letting the mind rest in its experiencing without becoming attached to the labelling concepts which arise in the course of experience; concepts which are, as the bKa'-brgyud-pas well understood, a necessary part of experience (including seeing things properly,


;, aramiirthatas) and not something to be swept away into some 'Port of chaos of disconnected appearances. dKar-po chig-thub is (~nother way of expressing this same idea. : The bKa' -brgyud-pas hold that mahiimudrii, regarded as the place o.f origin of all dha.rmas, is the ground, ~ath and goal of the entIre process of freemg oneself from delusIOns. For Padma dKar-po, ground-mahiimudrii is the integration of the two satyas (bden gnyis zung-'jug), path-mahamudra is the integration of in

: sight and means (thabs-shes zung-'jug) , and goal-mahiimudrii is the integration of the two buddhakiiyas (sku gnyis zung-jug). He uses exactly the same language for the description of madhyamaka as ground, path and ~_o_al. ~ In. _each case_ a ~e~ture-univer~al (paramiirtha-satya, praJna-paramzta, dharmakaya) IS mtegrated WIth items of particular sorts falling under certain general categories (sar[tvr:ti-satya, upiiya, rupakiiya).15a .

The seal· (mudrii) is the understanding that in each case, items of that general category depend on the feature-universal for their identity as items of that category. Put this way, the ~onnection may seem trivial; but it is given content, especially in the case of the two satyas, by the identification of paramartha~satya with the radiant light, of upaya with the bodhisattvas' upayakauSalya, and of the rupakaya with the nirmiirpakaya and sambhogakaya of the Buddha. Dol-po Shes-rab rGyal-mtshan, by contrast, took mahiimudra as itself subject to the two satyas (further identified as gzhan-stong and rang-stong) rather than as the principle which subjects the ordinary items of experience to the satyas. Since in this way he had nothing to keep the two aspects of mahiimudrii together, the temptation to reject one (rang-stong = sar[tvr:ti-satya) and keep the other (gzhan-stong = paramartha-satya) was irresistible; but then, as Padma dKar-po pointed out, the integration (zung-'jug) has disintegrated. 16

. (c) As ground and goal, madhyamakalmahiimudra is essentially one, though of course it will have various aspects. As path, it is very various, and there is a tendency to use madhyamaka more strictly of the sutra-level methods and mahiimudra of the tantralevel methods. All the many techniques of the upaya-marga which may lead to the goal of mahiimudra may ipsissimo facto be thought of as falling under path-mahiimudra; and this was how phrases like "mahiimudra meditation" (phyag-chen sgom-pa) were used by the early bKa'-brgyud-pas. Accordingly it is senseless to com-


plain, as Sa-skya Pal).Q.ita does in the sDom-gsum rab-dbye, that the dkar-po chig-thub is not one but many. dKar-po chig-thub-re5

_ maining in mahamudra as the place of <;>rigin, of the dharmas_is' precisely what holds the many together as one, and so is not itself subject to the notions of one and many (gcig dang du bral), I); even in a putely conventional logical sense.:

(d) Sa-skya Pal).Q.ita's complaint is formulated semi-explicitly'as an attack on the "five aspects" system of mahamudra meditation: (phyag-chen lnga-ldan). This system was a speciality of the 'Bri-; gung-pas, and there appears. to be som~thing esp~c~ally pi{ headed about the attack as dIrected agamst the ongmator of the dgongs-gcig doctrine. It may become slightly more com~ prehensible (though not really excusable) if we recall that th(t lnga-ldan system was actually originated not by 'Bri-gung sKyob~ pa 'Jig-rten mGon-po, but by his teacher Phag-mo Gru-pa rD6:':< rje rGyal-po; while it was practiced especially in the 'Bri-gunglt trad~t~on, it was also handed down !n the other bKa' -brgyud-p~,j tradItIOns, and we have works on It from the hands of Padma'~ dKar-po,18 Si-tu Chos-kyi 'Byung-gnas I9 and many others. Novi'l Phag-mo. Gru-pa was the principal pupil of sGam-po-pa; bu(1 before mee~ing him,.he ha~ been to many teachers ~nd studie1J many doctnnes, and m partIcular had learned the entIre lam-'brafj system from Sa-chen Kun-dga sNying-p020; this is why theriJ are various bKa'-brgyud-pa transmissions of the lam-'bras, such'l as that. recorded by Padma dKar-po.21 Af~er the dea~ of sGa~}J po-pa m 1153, Phag-mo gru-pa sought Sa-chen out m order to.# ask him questions; but Sa-chen refused to see him,22 and since~ then the name of Phag-mo Gru-pa has riot been heard of much;! ~n the S~-skya tradition, in spite of his vast ~a~e elsewhere. I~j IS temptmg to speculate that Sa-skya Pal).Q.Ita s attack on th~~ lnga-ldan system may have been motivated by animosity towards' Phag-mo Gru-pa, rather than towards sGam-po-pa or 'Bri-gung~1 pa. 23 'j

2.3 Another way of considering the connection betwee~l Padma dKar-po's view of dkar-po chig-thub and the Hva-shangj view is to look at his account of the latter and consider whetherJ it involves the former or not. In chapter 5 of the Phyag-che~

. gan-mdzod Padma dKar-po considers at considerable length'~l passage from the sDom-gsum rab-dbye in which the varietyo!1

t


;~hiiinudrii which Sa-sky,a Pal)<;lita is a~tackin~ is identified with i"Chinese rDzogs-chen. 24 dKar-po chzg-thub IS not even mentioned in. Padma dKar-po's discussion of these n:>tions; pr?of r"llough, It would seem, that he uses the dkar-po chzg-thub notIOn r6nly when it is imposed on him by others, as by Sa-skya Pal)<;lita 'barIier in the sDom-gsum rab-dbye. " In fact the refutation of Sa-skya Pal)<;lita's remarks is surpris"ing1y straightforward, even though it has a slight twist to its tail. Padrna dKar-po starts by pointing out that Sa-skya Pal)<;lita has ,gotthe actual story of the bSam-yas debate wrong, according 'to Karnalaslla's own account. 25 At a first debate, KamalasIla and :the Hva-shang were not present,26 the rtsen-min (gradual, rimgyis) persuasion being represented by Ye-shes dbang-po, sBa' 'dral-dbyangs and others, while the sudden persuasion (ston-min, fig-car) was represented by Jo Byang-chub and Sru Yang-dag. 27 On this occasion the rtsen-min (gradual persuasion) "pleased the iking."28 A second debate was then held between the principals29

~Ild "the sudden persuasion was refuted by reasoning and scripture; the Hva-shang and his pupils remained defenseless, and 'I{arnalasila was garlanded with flowers."30 It is difficult to imag'lne a rnore conventional account.

But as I said, there is a twist at the end. The doctrine of the Hva-shang is a pure Mahayana doctrine, having nothing to :Cio with the vajrayiina, while the Indian cig-car-ba doctrine of j:'ilopa, Wiropa and Padma dKar-po is a vajrayiinp doctrine. There is no cig-car-ba notion applying to the sutras. Samathfj and vipasyanii, though not part of the upiiya-miirga (and in that sense nOt vajrayiina techniques) are nevertheless based on the Vairopaniibhisambodhi-tantra3! and so require abhi!ieka. In any case, the point is academic; though the lhan-cig-skyes-sbyor method of riwhiimudrii includes the elementary forms of samathfi and vipafyanii,32 nobody seriously supposes that a cig-car-ba would prac.tice these elementary techniques. The important point here is that according to the bKa'-brygud-pas, a cig-car-ba can attain insight immediately following abhi!ieka; this has been denied by ~a-skya Pal)<;lita, in passages quoted by Padma dKar-po elsewhere in the Gan-mdzod. 33 But this point is in no way affected by the repudiation of the Hva-shang view, of course.

Padma dkar-po describes the relation between the Hvasilang view and the vajrayiina thus: 34


The objector (Sa-skya Pal)<;lita) claims that the Chinese tradition is a form of rdzogs-chen, but this is not observed. It is a sutra-Ievel bhiivanakrama, while rdzogs-chen atiyoga is nothing of the sort. Had it been, rdzogs-chen [which the Hva.:shang w.as speaking of), Kamalaslla would have been unable to refute It by referring to the sutras and to the Vairocanabhisambodhitantra. Accordingly the two methods [of the Hva-shang and of KamalasllaJ both belong to the la~arJayana.

Padma-dKar-po continues35 with a long quotation from the third Bhiivanakrama which specifically refutes the Hva-shang'S view. He then considers the contrast between his views of the cig-car_ balthod-rgal-balrim-gyis-pa distinction as a distinction of different paths (and the persons who follow them) within a certain conception of what all those paths are based on and are leading to (viz. mahiimudra), and the view attributed to the Hva-shang by Sa-skya Pa1).Q.ita (probably wrongly, according to Padma dKar-' po) according to which everybody would be a cig-car-ba. Padma dKar-po was strongly opposed to the latter view36 ; and here37

he points out that if the arguments in the sDom-gsum rab-dbye have any force at all, it is only against this view held neither by the bKa'-brgyud-pas nor, probably, by the Hva-shang.38

He then39 mentions various internal inconsistencies in Saskya Pa1).<;lita's exposition of the lam-'bras doctrine, but it would take us too far afield to go into all this here. The chapter (and the whole work) conclude with a discussion of more specific point of dispute concerning the relation between samathii and vipasyana and related matters.

3. The Essence of Mahamudra as the Medicinal Plant dKar-po chig-thub [Removing All DefilementsrO

Here we give a translation of most of the section of the Phyag-chen gan-mdzod in which Padma dKar-po treats the White Panacea (dkar-po chig-thub) doctrine. The treatment revolves entirely around criticisms of the bKa'-brgyud-pas appearing in the sDom-gsum rab-dbye, whose verses are quoted (without acknowledgment, save by a "kha-cig ni ... " or similar).

"In his commentary on the Hevajra-tantra,41 the great translator [Mar-paJ said


All dharmas,42 from the most subtle through to motion, are not established on. their own account. Having thus understood sahajaprak(ti as the view, one cultivates it, and this is samiihita, etc. However, if what is cultivated issamiihita without pr:~(halabdha, it is [merely] a simulacrum of sahaja-jiiiinao It has been said to me and others that from the viewpoint of one who understands mahiimudra thus, alfdharmas of sa'I7Jsiira and niroiil]a arise from it:' and are its emanationso Accordingly, even a man with little merit who, having understood that the whole of view, cultivation of the view and action aremahiimudrii and having cultivated [the view] for a long time, will attain realizationo So what is the point of paying attention to anything else? So it has been taught.

"So at the time of understanding there is no need to consider any other dharma than mahiimudrii. And in Acarya Jiianaklrti's Tattviivatiira we find:

Though the Exalted One has the nature [bdag-nyid] of dharmakiiya, vajra-bodhicitta is also the essence [ngo-bocnyid] of the tathiigataso Further, prajiiiipiiramitajiiiina is non-dual and is to be realised by the tathiigataso The inseparable union of mahiimudrii44 is the same, and it has the nature of mahiikarul]ao Since it has the nature of bodhicitta, it is the natural yoga44a of all merit. Thus, its cultivation leads completely to countless resultso Accordingly, the cultivation of non-dual mahiimudrii is what all yogins who attain countless results have in commono So the Exalted One taught that there is but one vehicle, as it taught with certainty in the Buddhasangztisutrao There is no vehicle separate from the dharmadhiitu, the essence of the awareness of non-dual mahiimudriio"

Here Padma dKar-po expresses what he wants to say in quotations, hardly using his own wordso He now introduces the first ()f two quotations which he will attack, both from Sa-skya Pal)c;lita's sDom-gsum rab-dbye, without however mentioning either the author or the work.

"Others, however, have said45 :

Some say that the three kiiyas arise as an effect from the dkar-po chig-thubo However an effect cannot arise from a single [cause]; and one which did would be single, like the nirodha of the sriivakaso

"These remarks are inconsistent [rang-la gnod-do]; the middle one contradicts the first and last. Why is that? It is unanimously agreed that no effect can arise from a single thing, and yet here the nirodha of the sriivakas is called an effect which arises from a single cause."

38 JIABS VOL.lONO. 2

In any case, these arguments of Sa-skya Pal).Qita are irrelev_ ant, since we are not talking about causation in a technical sense Padma dKar-po now gives a series of nine quotations which simultaneously illustrate four points. :First, there is one place of origin of all dharmas, which has been called many different names, mahamudra, sems-nyid, etc. (a point dealt with in more detail under the next quotation from the sDom-gsum rab-dbye). Second, various paths or methods originate there. Third, they all have one common effect or product: Fourth, it is essential not to go beyond this one mahamudra. All these topics belong to dkar-po chig-thub, but the last is especially characteristic.

"The wrongness of this [view expressed by Sa-skya Pal)<;iita] is shown by Saraha46 ;

Mind alone is the seed of everything, from which proceed whatever exists and whatever is at rest. Homage to mind, which, like a wish-fulfilling gem, grants the desired result!

"And again by Saraha47 :

From one root grow two branches, And from these two grows one fruit.

"Avalokitesvara says48;

The hero-stage, the sviidhi~(hiinakrama, is pure, but is not the path/ of freedom. There is only one wholly pure stage:g the buddhas say, from which liberation follows.

"And in the Kiilacakratantra50 :

This single thing5l is fivefold; the abhisambodhi of the highest exalted ones is of twenty kinds, and has the character of many,·\ different sorts of illusion. By means of this same bliss in· a~ instant. there is the (desired) result, and not by action of any other nature .... (svabhiiva). Here the means is unchanging, instantaneous (sic) and; is in that which enters the sahaja-dharmadhiitu.

From bliss there is the further wish for bliss, instantaneous, sahaja, and wanting nothing else; they arise from the skandhas but also from an instant of bliss, from pure dharmas52 and from what pure, like the roots, leaves, flowers and fruit from the sowing a single pure seed.


"And from other examples. For instance the Yogznzsanciirya:

Only from great bliss, only from experiencing it, comes the dance of the multifold. 53

"And many other tantra-passages make the same point. But we find it also in the sidra literature, as for instance:

"and

There is mainly one inseparable vehicle, for it is inseparable (sic) from the dharmadhiitu.'54

Since it is inseparable from the dharmadhiitu, it is not suitable for different types55 ; differences between distinctions in the dharmas are dependent [on the dharmadhiitu]. ,

"Further there is a contradiction with perception. Further still, it would follow that all the arguments establishing that there is just one ultimate vehicle are wrong."

The next quotation from the sDom-gsum rab-dbye is directed ~gainst the 'Bri-gung-pa tradition of mahiimudra called lnga-ldan, ill which five aspects of mahiimudra are stressed, viz. bodhicitta~ahiimudra, devakiiya-mahiimudra, devotional mahiimudra, abh4eka-mahiimudra and vidya-mahiimudra. Obviously, as Padma ciKar-po will point out, it does not mean that these are five different mahiimudras56 :

Some say that after cultivating dkar-po chig-thub there must be a dedication of merit. But in that case there are two chig-thub. Indeed, if there is to be refuge, generation of bodhicitta, meditation on deities and yidams, etc., there must be many chig-thub. So this notion of chig-thub cannot be the teaching of the buddhas, and it is a clinging to substantiality and is the opposite of the Muni's celebrated voidness!7

"This objection is childish [Padma dKar-po replies]. It would make just as much sense to say, within your own [tradition], that it is impermissible to arrange the two kramas in order. It is a mere conversational device to say that everything can be viewed only as paramiirtha-[satyaJ. On the same level, in your own tradition one would have to say that [all generation of bodhicitta] is generation of paramiirtha-bodhicitta. "


Padma dKar-po now gives numerous quotations from Indian sources (Guhyasamaja, Hevajra, Kalacakra, Vimalaprabha Samputa, I)akarnava, Yogznzs~iicarya, Prajiiaparr:mita) showin~ ~eparately for each of these fIve aspects of mahamudra how it is treated as standing for the whole; on Sa-skya PaI).Q.ita's view it would follow that all these Indian sources were foolishly Con_ fused. It would be tedious to reproduce all these quotations; I will give one example of each type.

"The following example of bodhicitta-mahi'imudrii would be wrong58 :

Bodhicitta in its sa'f!lvrti and paramartha. forms is generated by . means of the marJlj,alacakra and the svadhz!i(hanakrama

"Also the following example of devakiiya-mahiimudrii would be wrong59 :

The true abode of the deity and the mantras is in their nature of being ni!iprapafica. .

"So would be the following example of devotional mahiimudrii60 :

Maitreya said: How should the buddhas and bodhisattvas look upon' the vajracarya who has given abhi!ieka for Guhyasamaja, the body, , speech and mind of all the buddhas and tathiigatas? Son of a good family, all the buddhas and bodhisattvaS should look upon him as upon boddhicitta-vajra. Why is that? Because the acarya is equal to bodhicitta itself, the two are inseparable.

"And similarly mahiimudrii may be expressed in terms of abh4eka61 :

Power is transferred by the great bliss of knowledge of things as they are, in the abhi~ekas of mahiimudra; the mar],qala has no other origin."

The examples of vidya-mahamudra are too complex to be pursued here. 62 Padma dKar-po also gives examples of various other types of mahamudra (not specially associated with the lnga-ldan' system). It may be obtained in the mode of gshis, 63 in the mode of gnas-lugs,64 by purification, etc. The essential point is that what is thereby attained is always the same, even though the methods differ; and so once one method has been pursued to c

THEWHITE PANACEA 41

.the end, there is no need to take up another. This is the point

. f the verse quoted after the title of this paper; similarly Padma ~Kar-po quotes the I)akarr]ava 65 :

By cultivating one instruction, all instructions are understood. Just as by attaining one bhumi, all bhumis are attained, so by attaining one instruction, all instructions are attained.

"And in a sutra:

Though in the various realms of the world I have spoken various sutras using various words, the intent66 is the same. Meditating on one saying is like meditating on all.

"and in the Prajiii.ipi.iramiti.i:

Fully knowing the sutras on one dharma, one fully knows the sutras on all dharmas.

~'To seek for another means after having attained this mahi.imudri.i would be like looking for the same elephant which one had already found and abandoned [and this is the point of the White Panacea]. The sense of this is already found slightly in the Prajiii.ipi.iramiti.i and in the- dohas.

This concludes the second chapter of the Phyag-rgya chen-po manngag-gi bshad-sbyar rgyal-ba'i gan-mdzod, summarizing the content of the notion of mahi.imudri.i."

4. A Direct Comparison Between the Views of Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen and Kun-mkhyen Padma dKar-po

In the previous section we saw how Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita distorted the views of the bKa'-brgyud-pas; but it has not been possible, in the absence of Chinese comment on his sDom-gsum rab-dbyeJ

to consider to what extent he has also distorted the views of Mo-ho-yen. In this section we will bypass Sa-skya Pal)Qita altogether, and make a direct comparison between the views of Mo-ho-yen and those of the bKa' -brgyud-pas as represented by Padma dKar-po. We will not be particularly interested in those points of similarity which they shared with the rest of the Bud-


dhist world (since it hardly seems necessary to reply to Sa-skya Pa1)Qita's charge67 that they were not Buddhists at all). Rather, we will be concerned with points on which they agreed in oppos_ ition to Sa-skya ~aI).Qita,. and with po~nts on which they simply' disagreed. We wIll find Important pomts of both types. To the extent that there are points of great importance, concerning their respective "sudden" doctrines, on which the bKa'-brgyud_ pas differed from Mo-ho-yen, it seems that Sa-skya Pa1)Qita was simply wrong in his sweeping identification of the two. On the other hand there are points of similarity; and while it would be of interest to see whether these are shared also by the r N ying -mapas, that would go beyond the scope of this paper.

The comparison is made possible by the analysis of Tunhuang and other fragments of old works plausibly attributed to Mo-ho-yen by Japanese scholars, and surveyed recently by Luis Gomez [G83]. Gomez notes a very interesting inconsistency in the materials thus attributed to Mo-ho-yen: the Chinese language Tun-wu ta-sheng cheng-li chueh (Pelliot 4646), claiming to be a report of the bSam-yas debate, is a very polemical work, while the works of which Tibetan fragments are extant seem much less extreme and polemical. Given that Kamalaslla was also a participant in the debate, a direct comparison between him and Mo-ho-yen might well emphasize the Cheng-li chueh; but that is not our purpose here. With the one exception of the attack on Sa-skya Pa1)Qita, the works of Pad rna dKar-po on which I will rely are not polemical at all, and are written for members of his own tradition; and these seem more appropriately compared with the Tibetan-language fragments assembled and. translated in Appendix 2 of [G83]. They are also more likely to' be relevant for a quite different reason: whatever the actual views of Mo-ho-yen, translations of his works into Tibetan are. more likely to have influenced Tibetan perceptions of him68

than the probablt9 untranslated Cheng-li chueh; for Chinese was not a language widely appreciated in Tibet.

On the whole, the Cheng-li chueh passages quoted by Gomez do show Mo-ho-yen as radically different from Padma dKar-po. The following points would be totally unacceptable to Padma dKar-p07o:

A. If one sees conceptions as no conceptions, one sees the Tathagata. To understand this single thought is in itself the


:::gr:eatest merit., s~rpassing by far all the merits that one could ..... btain by cultlvatmg good dharmas ... (p. 90) .0 B. You claim that common persons should not follow this ~ethod. For whom, then, were these teachings left by the bud

dha.s? (p. 91) i C. The defect in conceptualization is that it has the power 10 hinder the original omniscience of all living beings ... (p. g1}7!

D. The duality of need and non-need, etc., have meaning only in the relative realm. (p. 98)12

E. A being of sharp faculties does not need medicine to be cured or a boat to cross the river (of sarr;sara) (p. 98)73

.. F. The sudden approach has been taught for the pfthagjana also. (p. 99)74

G. When conceptualizations are given up, there is an automatic attainment of all virtues. (p. 99)15

There remains, indeed, only one striking feature in common between the Mo-ho-yen of the Cheng-li chileh and Padma dKarpo: the insistence that wisdom and means cannot exist in isolation from one another.

The comparison becomes more interesting when one looks at the Tibetan fragments. Rather than quoting isolated sentences, I will hang a more continuous discussion on the metaphor of the white and black clouds which is used by Mo-hoyen. 76 The central idea behind the metaphor is that good and bad thoughts both have to be given up, so that the nature of mind is not obscured, just as both black and white clouds must be absent if the sun is not to be obscured. This metaphor is not wholly repugnant to Padma dKar-po; and yet when we look more carefully at what it means to Mo-ho-yen and to Padma dKar-po, we see that there is still not very much in common. .. First, even in the Tibetan fragments, Mo-ho-yen still insists that sooner or later, everybody has to practice the sudden way of abiding in no-mind. 77 But for Padma dKar-po, there are certainly people who will attain buddhahood through the practice of the gradual path alone. They attain it, typically, in the intermediate state, and by the methods of the upaya-marga. There is no parallel to this in Mo-ho~yen.

Accordingly, for Padma dKar-po the metaphor, if it is relevant, is relevant only to the "sudden" type of person. Now this


kind of person does indeed suffer from attachment to concepts. whether good or bad, and where there is such attachment, th~ concepts (or the attachment to them) obscure mind or the radiant light. To this extent Mo-ho-yen's metaphor does apply. But the central point of the cig-car-ba notion (for Padma dRar_ po) is that the concepts need not merely play the role of obscu_ rations. The mind, or the radiant light, can also illuminate the concepts themselves, which now become the object of mental activity. And the cig-car-ba is able to see the nature of the concepts and by means of this insight to liberate himself. For the cig-car-ba then, Mo-ho-yen's metaphor, while not exactly wrong, misse~ the point. A more apt analogy would be that of a man standing on a mountain peak and seeing the clouds below him, illuminated by the sun. The rim-gyis-pa, by contrast, is like a man standing at the bottom of the same mountain totally unable to see the sun (at any rate if he is not on the path of insight1S). All he can do is to perform meritorious actions.

A point on which the Tibetan fragments of Mo-ho-yen are very unclear (at least as Gomez is able to render them) is the general nature of the path. Is there a path at all, according to Mo-ho-yen? In some passages he seems to write as though there' is no path. Elsewhere, it seems more as though the path just is the practice of non-conceptualization, etc. Now if there is no path at all, we certainly have a sharp contrast with Padma dKar- . po, for whom there is a path, even for the ~'sudden" type.79 But· if non-conceptualization is the path, then we have something· corresponding, in Padma dKar-po, to a rather low level of practice, and not to the amanasikiira doctrine of Maitripa; this point is reviewed more carefully in Appendix B.

In spite of these important differences between the Mo-ho~ yen of the Tibetan fragments and Padma dKar-po, we do find some points of similarity which are more specific than merely having the Mahayana in common, e.g. so :

One should not contrive [conceptualizations]; rather, one should not pursue them, one should not oppose them. It should be so . that there is no artificial constructionS I [of conceptualizations].

Why is this? When the mind abides in them no more it should then not be made not to abide. When the mind does not examine, it should not be made not to examine. To do so would be to contrive [further conceptualizations].


And further82 :

It is not a matter of whether one should accept or reject all dharmas or anything else; rather it is a matter of not giving rise to concepts or acceptance or rejection. . . .If concepts arise, one should not think arlYwhere of being or non-being, purity or impurity, emptiness or the absence thereof, etc. One does not think of non-thinking either. ... But if one were to experience nonexamination and does not act according to these concepts, or accept them or become attached to them, then every instant of mind is liberated at every moment. 83

In spite of the imperfections of the materials available to Gomez and others (and in spite of the imperfections of my understanding of Padma dKar-po), this kind of more detailed comparison really does show up the hollowness and emptiness of Sa-skya PaI)<;lita's invective. Because Sa-skya Pa1).<;lita has not taken any trouble to make clear in exactly what ways the mahiimudrii is like

. the Chinese or the Hva-shang view, he can be refuted by point-i~g to any difference one can find; and of course Padma dKar-po has no difficulty in finding important and substantial differences. Nevertheless, there are interesting parallels; and these do emerge more naturally from the Tibetan fragments of Moho-yen than from the Cheng-Ii chueh, rather as one would expect from Gomez' characterization of these two sources.

For a number of years now, it has been fashionable, in the study of Chinese Buddhism, to emphasize those features which are held to be indigenous rather than imported from India. The distinction is perfectly reasonable; but to my mind, the insistent .emphasis has now become an orthodoxy which demands reexamination if it is not to stultify further progress. In particular, it has become fashionable to talk as though Indian Buddhism was concerned entirely with paths, stages and scholasticism, while only in China do we find a concern with direct experience. And as regards Tibetan Buddhism, since most scholars are familiar only with the varieties represented by writers such as Sa~skya PaI)<;lita-thoroughly scholastic, and considering only the graded path-there has grown up the tendency to identify it with the scholastic .tendencies in Indian Buddhism, and to connect any element in Tibetan Buddhism which stresses direct


experience with China. In this way, contemporary scholars risk repeating the very mistakes of Sa-skya Pa:(lQita.

Really, there is no alternative to as~ing, separately for each system of doctrine or doctrinal notion found in the Tibetan literature: did this come from India? did it come from China? or is it a Tibetan innovation? Sa-skya Pal).Q.ita is a poor guide here, but Padma dKar-po is not quite unbiased either. He strove continually to demonstrate that the essential elements of his tradition derive from India, and are not Tibetan (or Chinese) innovations. And it has to be said that within the Tibetan cultural context, he was completely successful. After the time of Padma dKar-po, the charge that the bKa'-brgyud-pa doctrines are merely Tibetan or Chinese innovations was never seriously· raised again. While we have no need to take everything he says at its face value, it does seem to me that a number of the points he made have stuck.

1. The main bKa-brgyud-pa doctrines are squarely based on the works of Naropa, Maitripa and Ansa. These are Indian. historical personages, whose historical connection with early Tibetan bKa-brgyud-pas (especially Mar-pa Chos-kyi BIo-gros) can hardly be doubted. 84 To this argument, stressed so much by Padma dKar-po, we might add the gloss that many of the principal works of these three Indians upon which the bKabrgyud-pas rely are still available in Sanskrit versions from India and Nepal, and thus transmitted independently of the Tibetans. For instance, almost all the works of Maitripa described by. Padma dKar-po as belonging to the Amanasikara cycle are available in Sanskrit in the AdvayavajrasarIJgraha (see Appendix B):

2. That the vajrayana part of the bKa' -brgyud-pa doctrines can have come from China is impossible. Padma dKar-po's argument, that even the standard Tibetan accounts of the bSamyas debate provide no room for the possibility that the Hvashang doctrine could be a form of rdzogs-chen, applies with equal force to any other advanced form of vajrayana and is really decisive. In any case, there is no reason to think that the anuttarayogatantras of the late translation (gSar-ma) type were ever practiced in China except in circles directly connected with Tibetan culture. Far from the Chinese having brought them to Tibet, it was the Tibetans who brought them to China.

3. In the case of the non-vajrayana form of mahamudra, the.


:ituation is Just as clear. The cig-car-ba notion (as used by the 'bKa'-bryud-pas) is simply irrelevant here. The S'Lltra doctrine of JIlahamudra is the doctrine of the Samadhirajasutra. 85

Nevertheless, once these essential points have been taken ~()n board, Padilla dKar-po is not unsympathetic to the possibility 'of some parallelism or mutual influence between Chinese ideas ; arid those of the bKa-brgyud-pas. What possibilities are there? ,. 1. It is possible that the reception in Tibet of bKa'-brgyud ideas on the tantras may have been assisted by the presence of Chinese ideas on the sutras. Possibly Maitripa's amanasikara doctrine, for instance, bears some relation to ideas which have circulated in China at some time. Conceivably such ideas could have originated independently in China, rather than being brought there from India; and conceivably they may have passed into Tibet from China. But in order to find out if this is so, we need research, not dogmatic claims about the nature of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism.

2. As regards the rNying-ma tradition, the argument that 'its vajrayana doctrines originated in China is explicitly refuted by Padma dKar-po and this refutation is equally decisive. 86 The non-vajrayana parts of the rNying-ma doctrine do seem to have undergone Chinese influence, recorded, for instance, in the bSam-gtan mig-sgron. Since this influence occurred at a period. long before the bKa' -brgyud tradition developed in Tibet, a favourable reception for the ideas of Maitripa and others may indeed have been prepared by the presence in Tibet of just these ideas. Only very detailed research, such as is hardly being undertaken at the moment, can establish whether this is so or not. Meanwhile, the polemics (as Roger Jackson has rightly called them) of Sa-skya Pal)<;iita throw very little light on these difficult problems .

. Postcript: Was There a White Panacea Doctrine in the Early Transmission Period?

After this article had been completed in the summer of 1986, ,there appeared in this journal a note [K86] by Leonard van der Kuijp, in which it is pointed out that (contrary to what Roger


Jackson claimed in U82]), Sa-skya Pal).<;iita was not the first person to equate dkar-po chig-thub with some form of Chinese Bud_ dhism; Nyang-ral Nyi-ma'i Od-zer (1124:-:1192 or 1136-1204) did so in his Chos-'byung (NC). Van der Kuijp also gives saIne more speculati:e grounds for thinking that the association may go back to earlIer works such as the sBa-bzhed.

Van der Kuijp's note suggests a variant approach to this problem, and one which is certainly worth investigating. In particular, it would be desirable to understand better the explana_ tions of dkar-po chig-thub which he quotes from Sa-skya Pal).<;iita's TG and other sources, concerning which he says "Striking is the number of 'buzz-words' used in these characterizations; such terms as rang-ngo, sems ngo-'phrod, and rtogs are 'loaded' with specific connotations found especially in the rNying-ma-pa rdzogs-chen tradition as well as certain mahamudra teachings of the Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud-pa schools and sects." It would be most desirable to know just with what specific connotations these "buzz-words" are "loaded." As far as I know, ngo 'phrod-pa quite standardly means "to show the nature (of a thing)" Qaschke, Das). Consider then the following passage from Sa-skya

. Pal).<;iita's sPring-yig, quoted by van der Kuijp:

rgya-nag mkhan-po na-re / 'khor-ba skye-ba'i rgyu rang ngo rang-gis ma-shes-pas Zan / rang-ngo rang-gis shes-na 'tshang-rgya / de'i phyir sems ngo-'phrod-na dkar-po chig-thub yin / .' .. zer-nas

This seems to mean simply: The Chinese abbot said: "The reason for sa'f(lsiira to arise is that one does not know one's own [mind]; to know one's own mind is to rise into buddhahood. Thus if. the nature of mind is known, there is dkar-po chig-thub . ... " Is there more to the remark than this?

The association with the Nyang-ral Chos-'byung is suggestive rather than interesting for its own sake; after all, sGam-po:< pa, who died in 1153 while Nyang-ral was still a young man, had used the term dkar-po chig-thub, and so the association does not, by itself, show that this term applied literally (rather than' by mere analogy) to any form of Chinese Buddhism. Jackson's; remarks [in J82, p. 96 (2) and (3)] that there is no evidence fOf;

it still, strictly speaking, holds true. However, towards the end of his paper van der Kuijp suggests a much more promising.


;) roach when he says that various accounts of the bSam-yas ~d~hate "seem. to indicate that the associatio.n of dk~r-po chift.-thub ;"ih the Chmese goes back to. pre-phYI-dar TIbetan hteraWI e .. " As we will see, this does not make it at all plausible, tur . . 1 . h h "h . h' b :;:he specu ates m t e same sentence, t at t ere mIg tjust e '3:~Ine substance to Sa-paI:l's linkage of some of the Dwags-po \~la'-brgyud doctr~nes ,;vit~ those promu~?ated by the Ch~nese > eight-century TIbet. StIll, van der KUlJP deserves credIt for l~binting out the alternative possibility, namely that dkar-po chig~ubmay have been used of a Chinese doctrine quite different .frbIn that of the bKa' -brgyud-pas. . Padma dKar-po has made this very point in his chos-'byung,

'in discussing the origins of the bSam-yas debate:

Far away in lHo-brag mKhar-chu the pupils of Ho-shang Mahayana were increasing. He spread the doctrine that virtuous action of body and speech do not lead to buddhahood, but amanasikiira does; this was called ston-mun. dPal-dbyangs and sBa Ratna and others followed the Acarya (Santarak~ita) to som.e extent; in Chinese this [view] was called rtsen-min. In Tibetan it is called cig-car-ba and rim-skyes-pa. Thus a dispute arose as to whether these [Chinese and Tibetan terms] are consistent [with each other]. The King decreed that it should be done according to the method of the Aciirya. At this the ston-mun-pas became angry, and said that the rtsen-min-pas ought to be killed.89

pidma dKar-po's remark is ambiguous. On the face of it, it does ':seem as though he is dividing the rtsen-min view into cig-car and rim-skyes. This seems to be consistent with everything he has said :~inthe Phyag-chen gan-mdzod, as I have discussed at such length inthis article, about how his cig-car doctrine (and the khregs-chod

;0£ some of Padmasambhava's followers) is not the (ston-mun) doctrine of the H va-shang. Yet the remark could just be taken as meaning that ston-mun = cig-car, rtsen-min = rim-skyes; and it

)5.this ambiguity, it seems, that led directly to the bSam-yas ·.~ebate. The urgent problem, according to this view, is to work put just what that Chinese doctrine was. . Suppose, then, that evidence became available that the term

dkar-po chig-thub was applied at an early date to some form of phinese Buddhism. What light would it throw on Jackson's main claims concerning Sa-skya PaI)<;iita? There are two possibilities:


(a)The Chinese used the term similarly to the bKa'-brgyud_pa and (b) they used it quite differently. . S;

a) If the Chinese used dkar-po chig-thub similarly to the bKa', brgyud-pas, then the evidence presented in the present paper shows decisively that this use does not apply directly to the doctrines of Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen. The hypothesis accepts Saskya Panc;lita's association of bKa'-brgyud-pa doctrine With China; but the evidence then vindicates Jackson's view that drag~. ging Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen into the matter is polemical. ..... .

. In any case, the supposed similari.ty in the us.e o~ dkar-Po1 chzg-thub can extend only to the non-vaJrayana applIcatIons. On the Tibetan side, these applications consist of the perfectly or~ thodox and innocuous limitation principles relating to the path~;

. stages and paramitas given by Zhang Tshal-pa (see Appendni A). Plainly, these have nothing to do with the elements ill Chinese Buddhism which various Tibetans have complained about. ~

b) If the Chinese used dkar-po chig-thub quite differently. from the bKa' -brgyud-pas, then it is Sa-skya Pa.Q.c;lita's attacks on the bKa'-brgyud-pas which stand convicted of polemic; there is no longer any reason to associate them with Ho-shang Mo-holi yen any more than with any other Chinese doctrine. This poinf: applies regardless of whether the hypothesized Chinese White, Panacea doctrine was similar to the doctrine ofRo-shang Mo-ho.! yen or not. As we will see later in this Postscript, this seems the~ more likely of the two possibilities.

Be this as it may, it cannot justify van der Kuijp's intemper;Z:: ate attack on Jackson'S conclusions. The substance of jackson's' comments on Sa-skya Pa.Q.c;lita is vindicated by the analysis jus( given. On the doctrinal points underlying them, jackson sUIll7; marized his views in the following paragraph U82 p. 95-6],iri;: reading which we should remember that he was using the word, "White Panacea" strictly of the bKa'-brgyud-pa doctrine of that, name:

i-:';):;

It is quite possible that Chinese views exercised an influence orf. subsequent Tibetan schools, but if they did, it is far more likely: that they affected the rNying rna tradition, which unquestionablYfi originated at a time when Chinese masters were active in Tibe,t·::


The White Panacea--quite apart from being mentioned nowhere as a gter ma-based teaching-is in the mainstream of the Bka' brgyud tradition. Zhang Rinpoche was a disciple of sCorn pa, who was in turn a direct disciple of sCam po pa. He was, thus, squarely in the lineage that reached back through Mi la ras pa and MaT pa to the Indian siddhas Maitripa .... Til6pa and Naropa. The White Panacea, therefore, belongs to the second diffusion of Buddhism in Tibet, whereas direct Chinese influence was only marked during the first; and the White Panacea's determinable antecedents are Indian, not Chinese. It is true that there exist the further possibilities (a) that there may have been Chinese influence on the Indian siddhas, and/or (b) that there may have been current in Zhang Rinpoche's time left-over Chinese ideas that may have inspired him. There is no evidence at present for either possibility; even if there were, the probability that both Hva-shang Mahayana and Zhang Rinpoche taught the same doctrine, known as the White Panacea, would be remote.

,;;Every single statement in this paragraph of Jackson's is sup,1;ported by the evidence gathered in the present paper. "~I' , "f/, .,....Many of these matters were further taken up in the Jordan /Lectures, delivered by David Seyfort Ruegg at SOAS in London, 'in the Spring of 1987. These lectures on the bSam-yas debate '%cussed mainly on the older Tibetan chos-'byung materials, and 3;'I~dian doctrinal sources; unfortunately, Prof. Seyfort Ruegg fo~s .unable to say much about the influence of the debate on

}rhesubsequent development of Buddhism in Tibet. He did ~make the following points relevant to this paper: "\ (a) The word dkar-po chig-thub is found not only in early 'TIbetan sources, as already mentioned, as a Chinese doctrine ~as~ociated with the Hva-shang; a similar word is found in the :~r;heng-li-chueh, and is there said to be a doctrine described in ,:theMahiiparinirviirpasfdra. The Sanskrit is a!Jada. The Alternative Tradition of the sBa-bzhed even claims that Santaraksita criticized $uch a doctrine as "a defilement of view" (Ita-ba'i s~yigs-ma). A ,p~ssage in the bSam-gtan mig-sgron confirms Padma dKar-po's !ppint that dkar-po chig-thub was something separate from the :,vajrayiina doctrines that were circulating at the same time . • :'.. (b) Agada means simply "medicine" or "medical treatment," ~~~d this metaphor no doubt applies both to the Hva-shang's

52 JIABS VOL.IO NO.2

doctrine and to the later bKa'-brgyud one. Nevertheless thet . seems to be no reason to think that the two doctrines have matt:. in common that this general typological similarity. e

In the hetuyana, according to Padma dKar-po, there is the ordinary progress through the bodhisattva-levels and paths, and the usual instantaneous abhisambodhi. See Appendix D (taken from ch. VII of his commentary on the Abhisamayalarikara). In his fourth Jordan seminar, Prof. Seyfort Ruegg gave a valuable analysis of these materials, as they appear in Haribhadra's Aloka on the same chapter. He also gave an account of the vyutkrantika i

(thod-rgal-ba) as he appears in the same class of literature. This account confirms that Padma dKar-po's notion of the thod-rgal-ba is indeed not based on these sutra-level sources,just as one would. expect from the vajrayana sources which he does quote (see note 7).

In Memoriam

bKa' -brgyud-pa scholarship has suffered by the recent death of the 'Brug-pa scholar mKhan-po Nor-yang (Ngag-dbang Dri: med Zla-zer), who was associated during his whole life with· Ngag-dbang bDe-chen 'Gyur-med rDo-rje (Thugs-sras Rin-poche), spending the earlier part of his life at Padma dKar-po'S' foundation of gSang-sngags Chos-gling, and living in Darjeelin{ after 1959. mKhan-po Nor-yang was particularly expert on the Zab-mo Nang-gi-don. "bKa'-brgyud" means "oral transmission/'; and mKan-po Nor-yang did not write much. He preferred no£i to teach at length, but made brief obser"ations intended to help the student to develop his own understanding of a complex doctrine or text. On madhyamaka he held the striking view that~ there is quite literally no such doctrine and that the only way to read madhyamaka texts is in the light of one's own understand;' ing. Some of the opinions mentioned in this paper withollf specific references are either opinions he held himself or poini( which he regarded as generally valid for the bKa'-brgyud-pa traditions.


"J< , Er'mIX A i!;f'P ;J~xtractsfrom Zhang Tshal-pa's Phyag-chenlam-mchog mthar-thug

THE CHAPTER ON SAMENESS (MNYAM-PA-NYJD)

1. Iide-ltar lta-ba'i gnas-lugs dangl Isgom-pa spyod-pa dam-tshig dangl I'bras-bu-la-sogs chos-mams kunl lrang-gi sems-kyi cho- 'phrul yinl

2. Isems-nyid rang-rig gsal-ba'i ngangl Igsal-tsam-nyid-na rang-bzhin stongl Imkha' ltar ris-du-chad-pa-medl Iphyogs-med mtha' dbus ngos-bzung medl

3. Ide-lta-bu-yi sems-nyid-lal Iblta-bya-lta-byed gnyis-med-pasl Ilta-ba med-cing rtogs-pa'ang medl Ibsgom-bya sgom-byed gnyis-med-pasl

4. Ibsgom-pa-med-cing nyams-myong cangl Igoms-bya goms-byed gnyis-med-pasl Igoms-pa-med-cingma-goms-medl /yengs-pa yengs-mkhan gnyis-med-pasl [29b5]

5 .. lma-yengs-med-cing yengs-pa 'ang med/ /spyad-rgyu sfryod-mkhan gnyis-med-pas/ Ispyod-pa-med-cing spyad-pa'ang medl Ithob-bya thob-byed gnyis med-pasl

6. Ibsgrub-pa-med-cing 'thob-pa'ang medl Inam-mkha' stong-pa'i dkyillta-burl Irgyu dang 'bras-bu gnyis-med-pasl /skyed-pa-med-cing smin-pa-medl

7. Iye-nas stong-pa'i sems-nyid-lal /sgrib-pa-med-cing byang-ba'ang medl Ibems min rig-stong dbyer-med-pasl lye-shes med-cing mi-shes-medl

8. Ide-ltar lta-sgom-spyod-pa dangl Idam-tshig dang ni 'bras-bu-mamsl Isems-nyid od-gsal ngo-bor nil Imnyam-par shes-pa'i sgom-chen-lal Iblta-bya lta-byed zhen-med-pasl Izhen-med lta-ba'i rgyal-po yin/

9. Ibsgom-bya sgom-byed zhen-med-pas/ Izhen-med bsgom-pa'i rgyal-po yinl Ispyad-bya spyod-byed zhen-med-pasl Izhen-med spyod-pa'i rgyal-po yinl Ithob-bya thob-byed zhen-med-pasl Izhen-med 'bras-bu'i rgyal-po yinl

Imnyam-pa-nyid-kyi le'u ste bcu-gcig-pa'o/I

i:;THE CHAPTER ON THE WHITE PANACEA (DKAR-PO CHIG-THUB)

;fTsib-ri sPar-ma nga, 30a5

1. lirang-sems rtogs-pa'i skad-cig-marl Idkar-po'i yon-tan ma-lus-pal Ibsgrubs-pa med-par dus-gcig rdzogs/

2. /sems-nyid bar-snang lta-bu-la/ Isku-gsum ye-nas lhun-gyis grub/ Isangs-rgyas dkon-mchog de-ru-rdzogs/

3. Isems-nyid spros-bral 'dod-chags-brall /dam-chos dkon-mchog de-ru rdzogs/ lrang-bzhin skye-med phyir mi-ldog/ /mam-rtog sna-tshogs grogs-su sharf Idge-'dun dkon-mchog de-ru rdzogs/

4. Ide-ltar dkon-mchog-gsum-po yang/ /rang-sems rigs-par rdzogs-pas-nal /gzhan-la skyabs-su-'gro ma-dgos/ /nges-pa'i skyabs-'gro de-ru rdzogs/

54

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

1L

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

JIABS VOL. 10 NO.2

Isems-nyid spros-dang-bml-ba-Ial izhe- 'dod rang-don gzhi-med-pasl Ismon-pa byang-sems de-ru rdzogsl [30b4] Ithams-cad 'khrul-bar go-ba-yisl Idmigs-pa-med-pa'i snying-rje shari Igzhan-don lhun-gyis grub-pa-yisl l'jug-pa'i byang-sems de-ru rdzogsl Isems-nyid bar-snang lta-bu-Ial I'dzin-chags bdud-dang-bml-bas-nal Isbyin~pa'i pha-rol-phyin-pa rdzogsl Imtshan-ma'i dri-ma dag-pas-nal Itshul-khrims pha-rol-phyin-pa rdzogsl Istong-pa-nyid-Ia mi shag cingl Ikhong-khro'i sa-bon bcom-pas-nal Ibzod-pa'i pha-rol-phyin-pa rdzogsl Irig-stong rgyun-chad-med-pa'i phyir'· Ibrtson-'grus pha-rol-phyin-pa rdzogsl [31a1] Irtse-gcig ye-nas lhun-grub-pasl Ibsain-gtan pha-rol-phyin-pa rdzogsl !log-rtog mtshan-ma mng-grol-basl Ishes-mb pha-rol-phyin-pa rdzogsl Icir snang grogs-su shar-ba-yisl Ithabs-chen bsod-nams tshogs-chen rdzogsl ; Ignyis-su med-pa'i don rtogs-pasl lye-shes tshogs-chen de-ru rdzogsl' Isems-nyid bar-snang lta-bu lal Ilus-kyi dri-ma gtan-med-pasl Ibum-pa'i dbang-chen de-ru rdzogsl Ingag-gi dri-ma ye-dag-pasl Igsang-ba'i dbang-chen de-ru rdzogsl Iyid-kyi dri-ma'i gnas-med-pasl Ishes-rab ye-shes de-ru rdzogsl Icha mnyam dri-ma'i gnas-med-pasl Ibzhi-pa'i dbang-mchog de ru-rdzogsl lrang-rig rang-gsa I go-ma- 'gagsl Isku mdog phyag-mtshan cir yang snangl Ibskyed-rim mtha'-dag de-ru rdzogsl Igsal-ba'i ngos-bzung med-pa-yisl Irdzogs-pa'i rim-pa de-ru rdzogsl [31 a6] lrang-sems od-gsal gnyis-su medl !lhag-gis rtogs-pas mthong-ba'i laml, Irgyun-chad-med-pa bsgom-pa'i laml I'bad-rtsol-med-pa mthar-phyin-Iamt'; Igang yang 'gag-med drod-rtags mchogl Isa-Iam drod rtags de-ru rdzogsl··· Ici yang ma-yin chos-kyi skul Ici yang snang-ba sprul-pa'i skul /Cir snang chos-skur longs-spyod-pasl I'bras-bu sku-gsum de-ru rdzogs lrang-rig bar-snang lta-bu-Ial Iphyogs-ris-med-pas lta-ba rdzogsl . Idmigs-zhen-med-pas bsgom-pa rdzogsl Iblang-dor-med-pas spyod-pardzogsl; Inyams-pa-med-pas dam-tshig rdzogsl Ilhun-gyis grub-pas 'bras-bu rdzogsl. Isems-nyid od-gsal stong-pa-Ial /snga phyi dUs-gsum phyogs-cha-medl .. Iji-srid bdag 'dzin yod-kyi barl !lta-sgom-spyod-'bras-dam-tshig yodl lIas dang las-kyi rnam-smin yodl Isdig spangs bsod-nams bsags-pa geesl

Idkar-po gcig-thub-tu bstan-pa'i le'u bcu-gnyis-pa'oll

We see that almost the entire chapter is taken up with various statements about how the three jewels, the six paramitas and other aspects of the Buddhist path are complete when various conditions are satisfied: the whole subject of the chapter is not going beyond this completeness. Zhang Tshal-pa makes this point even more explicit in an earlier passage (26a6):

Idbyings-Ias mi-'da' don rtogs nasi Ibsrung du med-de dam-tshig mchogl Idkar-po chig-thub bya-ba yinl . ..


::,¥U_Ia_rni-byed-pa'i chos-skoT n!i-shu-rtsa-lnl!a, S33b2 (cf., also Pl6a). Bu-~ton's ~"mes for the works (gSan-Ylg 58bl) are m square brackets. For further mfor;P~t1on see his bsTan-bsgyur dKar-chag, 48bl-49a6. The detailed correspon~:a~ncebetween the various listings is not always obvious, and they all seem to J,"'ntain various lacunae. From the Zhwa-lu bstan-bsgyur the amanasikara works ,r~epa.ssed into all the other editions of the bstan-bsgyur. Information from '~eTohoku catalogue is recorded in curly brackets { }. Most of these works .lin:available in Sanskrit .in the AdvayavajrasaTIJgraha; Sanskrit titles in round 'bfa,ckets ( ) are from thIS source. The order and numbering and the very ;,l!Iformative headings given here are those of Padma dKar-po. Bu-ston's titles ~h~clude information not given in the later catalogues; evidently his classifica'ticinwas based on slightly different principles from Padma dKar-po's. i<, According to Bu-ston, the works are all by Maitripa (dKar-chag 48b5-6;

iJisdn-yig 58b6); "Maitripa," "~wadhiitipa" and "Advayavajra" are names for :'!~h~same person (dKaT-chag, lbld.). Both Bu-ston and Padma dKar-po record 'thatBu-ston learnt this cycle of works from 'Phags-od Yon-tan rGya-mtsho, .11Sfavourite teacher, from whom he learnt the Paiicakrama and many other

Ifxc1es.

1. thun-mong grub-mtha bstan-pa rin-po-che'i 'Phreng-ba (tattva-ratnavalZ) [thung-mong-gi lta-ba ston-pa rin-po-che'i phreng-baJ {2240}

2. de'i don sngags dang sbyar-ba do-ha-di {dohanidhi-nama-tattvopadesa 2247} [thun"mong dang sngagsston-pa do-ha-tiJ

3. rtsod-spong yid-la mi-byed-par bstan-pa'am bdag-med gsal-ba [sgra-la skyon spong-ba yid-la mi-byed-pa ston-paJ {2249} ( amanasikiiradhiira)

khyad-du (?) gsod-pa bzlog-pa'iphyir lta-ba ngan-sel [-lar7

lta-ba ngan-sel-gyi dran-pa {kud'(~(i-niTghiita-(fka, 2231} [lta-ba ngan-sel-gyi dka'-'grel dran-pa, dKar-chag 47b2]

las dang-po-pa'i bya-ba mdor-bsdus (kudn(i-nirghiitadhikarma) [las dang-po-pa'i bya-ba ston-pa lta-ba ngan-sel] {2229}

,.ne'af!S-La<m dbang-dang-'brel-bar bstan-pa-la

7. dbang nges-bstan [dbang bzang-ngan 'byed-pa dbang nges-bstanJ {sekanirdefa, 2252}

8. dgos-pa mdor-bsdus (sekatanvaya-saTIJgraha) [dbang-gi dgos-pa mdor-bsdus-paJ {2243}

56 JIABSVOL. 10 NO.2

9. dbang-gi pra-khrid (sic) 'ami bya-ba mdor-bsdus (saT(t~iptasekaprakriYii) {dbang-gi lag-len ston-pa dbang-gi prakr:ta (sic)] {2244}

10. dbang rnam-dag (panciikiirah) {2245} {chos thams-cad rnam-dag-gi don ston-pa rang-bzhin lnga-pa]

rgyas gdab-kyi don-la

11. phyag-rgya lnga-pa (panca-mudrii-viviirafJa) {2242} {lha'i rnal-'byor-sogs ston-pa de'bzhin-gshegs-pa'i phyag-rgya lnga_paJ

12. dga' bcug lnga-pa (premapancaka?) {2246?} ... {snang-stong dbyer-med ston-pa dga'-gcugs lnga-pa]

13. mi-phyed lnga-pa (nirbheda-pancaka) {2238} {sangs-rgyas sems-can dbyer-med-du ston-pa mi-phyed lnga-pa]

zung-' Jug de-nyid lta-ba shan-'byed-pa-la

14. dbu-ma drug-pa (madhyama-~atka) {sngags-kyi lta-ba ston-pa dbu-ma drug-pal {2230}

15. lhan-skyes drug-pa {spyod-pa ston-pa lhan-skyes drug-pal {sahaJ~atka, 2232} (in ADVS but untitled)

lta-ba de dang-ldan-pa'i zung-'Jug bshad-pa-la

16. theg-chen nyi-shu-pa (mahiiyiina-vin:tSika) {2248} {gang-zag gsum-gyi sgom-thabs ston-pa theg-chen nyi-shu-pa]

17. de-nyid nyi-shu-pa (tattvavin:tSika) {sku-gsum ston-pa de-kho-na nyi-shu-pa] {2250}

rab-tu mi-gnas-pa ston-pa-la

18. bde-chen gsal-ba (mahiisukhaprakiiSa) {2239} {bskyed rdzogs tha-mi-dad-du ston-pa bde-chen gsal-ba]

19. zung-Jug nges-bstan (yuganaddhaprakasa) {2237} {thabs-shes-rab dbyer-med ston-pa zung-Jug gsal-ba]

lta-ba'i go-rim dpe dang sbyar-ba-la

20. rmi-lam nges-bstan (svapnanirukti) [lta-ba dpes bstan-pa rmi-lam nges-bstan] {2233}

21. sgyu-ma nges-bstan (miiyiinirukti) [spyod-pa dpes bstan-pa sgyu-ma nges-bstan] {2234}

zab-don bsdu-ba-la

22. de-nyid bcu-pa (tattvadasaka) {2236} [spyod-pa'i don gtan-la dbab-pa de-kho-na-nyid bcu-pa]

23. de-nyid rab-tu bstan-pa (tattvaprakasa) {2241}, [gang-zag gsum-gyi rtogs thabs ston-pa de-kho-na-nyid rab-tu bstan-paJ

zab-mo'i khyad-par phra-mo ston-pa-la

THE WHITE PANACEA

24. rab-tu mi-gnas-par gsal-bar ston-pa (aprat4WinaprakiiSa) {2235} [lta-ba'i don gtan-la 'bebs-pa rab-tu mi-gnas-par gsal~bar ston-paJ

'25. mi-rtogs-pa rtogs-par-byed-pa 88

57

dKar-po then goes on to mention other verse works by Maitripa, the by Saroruha and other secondary works. These works were all

by Maitrlpa (S34a2) to Vajrapal).i, Ti-phu, and Mar-pa (separately); dKar-po gives lineages descending independently from eaCh of these

(and at 34b2 he forgets to mention that Ras-chung learnt the cycle froin Bu-ston gives only the Ti-phu/ Ras-chung lineage (gSan-yig 57b4).

list of books (tho~gh not the lineage information) is also found in dKar-po there sketches three different conceptions of amanasikara.

it can be the denial that there is any abiding-place or foundation (gnas rten-gzhi) for the object of perception. This view is based on the

1fl.'I"I,aa,'va. Though it is perfectly adequate as a conception of samathii, for person (Padma dKar-po says, Ila2), at the present level it is just

to be rejected. Second, amanasikara can be a quite general repudiation events and mentation as cittabhisa1lJ.Skara-manaskara (sems-byung sems

sems mngon-par-'du-byed-pa'i yid~kyi las-te, etc.); this view is said to be on the Hevajra-tantra, though the lines quoted by Padma dKar-po are the present form of that tantra. This second notion of amanasikiira seems

to the quietism attacked by Sa-skya Pal).c;iita. According to Padma (K4al), Sa-skya Pal).c;iita has confused the limited application of the

at an elementary level with a quietism of the second form. In any for more advanced persons, both these forms are rejected by Padma

The third form of amanasikara accepts, appropriate mental activity yid-la byed-pa) , namely that where the initial A (of amanasikara)

for "unoriginatedness" (A~yig skye-ba-med-pa'i don-du byas-te . .. ). This found in the Maiijufrf-nama-sarigiti and its great commentary. (Padma

quotes a siltra and a tantra explanation from this commentary, em-the Indian origin of the view that mahamudra is found in both siltraS

. This is the version of the amanasikara doctrine found in the works and accepted by .the bKa' -brgyud-pas. Of course it remains to be

what constitutes appropriate mental activity. Padma dKar-po's views have been set out in [B85].

, Accordingly, we see that most of the sources for Maitripa's amanasikara and most of his works on it clearly belong to the vajrayana. N everthebasic notion seems to be applicable both to the hetuyana and to the

first chapter of the Phyag-chen gan-mdzod (P) contains an extremely !'Uljl1<1L.1U~ account of all the main sources of the mahamudra doctrine, accord-to the traditions drawn upon by Padma dKar-po. A translation of this

and indeed of the whole work, would be a great step forward for studies. Much of the material presented is quite different from that

in sGam-po-pa bKra-shis-rnam-rgyal's Phyag-chen zla-zer, of which a u'o,,,.uuu was recently published. Valuable though it is, the Zla-zer is merely ':"'I'~"Ul\.l1H of aphorisms and man-ngag. The Gan-mdzod is a work of re-

that is, it provides an articulated structure, within which the . of traditional details can be seen as intelligibly ordered.


APPENDIXC

Amanasikiira in the Siitras

Padm'1- dKar-po on ch.6 of the Abhisamayalarikara: A, I58a-I59a. The passa .... a6 suggests that even here in the sutras he has the Maitripa notion of aman~:' kara in mind (see Appendix B). 1-

I58a!: Iiskyabs drug-pa ni . . .[phar-phyin drug dang] sangs-rgyas rjes-su dran-pa'· mthar-gyis-pa'i mngon-rtogs-sogs-pal chosl dge-'dunl tshul-khrims gtong-bal lha rjes-s I dran-pa'i mthar-gyis-pa'i mngon-rtogs drug. . . u

a6: I'dir bstan rjes-su-dran-pa'i don nil chos thams-cad dngos-po-med-pa'i ngo-bo-nyid: du yid-la-byed-pas dran-pa-med cing yid-Ia-byed-pa-med-pa ste! yid-Ia mi-byed-pa'i sgra amanasikaral A yang-dag-pa 'i don-du-byas-nas yang-dag-pa yid-Ia-byed-pa dangl A dgag tshig-tu byas-nas yid-Ia-mi-byed-pa zhes bya'ol ....•....

bI: /chos thans-cad dngos-po-med-pa'i ngo-bo-nyid-du yid-Ia-byed-pa des de-bzhin! gshegs-pa-Ia gzugs-sogs-su yid-Ia-mi-byed-pa dangl mtshan dang dpe-byad-Ia-sogs-pa;, tshul-khrims-kyi phung-po-sogs-sul stobs-bcu-sogs-sul rten-cing-'brel-bar-'byung_b~;

yid-Ia-mi-byed-pas sangs-rgyas rjes-su dran-pa rnam-pa lnga dran-pa nyer-bar-bzhag; pa-sogsl Ibyang-chub yan-lagl 'Phags-lam brgyad-pa-rnams-kyi sgom-pa rim-pa-bzhin mos spyod mthong bsgom-du'ol

b3: Ide-bzhin dge-mi-dge lung-ma-bstan yid-la-mi-byed-pas chos-kyi gsum (sic) sngd~ bzhin skyes-bu zung bzhir phye-ba'i phyir mi-ldog-pa yid-la-mi-byed-pa dge-'dun-gyii sems dang-po bskyed-pa-nas gzung-ste ma-nyams-pal skyon-med-pal ma-'dres-pal nag:' nog-med-pal mchog-tu-'dzin-pa med-pal dbang- 'byor-bal mkhas-pas bsngags-pal shin;iu rdzogs-pal ting-nge- 'dzin sgrub-par-byed-pa'i tshul-khrims-pa gnas-tel de-dag yid-l~' mi-byed-pa tshul-khrims-kyil chos dang zang-zing yid~la-mi-byed-pa gtong-ba'il 'dod; pa'i lha rigs drug-tu skye-ba'i rgyun zhugs phyir ongl gzugs dang gzugs-med-pa ni spyod-pa'i phyir-mi-ong-ba yid-la-mi-byed-pa lha'il mdo-sde-gzhan-las lha'i rigs gny~' rjes-su drang-par bya-stel dga'-ldan-pa dang gnas-gtsang-ma-pa'ol"

APPENDIXD

The Moment of Abhisambodhi in the Sutras

Padma dKar-po on ch. 7 of the Abhisamayalankara: A, 159a-160b.

159a4: Iiskabs bdun-pa-la bzhi lasl dang-po rnam-par-smin-pa ma-yin-pa'i zag-pa-/ med-pa'i chos thams-cad skad-cig-ma gcig-Ia mngon-par rtogs-pa nil chos-kyi dbying~< rang-gi ngo-borl . . ...

THE WHITE PANACEA

dngos gcig dngos-po kun-gyi ngo-bo-nyidl Idngos kun dngos-po-gcig-gi ngo-bo-nyidl Igang-gi dngos-gcig de-bzhin-nyid mthong-bal Ide yi dngos kun de-bzhin-nyid-du mthongl

59

:~,VIJws;byung-ba'i phyir mang-po gcig-tu sdud-par ma-zad-kyil sbyin-pa-la sogs-pa'i t" cshes dmigs-par-bya-ba't skad-cig re-res kyang dngos-po so-sor nges-par 'dzin-te phyin:Y~_log_dang-bral-ba'i (159b) dngos-po sbyin-sogs-nas dpe-byad bzang-mo'i bar thams-" CI ' I!Jcati-kyi zag-pa-med-pa'i c~os ku~-tu-'char-bas bsdus-pa'i phyir thub-pa byang-chub-;sems-dpa'i skad-ctg-ma gctg-pa-yt mngon-par-rdzogs-par byang-chub-pa'i rtogs-pa 'di ~!,nishes -par -bya' 01

"i59b2: lji-ltar zag-pa-med-pa'i chos-gcig-la dmigs-pa'i bsgom-pa-la zhugs-pa-na zagit~a~ined-pa'i chos-thams-cad sdud-par nus zhe-nal don 'di-la 'jig-rten-pa'i dpes bstan:tar~bya-bal ji-ltar skyes-bus sngon bzo-bo mkh~s-pas ~yas-pa'i zo chun-gyi rrpud thamsll'cad rdog stabs getg-gts bskyed-pa-thams-cad ag-car gul-ba ltar! sngon-gyt smon-lam'gyis 'phen-pa dang/ chos-kyi dbyings-kyi mthus skad-cig-ma gcig kho-na-la zag-pa-medYpa'i ye-shes-su dmtgs-na ngs-mthun-pa thams-cad shes-pa de-bzhin-nol

J'~:,\>' ';i159b4: Ignyis-pa rnam-par-smin-pa'i zag-pa-med-pa'i chos-thams-cad skadccig-ma \Igcig-la mngon-par rtogs-pa nil de'i rjes gang-gi tshel gnye~-po skyes-pa.: mi-mthun-pa'i ;,:phyogs-thams-cad-dang-bral-bas-na rnam-par-byang-ba t phyogs-kyt chos-dkar-poii'hams-cad-kyi rang-bzhin shes-rab-kyi pha-rol-tu-phyin-pa rnam-par-smin-pa chos~i~Jid-kyi gnas-skabs-su ,~kyes-pa de'i tshe skad-cig-ma gcig-la mngon-par-rtogs-par lJyang-chub zhes-bya-ba t ye-shes-sol

Ii) " ;Ygsum-pa mtshan-nyid-med-pa'i chos-thams-cad skad-cig-ma gcig-la mngon-par rtogsi~a nil de'i og-tu sbyin-pa-la-sogs-pa'i spyod-pa-yis gnas-skabs-na rmi-lam-lta-bur ;;phitng-po-lnga'i chos-kun-la nye-bar-gnas-nas rmi-lam 'drar rtogs-nas kun-nas nyon:;~ongs-pa dang rnam-par-byang-ba'i ngo-bo'i chos-rnams mtshan-nyid-med-pa-nyid-du 1skad-cig-ma ni gcig-gis rtogs-pa'ol

'NC;/;

:;j60a2: /bzhi-pa gnyis-su-med-pa'i mtshan-nyid-du chos-thams-cad skad-cig gcig-la ,;:(sic) mngon-par-rtogs-pa nil de'i og-tu yun-ring-mo-nas bar-chad-med-par gnyis-su Ishang-ba spang-ba-la goms-pa dbang-du-gyur-pas gnyis-su snang-ba'i bag-chags :4rungs-phyung-ba'i byang-sems-kyi rmi-lam dang ni de mthong-ba-nyid gnyis-kyi tshuli'lumi-mthong-ba ltar! chos-rnams gzung-ba dang 'dzin-pa gnyis-su-med-pa de-ltar-buiyi chos-nyid yin-no, zhes chos-thams-cad-kyi de-nyid skad-cig-ma gcig-gis mthong-ba 'Sllad-cig-ma gcig-gis mngon-par-rdzogs-par byang-chub-pa yin-nol

?~kad-cig-gis mngon-par-rdzogs-par byang-chub-pa'i skabs-te bdun-pa'oll

60 ]IABSVOL.IONO.2

APPENmXE

Structure of the Phyag-chen gan-mdzod

rjod-byed tshig-gi phyag-rgya chen-po-la gnyis gzhung phyag~rgya chen-po'i rab-dbye-la gsum

bshad-bya tshig-gi skor-la gsum grub-sde bdun, 4a2 (Jiiiinasiddhi, etc.) snying-po skor-drug, 12a3 (Saraha Doha, etc.) yid-la mi-byed-pa'i chos-skor nyi-shu-rtsa-lnga, 16a3 [See Appendix B]

gdams-ngag nyams-len-gyi skor, 19a2 rtogs-pa byin-rlabs-kyi skor, 19b5

lhan-cig skyes-sbyor gtso-bor 'don-pa'i rgyu-mtshan, 21 b3 brjod-bya don-gyi phyag-rgya chen-po-la gnyis

bshad-bya phyag-rgya chen-po-la gnyis gzhan-gyi phyin-ci log-tu bshad-tshul, 26a6 ma-nor-ba bka'-brgyud-pas bstan-tshul-la bzhi

phyag-rgya [bzhi'i] mam-grangs-las gang yin-pa, 29a3 phyag-chen de rang-gi ngo-bo ci-lta-bu yin-pa, 32a2 nges-tshig mdo-rgyud gnyis-kar bstan-tshul, 35a6 de dkar-po chig-thub-tu 'gro-ba'i gnad bshad-pa, 40b3 [see Section 3]

'chad-byed bla-ma'i man-ngag-la gsum lhan-cig skyes-sbyor-gyi don dang tha-snyadbshad-pa, 47a5 de gtan-la gang-du phab-na rtogs myur-ba'i gnad bshad-pa, 77a2 ji-ltar gtan-la 'bebs-pa'i tshul zhib-mor bshad-pa-la gsum

sems-nyid lhan-cig skyes-pa chos-sku'i gnad-kyis lta-ba gtan-la dbab-pa-la gnyis gnas-lugs phyag-rgya chen-po bshad-pa, 84a6 'khrul-lugs phyag-rgya chen-po bshad-pa, 84b6

snang-ba lhan-skyes chos-sku'i od-kyi gnad-kyis sgom-pa nyams-su blang-ba-la gsu1it [cig-car-ba, 96b5] thod-rgal-ba [mal-'byor bzhi 'gros-te], 102b5 rim-gyis-pa'i lam, 123M

snang-sems dbyer-med lhan-skyes-kyi gnad-kyis 'bras-bu mthar-phyin bya-ba, 153a5 rtsod-pa spang-ba-la gnyis

dngos-su rtsod-pa, 162M [see Section 2] sgyu-thabs-kyis rtsod-pa'i lan, 172a2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADVS: Advayavajrasa7IJgraha (GOS) HT: Hevajra-tantra (ed. Snellgrove) KT: Kalacakratantra (ed. Lokesh Chandra)

- .-,

Works by sGam-po-pa bSod-nams Rin-chen (rtsib-ri spar-ma, vol. nga),

DS: Duscgsum mkhyen-pa'i zhus-lan PG: Phag-gru'i zhus-lan GT: sGom-tshul zhus-lan

THE WHITE PANACEA

Works by Sa-skya PaI).<;iita (Sa-skya bka'-'bum)

;DS:sDorn-gsum rab-dbye TG: Thub-dgongs rab-gsal

Works by Bu-ston (IRa-sa ed.) o . :~Y: bKa'-drin rjes-su .dran-par bye~-pa 'i gsan-yig ike: bsTan-bsgyur-gyz dkar-chag yzd-bzhzn nor-bu dbang-gi rgyal-po'i phreng-ba

Works by Padma dKar-po (gsung-'bum, gNam-'brug sPar-rna ed.) !,'\

i: rnNgon-par rtogs-pa'i rgyan-gyi 'grel-pa rje btsun byams-pa'i zhal-lung C:Chos-'byung bstan-pa'i padma rgyas-pa'i nyin-byed G:dBu-rna gzhung-lugs-gsum gsal-bar byed-pa'i nges-don grub-pa'i shing-rta &:Klan-ka gzhom-pa'i gtam M: dGe-bshes mar-yul-pa'i dris-lan legs-par bshad-pa'i gzhi NR: Ngam-ring mkhan-po'i brgal-lan 'Nr: rNam-rtog chos-sku'i dris-lan snying-po'i don-gsal 1': Phyag-rgya chen-po man-ngag-gi bshad-sbyar rgyal-ba'i gan-mdzod PI,;: Phyag-rgya chen-po lnga-ldan-gyi khrid-dmigs yid-kyi snye-ma iz: Phypg-chen zin-bris 'S:bKa-'brgyud-kyi bka'-'bum gsil-bu-rnams-kyi gsan-yig 1': sKyid-shod stag-lung-ma'i zhus-lan

61

'ZG; Jo-bo Niiropa'i khyad-chos bsre-'pho'i gzhung-'grel rdo-rje 'chang-gi dgongs-pa :gsgl"bar byed-pa ;NC: Chos-'byung me-tog snying-po'i sbrang-rtsi'i bcud or Nyang-ral Chos-'byung by Nyang-ral Nyi-ma;i Od-zer (see [K86] for details) tr: Phyag-chen lam-mchog-gi mthar-thug by Zhang Tshal-pa, see Appendix A 'P~K: Phyag-chen lhan-cig skyes-sbyor dngos-gzhi 'i khrid-yig cung-zad spros-pa semskyirdo-rje'i nges-gnas gsal-bar byed-pa by 'Jam-dpal dPa'-bo (rTsib-ri sPar-rna kita·nya)

tB79] M. M. Broido, "The term dngos-po'i gnas-Iugs in Padma dKar-po's 'Hgzhung-'grel" in Tibetan Studies in Honour of Hugh Richardson: Proceedings '\",of the 1979 Oxford Conference on Tibetan Studies; ed. Aris and Kyi ~i;" (Oxford: 1 979) 59-66. [:884] M. M. Broido, "Padma dKar-po on Tantra as Groun~, Path and Goal," "~,'oj. Tib. Soc. 4 (l984) 5-46.

[B85] M. M. Broido, "Padma dKar-po on the two Satyas," ]IABS 8,2 (l985) !. 7-59. [BR83] ]. Broughton, "Early Ch'an Schools in Tibet," in [GG83]. [GG83] R. Gimello and P. Gregory (eds.) Studies in Ch 'an and Hua-yen, Kuroda

Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism No. 1. (?83] L. O. Gomez, "The Direct and Gradual Approaches of Zen Master ,,', Mahayana: Fragments of the Teachings of Mo-ho-yen" (in [GG83]).

[G67] H.V. Guenther, Tibetan Buddhism in Western Perspective (Emeryville: 1977).


[GN] H.V. Guenther, Yuganaddha (np., nd.).; [HB85] A. W. Hanson-Barber, "'No Thought' in Paa Tang Ch'an and Earl;

Ati-Yoga," JIABS 8 (1985) 61-73. Y, U82] R. J acksan, "Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita's Account of the bSam-yas Debate: Risto'

as Polemic," JIABS 5,2 (1982) 89.· rx, [K86] L. vander Kuijp, "On the Sources for Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita's notes on thf

'bSam-yas debate,'" JIABS 9,2 (1986)147-53. '~i [YS83] Yanagida Seizan, "The Li Tai Fa Pao Chi," in Early Ch'an in Ch'/

Ina· and Tibet (Berkeley: 1983).

NOTES

*Research supported in part by the Spalding Trust. 1. PG 4b2. 2. T 22b5. 3. Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita has also identified the White Panacea (dkar-po chjg._i

thub) with Chinese doctrine in the Thub-dgongs rab-gsal. I shall make lesslls'{ of this source, though Padma dKar-po has discussed some points from itir? his Kla~-ka gzho,"!-pa'i gta.m. Sa-skya Pal)Q.i,ta's attacks on Chinese (rgya-nagii;

BuddhIsm are dIscussed III Roger Jackson s useful U82). The section oftli~~ Thub-dgongs rab-gsal most relevant to the present paper follows immediaielX~ on the section translated by Jackson, and is called "The Non-Buddhist tradition'; which follows them" (i.e., the Chinese: de'i rjes-su 'brang-ba phyi-rabs-pa'i lugs):~: As this section title suggests, Sa-skya Pal)Q.ita there tries to make it appdii; that his Tibetan opponents are not really Buddhists at all. Throughout thi~~ part of the Thub-dgongs rab-gsal, there is a repeated, slogan-like identificatio~ of the dkar-po chig-thub with Chinese Buddhism (e.g., 'di rgya-nag-gi dkar-p~i chig-thub-kyi rjes-su 'brang-ba yin-gyi sangs-rgyas-kyis gsungs-pa'i phyag-rgya chen,'h:i

ma-yin-te, 50a5; ... rgya-nagmkhan-po'i dkar-po chig-thub dangkhyad-parcung-ziJ.p med-pa, 51a3). As in the sDom-gsum rab-dbye, so also here Sa skya Pal)Q.ita ma~eti no attempt to state what he understands by dkar-po chig-thub'i~~

4. See Appendix A.' \"Ij\

5. There is also a considerable literature on the possibility that IId~j!: shang Mo-ho-yen may have belonged to the Pao Tang school of Ch'an;s.~~) [HB85] and [BR83). These works give relevant references to the bKa'-th.an,g'. sde-lnga. Yanagida Seizan has shown [YS83 30-32] that Tsung-mi and oth~~i~ have criticized this school along lines broadly comparable with the criticisI1)~f of Mo-ho-yen which are conventional in Tibet. :t!:ii

6. See Appendix B. <~it; 7. Padma dKar-po sets out the Indian sources for the three personalifX:;

types cig-car-ba, thod-rgal-ba and rim-gyis-pa in some detail in P (4a2 f£.). T~.~i~i~i; sources are all vajrayana works, namely:i;f;~; (a) cig-car-ba: Guhyasiddhi, ch. 1; Jnanasiddhi ch. 18; SahajasiddhiH~; Tattvasiddhi (Kyeralipa); King Do-has; ii~fi; (b) thod-rgal-ba: Guhyasiddhi, ch. 3; Prajnopayaviniscayasiddhi, ch. 4-~;~ Jnanasiddhi ch. 19; Queen Dohas; rTse-mo Dohas; iii.'

'i;;;~ ,-/' ~~'i

THE WHITE PANACEA

;J~t~rim-gyis-pa: ?uhfyasiddhi, ch. 4; Jiianasiddhi ch. 20; People Dohas. Ii:;,:, the postscnpt or further comments on these sources.

63

I,' ,See - d' P d dK . . :'~;':;I" In the hetuyana, accor mg to a rna ar-po, there IS the ordmary prog-t"'q~SS' through, the bodhisat:va-Ievels and paths, and the usual instantaneous 'l:fwhisambodhz. See Appe~dIx D. . '. . i:l:\,> 8. See [B85], whIch also con tams a faIrly detaIled account of the czg-car-

~~J!rim-gyis-pa distinction, a.s used by Padma d~ar-po. :l~;;, 9. PG 4b2 (see the mtroductory quotatIOn); DK Ib2. ~~~J:,~: 10. See [B85], p. 16 a~d note _46. Padma dKar-po ~iscusses th: use of ',thi:,word mudra (phyag-rgya) m the sutras at P 35a, but the Issue here IS not so W~iIch whether the word mahiimudrii appears in the siltras or not but whether 'F()al-attainment in siltras and tantras is the same. :;~~;:, 11. See also Appendix D, where this point is taken explicitly (from the ;1'dbhisambodhi chapter of the Abhisamayiila7ikiira). , ;1;';:, ',,12. For sGam-po-pa and Padma dKar-po on view (lta-ba), cultivation (of ::~;h~view) (sgom-pa), action (spyod-pa) and goal (,bras-bu) , see [B85]. !:;::> 13. As usual, the vajrayiina involves abh4eka and the upiiya-miirga, the ;';tet~yiina does not. See also note 9. ~rl 14. The repudiation of the idea of the dharmakiiya as the origin of dharmas j;in':a causal sense is a central theme of Maitripa's form of the amanasikiira ;:aoctrine, according to Padma dKar-po. See Appendix B, That causal concepi11iorileads to a mentalism which is contrary to the madhyamaka. lOY! , 15. See [B85] and also [B84]. ~~:,; 15a. See P. F. Strawson, Individuals (Methuen 1959) on sortal and charac:~i~rizirig universals (pp. 168-172), and on feature-universals (p. 202). In [B 79, , ;)~p.62-4] these noti~ns are ap.plied to the two satyas, to mahiimudrii and to ;Y~larious vaJrayiina notIOns, as dIscussed by Padma dKar-po at ZG 14bl and ~eIsewhere. Here in the last paragraph of p. 63 the words "and sems is a :~fiature-universal" should be struck out. Padma dKar-po's discussion is based !prt'the parallel between the two satyas and a flower (sortal) and its perfume '(feature) (HT II.ii.35-36), and on the connection mahiimudriilparamiirtha-satyal I:~~ dngos-po'i gnas-lugs. For a more detailed discussion see my "The Simile J,~faFlower and its Perfume," to appear. Ic;~rI6. See [B85] again. Nineteenth century gzhan-stong-pas such as Kongzsprulabandoned this view of Shes-rab rGyal-mtshan's. They used dbu-ma :f~en-po (Great Madhyamaka) for an experience-oriented madhyamaka, in which ;p~iari7iirtha-satya is identified with the radiant light, in contrast to a mere :~14dhiinta; and while gzhan-stong is still retained to describe the fact that the :,firdiant light is not merely a great blankness and so on, the correlation of }zhan-stonglrang-stong with the two satyas is dropped, and so they were able to ;~se a notion of integration (zung-'jug) very similar to that of Padma dKar-po. 1(:, 17. A similar use of gcig dang du bral and similar phrases is very common )~,rNying-ma-pa writings, especially those of Klong-chen-pa. iI'{;t 18. See PL. ' ~::I,: 19. lNga-ldan-gyi khrid-yig Si-tu chos-kyi 'byung-gnas-kyis mdmd-pa, 6 ff. ~Dams ngag mdzod vol. 9). ~,;,20. Phag-mo Gru-pa told sGam-po-pa that Sa-chen had recognised him :,ashaving attained the signs of heat characterising the darsanamiirga. (As this ,t:;I~,


anecdote is recorded in the Phag-gru'i zhus-lan, sGam-po-pa pretends not"! believe him.) It is interesting to consider Sa-skya Pat:J.Q.ita's criticisms Oft~O' bKa'-brgyud-pa view of the relation between the darsanamiirga follow'}'; abh4eka and that following the laukikiigradharma (DR 54ab) in [he light of t~! well-known story. ':

21. SY 460; the transmission from Sa-chen to Phag-mo Gru-pa is r:;~ corded explicitly there, as well as being the subject of various anecdotes~'~ the Phag-gru'i zhus-lan and elsewhere. . n:

22. On Sa-chen Kun-dga' sNying-po's unwillingnes~ to meet Phag-rno';; Gru-pa after the death of sGam-po-pa, see Padma dKar-po s Chos-'byung 271';:' de-nas yar byon-te thugs-la bla-ma Sa-skya-pa chen-po de chos dri-ba-la dgyes-pas ~'.,' nga la (?) bshod rgyu thogs-pa-med snyam byon/ de res dri-ba tsam yang mi-mdzad-par" spyan rtsa 'gyur 'dug-pas/ bla-ma de myur 'grongs-par mkhyen/ ... This incident is:' recorded too in the Blue Annals and in some of the hagiographies ofPhag-rn~' Gru-pa.:

23. The political prominence of the Phag-mo-gru-pas and the threat; whic.h t~ey later represente.d to the. Sa-skya paramount.cy did not .exist duri~g":. the lIfetIme of Sa-skya PalJQ.Ita, and m any case had nothmg to do wIth Phagcllloi Gru-pa rDo-rje rGyal-po himself.

24. P 161M, DR 51a4:

de-lta'i phyag-rgya chen-po dangllrgya-nag lugs-kyi rdzogs-chen-lal Iyas 'bab dang ni mas 'dzag gnyisllrim-gyis-pa dang cig-car-ball

Iming 'dogs bsgyur-ba ma-gtogs-pal/don-la khyad-par dbye-ba medl etc.

The terms yas"'bab and mas-'dzag are connected with the heat practices (gtum:Tljo:' ca'fJdiili) of the sampannakrama (cf. also note 20). . '.,

25. P 162a6. 26. P 163b3. 27. P ibid. 28. lhas-sras kyang dges-so, ibid. b5. 29. ibid. 30. rigs-pa dang-lung-gis cig-car-ba bkag ste/ Hva-shang slob-ma-dang-bcas-pai

spos-pa-med-par byas/ me-tog-gi 'phreng-ba yang slob-dpon Kamala-la phul-lo/, ibid} 164a2."·

31. Even for KamalasHa, as in the second Bhiivaniikrama, P 164b5.'; 32. Phyag-chen zin-bris 4al ff. and 'Jam-dpal dPa'-bo on it. See also Ap~i

pendix B. - :;; 33. P 26ab & C.,21 34. P 165f1. Another ve.rsion of the argument that if the Hva-shang;

method had been rdzogs-chen, it could not have been refuted by the typeot: argument used by KamalasHa, is given by Padma dKar-po at M 16a2. '

35. P 165bl-168a2. 36. See [B85].!; 37. P 168b6. '0 :

38. On the basis of the materials provided by Gomez, it is not reallr;: clear whether, in the Tibetan sense, the Ho-shang held that everybody is~i

" ~ "1;

"'\;;~ ,"',j'

j{>!'


1':Z;;i -ba or not. He does seem to have thought that everybody would eventually :~f~a;o practice the sudden method, but at least in the more moderate Tibetan ~~~~irnents he concedes that this is not appropriate for everyone in the condition b"'IiadUally are now. ;:;t;~~39. P 169a3 ff. ttft't(40. rphyag-rgya chen-po] de ~kar-po chig-thub 'gro-ba'i gnad (as the section ;!t;'ding): P43b-50a. cf. AppendIx E. ,;fiea. . b' 'd b f d· I T'b ;;2<,1"41. Similar 0 servatIOns are sal to e oun In other ear y I etan lt~:;;/mentaries on the Hevajra-tantra, such as the Rin-chen rgyan-'dra' (by rNog ;!~ti()~sde) and the .bK~' yanfdag-pa:! tshad-ma (by rNgog ~hos-rgyal). . :Y~:;42. The ambIgUIty of dharma here can cause confusIOn. A Madhyamlka ;:;i,:ilItake it in a linguistic sense, as a property ascribed to something, as in :r~~rriiirja. Taking it as a separate item, as in the Abhidharma, leads to mentalism; ;':hile the early bKa'-brgyud-pas probably were not mentalists (sGam-po-pa ~r~J"tainly not), the way they expressed their views can encourage this confusion. j'skIlote 14. . ::/:<43. I.e. from mahiimudrii. 'rl',;' 44. phyag-rgya chen-po'i gnyis-su med-pa'i sbyor-ba (*mahiimudrii-advayayoga). ';~';:>A4a. rang-bzhin-gyi rnal- 'byor (*prak,ti-yoga); the wordsrnal- 'byor and sbyor-7b4(note 44) are very similar and have more to do with inseparable union than [!*ithWhat is generally called "yoga" in the West. That Padma dKar-po uses i!~~t'byor in this way was first pointed out by Guenther [G67, p. 85]; see \,'tbmments in note 76 of [B84]. ~~~';4S. DR 69al, P 45b2. 1);:1:\46. Dohakosa 43, translated [G67 p. 164]. This translation is broadly ~:iOrrect, but nothing in the texts justifies Guenther's song-and-dance about ::~~presence of the particle -nyid in the Tibetan and its absence in the ~~pabhraqlsa; even the Tibetans apparently bow down to sems as well as sems

In,yid. . '\';:,' 47. Dohakosa 110, very similar to an important verse in the bKa' yang-dag:'paXtshad-ma, and as such commented upon at length by Padma dKar-po in ;ttfl:gzhung-'grel (129a5). This verse is typical of Padma dKar-po's conception L,Qfmahiimudrii as ground (single), path (multiple) andgoal (single). Cf. numer,'ousreferences in [B85] where, in discussing the difference between the sutras ia'I1,?the tantras, he says they have the same single ground and goal but the &t~n!rasshow a great variety of paths. '~;48. Quoted also by 'Jam-dpal dPa'-bo in his PZGon PZ 4bal; the passage iSs6inetimes said to be from the work Rin-chen Padma dKar-po.

~>;:!)":'< 49. The words "only one stage" (rim-pa gcig-pu) here refer to mahamudra. ;fso. KT V.62 and V.57. ;Y:'" .. S1. I.e., the single bliss of the buddhakiiya in the previous line, KT V.61d

Z(buddhasya kiiyo bhavati . .. ekasaukhya, etc.). ;':f.S2. KT 111.97-8 and especially the Vimalaprabhii on them. See my "Killsir,rg,Lying, Stealing and Adultery: A Problem ofInterpretation in the Tantras," !;lgappear in the Proceedings of the 1984 Kuroda Institute Conference on Buddhist :!Jf!1"rneneutics, ed. Lopez. ;)~~; ·53. du-ma'i gar.

66 JIABSVOL.IONO.2

54. chos-kyi dbyings-la dbyer-med-phyirllgtso-bo'i theg-pa dbyer-ma-mchisl- th' quotation is probably from the Mahiiyanasutriilarikiira. ' . IS

55. Probably different types (kula, gotra) of people. 56. Indeed, there is something pig-headed in Sa:skya PaI;lc;lita's ascriptio

of such a view, even only by implication, to the author of the dgongs_gct doctrine; perhaps this does something to explain Padma dKar-po's impatie g . m dismissal of It.

57. DR 69a3, continuing the passage n. 45; P 42b6. 58. HT II.iv.29. 59. HT Lv.l1. 60. GST XVII, prose following v.51. 61. HT ILii.31. 62. Vidy'a-mahiimud:~ is essentia:ly the un.d~rstan?ing of mahiimudra by

means of an mner cogmtlOn (vzdya, ng-pa). ThIS IS an Important topic which: has been treated badly in the literature, and needs fuller treatment than is possible here. . .

63. gshis is the capacity of things to be cognised in paramartha-satya. See [B85].

64. gnas-lugs: literally, the way things are, but here a technical term related to non-dual cognition [B 79].

65. P 46b1. 66. don, artha. 67. E.g., "The outsiders' method following the Chinese" (rgya-nag

lugs . .. kyi rjes-su 'brang-ba phyi-rabs-kyi lugs, TG 50b2 ff.). 68. This will particularly apply to observations about Mo-ho-yen's views!

in contemporary Tibetan writings such as the bSam-gtan mig-sgron.:: 69. However Pelliot 823 may be a translation of parts of the Cheng-liy<

chiieh: see [G83, p. 86]. In assessing the "Tibetan-language fragments" iri contrast to the Cheng-Ii chiieh I have therefore ignored the fragments froni Pelliot 823. .

70. Page references are to Gomez' article [G83]. 71. This remark directly contradicts the .central doctrine of the bKa',;.

brgyud-pas concerning mahiimudra, viz. that, properly seen, concepts simply ar~; the dharmakaya. See [B85a]. Padma dKar-po was often asked questions about this doctrine, and devoted several short works to it, e.g., NT and NR. . .•.....

72. For Padma dKar-po, this kind of distinction between relative an~ absolute realms is unintelligible. The differences remain whatever they are~': what changes is how they are taken.

73. For Padma dKar-po, cig-car-ba and rim-gyis-pa alike need medicine;· but what is medicine for one is poison for the other.

74. For Padma dKar-po, most prthagjanas are rim-gyis-pa. 75. Padma dKar-po's attitude towards virtue is quite conventional. Th~

cig-car-ba is what he is partly because of the previous accumulation of virtue.' This brings us to one of the oddest features of Sa-skya PaI;lc;lita's equating of; the bKa-'brgyud-pas with the Ch'an master Mo-ho-yen. What would be Padma:. dKar-po's view of somebody who simply sat down and renounced concepts. (or who renounced attachment to concepts, to bring the proposal nearer t6.


J;~:::;harnudra)? History does not record, but I suspect that such behavior would ~l'!lf egarded as bizarre in the extreme; partly because of the importance of ;~f:~r previous accurr;ulation ~f virtue, ,and partly becaus~ ~f t~e overriding " ' d for the bla-ma s adhliithana. (The Brug-pas are speCIalIsts III guruyoga.) ~;~~~~e 76. [G8S], p. 114 (from Stein 709, second fragment). ~;f;.;{ 77. [G83]; p. 110 (from Stein 709). i/;.<:. 78. More accurately, what the rim-gyis-pa cannot see is the clouds as }I;iluminated by the s~n (i.e., th.e obscurations a~ illuminate~ by h~s own perceptions ) Ithose obscurauons). It IS perfectly possIble for a nm-gYls-pa to reach the rt~th of insight (darsanamarga). He may, in that case, change into a cig-car-ba; ',~but this does not normally happen-the distinction is not in principle one of :.hsuctessive stages (gnas.-skabs, avastha). He can remain a rim-gyis-pa, proceeding ;;:through the appropnate paths (marga) and levels (bhumi). Being on the path '~i~f insight, he has that insight; but his inner nature is not such that he can use :'~Ihis insight to cure his own defilements, and this is why he still has to proceed . 'through the usual stages and why he cannot be given the entire path at once. /::'Interms of my analogy, then, a rim-gyis-pa who is not on the path of insight ,::d~es not see the sun at all and has no insight of any kind. A rim-gyis-pa on ;:'the path of insight does have occasional glimpses of the sun, but they are not ls'tifficient to illuminate the clouds (properly). {~.~:,~;, 79. It is easy to get confused by the words "sudden" and Hgradual." For ';'Padma dKar-po, the cig-car-ba is a person who has moments of genuine :5;~~ight (like the sun shining through the clouds) and is presented with the .::1~hole path in one go, as it were. Nevertheless his goal arises in stages Cbras-bu tJkye~ba'i rim-pal· The rim-gyis-pa has no moments of full insight (other than ;,,~thbse directly due to abhi~eka) and is presented with the path in stages (see ';pteceding note) but for him goal-attainment is sudden (cf. Appendix D). Indeed, ~jifMo-ho-yen's view is mainly a matter of goal-attainment (rather than of ,i::stages of the path), then its analogy with the bKa'-brgyud-pa view is with the !. rJl'1I:gyis-pa and not with the cig-car-ba. But I will not pursue this point, since ;}tlle whole of Sa-skya Pal).<;lita's observations then became irrelevant; for Sa-skya ;;:f~r:J(;lita has quite uncritically adopted the traditional view that ston-mun is to .·;;~e identified with cig-car. ,~,j:';·80. [G83] p. 117 (from Stein 709, second fragment). k }:' 81. bcos-pa, see notes 47 and 70 to Appendix 2 of [G83]. Gomez rightly ; stresses that these works are translations from Chinese, not Sanskrit; still,

;:.kcos-pa stands, in many madhyamaka texts, for the difficult terms krtaka and ~',Iirtiima. See [B8S] for Padma dKar-po on these terms. The connection of r)hese terms with artificiality in the mahamudrii context has been made by ,;guenther [GN 101] in relation to a passage of Maitripa's amanasikiira writing

}},also quoted by Padma dKar-po (P 27b) who attributes it to the workdBang-bskur ~~es-bstan (work 7 in Appendix B; ADVS pp. 32-3).

i,' 83. But Mo-ho-yen's next sentence goes beyond what Pad rna dKar-po 'lw,ould accept: "By cultivating the mind in this way, one awakens perfectly as ';;~pon as one is free from all false concepts and all past habitual tendencies." (;.;';1. 84. And in this respect the Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud is unlike the dGe-lugs, ~~l\'ho trace their mahiimudrii doctrines to a vision of Mafijugho~a by Tsong-kha~pa.


85. The tradition that sGam-po-pa was an incarnation of the bOdhisatt Candraprabhakumara, guardian of the Samadhiraja, was so well establishv~: that in many texts "Zla-'od gZhon-nu" is used, without explanation, for sG e po-pa rather than for the original Candraprabhakumara. am;,

86. See [HB85] for a comparison between Pao Tang Ch'an and earl: rdzogs-chen, based on the rDo-rje sems-dpa' nam-mkha' ehe rtsa-ba'i rgyud skye} med-pa, which concludes their incompatibility on similar grounds. a

87. Padma dKar-po lists three lta-ba ngan-sel works: thabs khyad-du gsod-/ bzlog-pa'i phyir lta-ba ngan-s~l dang/ lta-ba ngan-se.l-gyi dran-pa dang/ las dang-po~ pa'i bya-ba mdor-bsdus/ ... ; III 5 the extra work IS numbered 4, Other source' make no reference to this third work. s,

88. This work, numbered 25 in 5, appears in all versions of Padm dKar-po's list but does not seem to appear in the other lists.;

89. de'i ring (lho-brag mkhar-chu)-la rgya'i ha-shang Mahiiya1'}a'i slob-ma dar~ tel Ius ngag-gi chos-spyod dge-ba-byas-pas sangs-mi-rgya-ba dang/ yid-la-mi-byed_pas sangs-rgya zer-ba'i lugs-dar/ de-la ston-mun-du grags/ dpal-dbyangs dang/ sba ratna_' la-sogs-pa nyung-shas shig mkhan-po'i rjes-su 'brang/ de-la rtsen-min rgya'i shad yin! bod-skad-du cig-car-ba dang rim-skyes-la (read: -paY ur/ de-dagma-mthun-parrtsod-' pa-na/ rgyal-pos iiciirya-bodhisatva'i lugs bzhin-du gyis shig gsungs-pas/ ston-mun-pa:' rnams khros-te/ rtsen-min-pa ril gsod zer/ (C, 164b).

~CJhdian Commentaries on the Heart Sidra: !xpe Politics of Interpretation

::byMalcolm David Eckel

Edward Conze opens one of his many articles on the Perfec"tion of Wisdom Literature by saying that "the Heart Sidra is ,;@ilsily the best known of all Prajnaparmita texts".! There are few !~~owould quarrel with Conze's judgment. The text certainly 'functions for many people as a statement of the essence of the ~Mahayana, and if the Heart Sidra itself were reduced to an esi§ence, it would be the phrase "Form is Emptiness, and Emptiness "it1<orm". For someone who now looks back on the growth of ;~tlieMahayana tradition and tries to understand the central prob,!!ttpS of the tradition in their original context, it seems only natural to ask how this most essential of phrases was understood (~ythe Indian commentators whose works are preserved in the i'Iibetan canonical tradition. Certainly it clarifies the problem of rUhderstanding to know how the phrase was understood by those ?~):J.ostood in the most direct historical and linguistic proximity Hb. the text. if.(,But to approach the Indian commentators in the hope that :,they will somehow yield the "original" meaning of the text is to 'i#yite disappointment. Like us, the commentators were crea'stires of their own time. They had their own interests and preoc,"cppations that forced them not to misinterpret the text but to +~~eit for their own purposes. What we discover when we open '\thelndian commentaries on the Heart Sidra is not the pristine (lIleaning of the sidra itself, stripped of all the imaginative accre;j~~p~s imposed by later centuries, but what a distinctive group '.8~ .commentators thought it meant. And what they thought it ·,Weantwas shaped as much by the preoccupations of their own A,"L':_,.·.

69


time as it was by the words of the sutra itself. By "p~eoc:upation". I mean n?t only the ?bvious concepts:

and theones that occupIed the mmds of the mtellectuals who": commented on the Mahayana sutras and whose commentarie 'j gained enough notoriety or prestige to be preserved, but eve~<i the idea of commentary itself. As commentators and interpreters': in our own right: we are so used to the assumption that teXtsi are meant to be mterpreted that we overlook how rare it is in; many traditions to interpret a text and rarer still to have the \ interpretation preserved. The act of interpretation itself involves. a distinctive and rather narrow conception of the function ofa. text. Judging by the record of Hsuan-tsang's visit to India, the': Heart Sutra, and in particular the mantra contained in the last~ few lines, had a much broader function than to serve simply as: an object of interpretation. Hsuan-tsang tells a story of the::i philosopher Bhavaviveka.2 Bhavaviveka was the kind of person~ who was well versed in the art of interpretation, but in Hsiian~' tsang's story Bhavaviveka did not not interpret the Heart Sidra~i He used it as a chant to generate a vision of the bodhisattva; A valokitdvara.j

The chant did not work its effect without the addition of; some related physical discipline. Bhavaviveka reinforced th~: chant with a period of fasting. But in time the chant brought;~ him the vision he wanted and an answer to one of his most. vexing questions. Bhavaviveka may, at some other time, have', sat with a group of students and commented on the text of the~ sutra. About that part of the story Hsuan-tsang has nothing tPl( say. But Hsuan-tsang's story does make it clear that when we; focus exclusively on "interpretation", as if that were the o~ly); way someone could stand in relation to a text, we may fatallyJ distort its function. Interpretation may be only one of the many things that are done with a text. The fact that it is also what we;: are accustomed to doing with a text should not blind us to t~~A the other ways a text can function. .:,{

When a text like the Heart Sutra can serve such a rangeo{;; functions, from acting as a chant to summon a celestial bodhisatt~if, to providing a focus of worship,3 we should view the existeIl(e,;c of commentaries on the text with a certain sense of wondermen,i3 and even with suspicion. This is a use of the text that we~an') understand, but it should provoke a host of different questions;;:

COMMENTARIES ON THE HEART SDTRA 71

;"'Why, of all the possible use~ to whi~h the Heart Sidra can be tC'ut did the commentators enoose thIS one? Why are the comcleritators apparently clustered within a narrow historical i')~riod? Was it only in this period that the text was available, or '~~'~as it only in this period that the conditions were ripe for its interpretation? And why, in all that has been said and written bout this text, has the Tibetan canonical tradition chosen to

~~teserve these wo~ks, and preserve th~m in a context that makes :;0£ the commentanes themselves not Just a source of new com'rnentary, but also a focus of veneration? I will not answer all ';,thesequestions here, but I would like to make some comment .l,2fmy own not just on the interpretation found in the text of tthe Indian commentaries, but on the complex and overlapping ,"functions performed by the text in the work of the commentators ~theinselves. I will leave it to some other scholar in a later gener~;~tion to ask why we choose to spend such effort writing commen'ldiries on commentaries on a phrase from an Indian text.

:"~' The Tibetan canon preserves the text of seven Indian com;':rrtentaries on the Heart Svira, attributed to the authors VimL~lamitra, Jiianamitra, VajrapaI).i, Prasastrasena, Kamalaslla, ;;IHparpkarasrljiiana (more commonly known as Ansa), and Sri Mahajana.4 As far as one can determine from Tibetan historical ;~sources, the seven commentaries come from the period between !~~he middle of the eighth century and the middle of the eleventh ;jtentury, a period that encompasses both of the "diffusions" of :the Dharma into Tibet. Many of the commentators were teachers ;;ofTibetan students or played some other significant role in the '::dissemination of Buddhist ide'as in Tibet. Vimalamitra, for f,example, is treated as one of the chief teachers of the rdzogs 0i;£hen tradition of the rNying-ma school.s He is linked to the con;,troversy over gradual and sudden enlightenment associated with :(the so-called council of bSam-yas, an event in which KamalaSIla ;'is reported to have defeated a Chinese monk in debate and ~~established the dominance of his own gradualist interpretation !,9fthe Buddhist path in Tibet. 6 The controversy is described in \.~~malaSIla's now well-known work on the stages of meditation ',t:",.;


(Bhiivanakrama) and is reflected in two other works by Vi '.' alamitra on the same subject: "The meaning of the SUddrtJ.: practice of non-conceptuality" (Cig car ),ug pa rnam par mi rten

, og pa'i bsgom don) and "The meaning of the gradual practice" (Ril1; gyis ),ug pa'i sgom donp Both Vimalamitra and Kamalasil! flourished at the end of the eighth century. a

At the other end of this brief historical' spectrum is Ansa' Atisa served as abbot of the monastic college at Vikramasn' under the reign of two PaJa kings who bridged the late decadei of the tenth century and the early decades of the eleventh.s I~ his later years, after he had achieved considerable prominence, as a scholar and monastic leader, Ansa was invited to Tibet to take part in the re-establishment of monastic scholarship as-, sociated with the "second diffusion of the Dharma". Incollabora_' tion with Rin-chen-bzang-po he translated a number of works of Indian origin. After he had become established in Central Tibet, he wrote an independent work, "The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment" (Bodhipathapradlpa) , that later served as the source for the analysis of the path now dominant in the dGe-lugs~ pa school of Tibetan monasticism. g •.••.•

If the lives of these three scholars are any measure, the commentaries on the Heart Siltra preserved in the Tibeta~ Canon are the product of a historical milieu in which a commentator was not simply an isolated scholar, but the bearer of a' distinctive lineage of practice, a monastic official, and, as a result; also a political figure. This combination of interests is reflected in the use they made of their commentaries on the Heart Sutra. Along with the normal discussion of ontology and metaphysics is a discussion of practice and discipline, matters that would have been of as much concern in the formation of a monastic

;

curriculum as in the adjudication of philosophical disputes. It is often said that the categories of Buddhist philosophy are inseparable from questions of practice, but the connection is seldom as clear as it is in the commentaries produced by thes~ seven commentators on the phrases of the Heart Siltra. "

On the level of ontology or metaphysics the comments on the phrase "Form is Emptiness, and Emptiness is Form" reflect the dispute between Madhyamaka and Y OgadTa philosophers about the nature of Emptiness. From the time of Bhavaviveka in the sixth century there had been a running controversy be-

COMMENTARIES ON THE HEART SDTRA 73

~,'iteen the philosophers of these two schools about the proper ~~y to relate the ~ntology of one school to the on~~logy of the ,~tlier.!O MadhyamIkas spoke of two truths (or realItIes), the ul;;~J1late and the conventional, and explained that the two truths ;:t16u1d be used to strike a balance between extremes. A person ;:~()uld follow a middle path by affirming the reality of things <tonventionally but denying their reality ultimately. Yogacara ~philosophers also soug~t a posi~ion of.balance, but expressed it ;lria concept of three natures. II Thmgs were understood as 'having three natures or "characteristics", their imagined nature, ~their dependent nature, and their absolute nature. To avoid the C~~tremesof complete affirmation or denial, the texts of the )'ogacara tradition explained that imagined nature did not exist, . absolute nature did exist, and dependent nature (which was the ;t()Illbination of the two) existed insofar as it was absolute and :(fidnot exist insofar as it was imagined. / The juxtaposition of these two views of reality yielded many c:ontrasts, but the most important had to so with the existence 'ofabsolute nature itself. Did absolute nature exist or not? A ;'Madhyamika would be content to say that it existed convention;~lly, but not ultimately; but if the Yogacara vision of reality was 'interpreted as meaning that absolute nature existed ultimately, the two schools were at loggerheads. It is this second interpre- , la.tion of the Yogacara position that generated Bhavaviveka's !.attack on the Yogacara in the sixth century, and it is this second )riterpretation that is reflected in the commentaries of the eighth ~entury, particularly in the commentary on the relationship betjVeen Emptiness and Form. , , The commentator J fianamitra explains the phrase in a way

.that is consistent with the position of the Madhyamaka:

Now, in order to define Emptiness he says: "Form is Emptiness, and Emptiness is Form". If one does not understand that what is called "Form" is Emptiness, one is deluded and perceives and conceptualizes Form, or designates [it] with words. To say that [Form] is Emptiness means that the nature of Form is Emptiness. It has no identity in the past, the present, or the future, and cannot be grasped .... There is no place for any extreme or any entity. This is why [Form] is called "Emptiness".

"Emptiness is Form" means that Emptiness also cannot be grasped and is designated conventionally as "Form" ,12


What makes this explanation consistent with the explanation we might expect from a Madhyamika such as Bhavaviveka is that Jnanamitra makes no attempt to speak of Emptiness as something that exists or remains after concepts have been rec '

moved. He explains only that Emptiness is subject to the same; analysis as Form, and the application of analysis to the concept' of Emptiness then closes the circle: Form is Emptiness, but Emptiness too is empty and is no different from Form. " ,

F or an explanation of the passage that ma~es use of Y ogacara categories we look to the commentary of Sri Mahajana:

"Form is Emptiness, and Emptiness is Form" is a brief statement'; of the objectification [involved] when one thinks about Reality (tattva). "Emptiness is not different from Form, and Formis not': different Emptiness" is a more extended statement. First of all,! when one considers Form, one admits that it is Empti-! ness .... "Emptiness is not different from Form" means that de-; pendent nature, which is the imagination of what is unreal, is .,' empty of imagined duality. To be empty of duality in a sense, that leaves its existence intact r.paryudii5a-prati~edha) is the nature! of Form. 13 '"

Here Mahajana uses the standard terminology of the three Ila-,' tures to equate Emptiness with absolute nature that is left behiIld. when the dualities of imagined nature are removed. The point: is clinched, for those who know the technical terminology of this controversy, by a term that I have translated as "leaving its existence intact". The term is paryudiisa-pratis.edha, sometimd translated as "nominally bound negation". 14 By this Sri: Mahajana: means that the negation involved in the claim that Form is; empty means only that Form is empty of the dualistic concepts wrongly imposed on it, not that it does not exist at all. This is.' a basic feature in the Y ogacara understanding of Emptiness. It also is a feature about which Bhavaviveka, as a Madhyamika;; had many critical things to say.

Someone may wonder why I have quoted two of the lesser' known commentators on this passage to illustrate the interpre",' tive approaches of the Madhyamaka and Yogacara tradition~,! especially when we have commentaries from such respected representatives of the Madhyamaka as KamalaSlla and Atisa. The answer to this question reveals something important about

COMMENTARIES ONTHE HEARTSUTRA 75

;~the commentators themselves. We know from their other writ:";,ings that KamalaSIla ~nd Ansa .were aware of the ph~lo~ophical 'roblems reflected III the dIspute between Yogacara and iJLadhyamaka. Kamalaslla himself made important contribu;rlohS to the understanding of this dispute, if not to its solution. ':We find, however, that Kamalaslla and AtiSa used their com('mentaries on the Heart Sidra not to promote the cause of /Madhyamaka ontology, but to clarify their thinking on a question that was essentially epistemological. They took the text as

'lin occasion to explain how a person could gain a correct underic,istanding of the insight expressed in the phrase "Form is Emp'"-tiness, and Emptiness is Form", and relate that understanding .. to other stages on the path to enlightenment. Being epistemolog,ital, the question was also political in the broad sense of the term. It had to do not just with the ontology of Emptiness, but with how a person should study the text and who had the authority to establish its interpretation.

" Bhavaviveka dealt with this question in his own way at the '~nd of his argument against the Y ogacara, an argument that is :~found in his commentary on the Madhyamakakarikas and in his compendium of Indian philosophy, the Tarkajvala. He starts

: the argument with a Yogacara objection:

It is said in scripture that the ultimate cannot be investigated and is not accessible to logical reasoning (tarka-gocara). For this reason, the ultimate cannot be expressed by inference (anurnana) .

. He then gives his own reply:

This is wrong. Inference that follows scripture (agama) negates all concepts and brings about non-conceptual insight. The ultimate, then, is not an object (vi:jaya) of inference. But [inference] has priority, because there is no other way of investigating what is true and false. IS

In Bhavaviveka's system this argument served as a justification for the rationality of the process leading to the ultimate understanding of Emptiness. In the hands ofBhavaviveka's intellectual

,heirs, notably the eighth-century Madhyamika Jfianagarbha, it led to the definition of ultimate truth as the truth that is cons isJ~nt with reason. 16

76 ]IABSVOL.IONO.2

KamalasIla echoes Bhavaviveka's concern for reason in h' lS

commentary on the Heart Sidra. The commentary is not Ion but it gives a clear impression of the problem that broug~t Kamalaslla to the text. Kamalasila says:

By the power of the Buddha, Sariputra asks Avalokitesvara how to train. The intent of the question is [to ask] what is achieved by training. What is achieved is certainty. This [certainty] IS [gained] through the means of knowl~dge (pramiirja) . ... Th{ point of [Avalokitesvara's] reply is: 0 Sariputra, the three-fold assembly of bodhisattvas should train with the knowledge that comes from inference whose object is ultimate truth. One does not [train] with perception, because [ultimate truth] is not the object of visual perception, because there is no means of knOWl_ edge for which it is an object, and because there is no ability [to produce effective action]. [Furthermore,] one already has trained in yogic perception, and there is no need for [further] training.

One should train [instead] with knowledge that comesfrom inference about the ultimate. It is through the knowledge that comes from inference that one develops certainty about the Per-' fection of Wisdom, which is like an illusion and is [identicalt~j EmptinessY

KamalaSIla then goes on to describe what he has in mind whell he speaks of the inference whose object is ultimate truth:

First, [an effect] does not arise ultimately from any connecti()n with a cause. When analyzed, it is impossible [for an effect to',

arise from a cause], because it cannot arise from itself, frorri' something else, from both, or from neither. It also is impossible, for an effect to arise that either exists or does not exist. 18 ;"

This is Kamalasila's only attempt to explain the meaning of Emptiness in this brief commentary. Someone who comes to the text in search of a new interpretation of the phrase "Form. is Emptiness" is bound to be disappointed. But the passage does tell a great deal about the context in which KamalaSlla thought' the interpretation of the Sidra should be made. It was a context dominated by the rules of rational analysis. . ..•

Ansa's commentary also focuses on an epistemological prob~. lem, but not specifically on the role of reason. He uses hi~t considerable professorial ingenuity to explain how the Heah

COMMENTARIES ON THE HEART SUTRA 77

1~~iJtr; reflects, in its cryptic phrases, a cc~plex system of discip-0Hne that governs the progre,~s of a .bodhlsat~va t~;,:ard Bu~dha-1!.~aood. Heplaces. ~he phr~se Fo~m IS Emptl.ness III the mIddle ~\\bfthe Path of VlSlon (darsana-marga), the thIrd of the five paths irsed in the Abhisamayalart}kara and later works to outline the fl~~ath as ~ whole. His inge,~uity is pe,:~aps most appa~ent in his ilexplanatlOn of the word ~h:refore III the fifth sectl?n ~f the J'tekt.Atlsa takes the word III ItS temporal sense, meamng after l'that" or "subsequently", and understands it as a reference to tI&e whole Path of Practice (bhiivanii-miirga)-a reference, in ~i;6therwords, to the last nine of the ten bodhisattva stages (bhumi). ;{l. I could cite more examples of Ansa's attempt to squeeze ,';bceans of meaning from the simplest phrases. But perhaps it is :~best to return instead to one of the questions with which I began t;This essay. Why would Kamalaslla and Ansa write such commen)f:t~ries at all? I think it is not too far-fetched to think that behind ;(KamalaSila's defence of reason, and Atisa's imaginative attempt ~t()see in the Heart Sutra the system of a graded path of study, S~there lies a problem of authority, a problem that was sharpened slbythe conciseness and simplicity of the text itself. The sutra is :~~ttractive precisely because it reduces the complexity of the path c;'t8a few simple concepts. It is the kind of text that is particularly :1\~l1sceptible to a form of interpretation that emphasizes the sud~:aenness and simplicity of enlightenment. To seminary deans ;'~rd monastic officials like Kamalaslla and Ansa this simplicity j;presented a challenge. They seem to have felt a need to pull in {the reins and insist that the study of Emptiness can only be ~~ontextualized or institutionalized in a system of rational and ;Xprderly study. ';{, What was the source of the challenge? The presence of :Ximalamitra in the list of commentators on the sutra gives us 'l()ne possible answer. Vimalamitra was a Tantric master who ·\defended a form of practice known as "the sudden practice of :hon-conceptuality". When AtIsa's commentary is compared to ;;Yimalamitra's, it is clear that Ansa had Vimalamitra very much Wmind. Atisa does not spend much time actually refuting Vimal~mitra. What he does instead is place Vimalamitra's comments (Jnthe context of his own conception of the path, as if to say .t~atVimalamitra's remarks about the Heart Sutra are acceptable ;~sfar as they go, but have to be placed in the right system of


study befo.re they can properly be understood. KamalaSIla als was an enthusiastic defender of the gradual and systematic pur~ suit of· enlightenment. We might very well imagine that

. KamalasiJa and Ansa wrote their commentaries on the Heart SzUra in response to a challenge that stemmed from Tantric exegesis, like the exegesis found in Vimalamitra. But this should not be understood as meaning that Kamalaslla and Ansa harbored any deep antipathy to the Tantric traditon as such. They both were p~actitio?~rs ~f !antra and recognized the validity of the Tantnc tradItIOn III Its own sphere. What they resisted was an interpretation of the Heart Sidra that either slighted the claims of reason or collapsed the system of categories that made. of the vast corpus of Perfection of Wisdom Literature a graded path to enlightenment.

Regardless of the immediate cause that provoked KamalaSIla and Ansa to compose their commentaries, it is clear. that we have in the corpus of Indian commentaries on the Heart Siltra more than just an analysis of the ontological problems. that in other contexts so occupied the minds of Mahayana philosophers. The commentaries also give us a glimpse of the politics of interpretation that concerned this small group of philosophers in their other roles as teachers, monastic officials, and defenders of a tradition of authoritative interpretation.

NOTES 1. E. Conze, "Prasastrasena's Arya-Prajiiaparamita-hrdaya-tika," in

Buddhist Studies in Honour of I.B. Horner, ed. L. Cousins et al. (Dordrecht: 1974) 51-61.

2. S. Beal, trans., Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World (1884; reprint ed. Delhi: 1969) vol. 2, 223-225.

3. As G. Schopen has shown in "The Phrase 'sa pr:thivzpradeSaS caityabhilto bhavet' in the Vajracchedikii: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahayana/ Indo-Iranian Journal 17 (1975) 147-181.

4. The seven commentaries make up Otani nos. 5217-5223 of Th~ Peking Tibetan Tripi(aka (PIT). References to the commentaries in this article are based on the reprint edition of the Peking Tibetan Tripitaka (Tokyo a~d. Kyoto: 1957), volume 94, folios 285-350. . .•....•

5. As has been pointed out by D.S. Ruegg in The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: 1981) 107.

6. L.O. Gomez, "Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden Enlighten~

COMMENTARIES ON THE HEART SUTRA 79

7r;r;~nt:" in W. Lai and L.R. Lancaster, eds., E(J,rly Ch'an in China and Tibet

:i/Berkeley 1983) 393-434. _ '. . . . ' . +L' 7. The fIrSt Bhiivanakrama IS edIted by C. TUCCI m Mznor BuddhlSt Texts fiI (Serie Orientale Roma 9) (1958) 185-229, the third Bhiivaniikrama in Minor ;2;.Buddhist Texts III. (Seri;e Orientale Roma 43) (1971). Vimalamitra's works are f~und in The ~ekzng Tz~etan .!rzpztaka, Otam nos,' 5306 and 5~~4~ _ .

C)1 8. H. Elmer, Berzchte uber das Leben des AtlSa (Dipar(l.karasrZJnana), (Wles::1~den: 1977), and Rnam Thar Rgyas Pa: Materialen zu einer Biographie des AtiSa

;l{Dlpa7f!kara.5rij~iina) 2 vol~. (Wiesba~en: 1979).. " , c:~ 9. H. Elmer, Bodhzpathapradzpa: Ezn Lehrgedzcht des AtlSa (Dipar(l.karasri-F'f0na) in der tibetischen Uberlieferung (Wiesbaden: 1978). ,iL 10. An early version of the controversy is found in M.D. Eckel, ii"Bhavaviveka's Critique of Yogacara Philosophy in Chapter XXV of the Praj;1~~pradjpa," in C. Lindtner, ed., Miscellanea Buddhica (Copenhagen: 1985) :~'25-7 5. For a later version of the same controversy see M.D. Eckel,Jiiiinagarbha's Commentary on the Distinction Between the Two Truths (Albany: 1986). (; II. This brief summary of the positions of both schools is based on

;.Bh§.vaviveka's outline of the argument. Bhavaviveka based his own presenta>t:ion of the Yogacara position on such early Yogacara texts as the Madhyiin.tavibhiiga, but he recast the position in a way that highlighted the differences ; between the two schools. " '12, PIT, vo!' 94, 305a/6-305b/2. :> 13. PIT, voL 94, 344b/8-345a/4.

!;{:;'!'{

":;:". 14. B.K. Matilal, Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philosophical ''Analysis (The Hague: 1971) 162-165. The distinction between paryudiisa prat4edha and its opposite (prasajya pratisedha) is discussed in a number of works on Mahayana philosophy. See, for example, my "Bhavaviveka's ,Qritique," 71 andJiiiinagarbha's Commentary, 126. The most complete explana;tionof the concept is still Y. Kajiyama's An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy: ,AnAnnotated Translation of the Text of the Tarkabhiis,ii of Moks.iikaragupta (Kyoto: 1966) 38-39. On the idea that the negation "leaving existence intact" see C.M. ;t-Jagao, "'What Remains' in Stmyata: A Yogacara Interpretation of Emptiness", :i~M. Kiyota, ed., Mahayiina Buddhist Meditation: Theory and Practice (Honolulu: ::1(78) 66-82. i" 15. The translation is adapted from my "Bhavaviveka's Critique," pp. ,;73--74. The argument is repeated at the end of Bhavaviveka's response to the "'yogacara in the fifth chapter of the Tarkajviilii. An edition and translation of c~hechapter by Lindtner and myself is in preparation.

16. Eckel, Jiiiinagarbha's Commentary, 71. 17. PTT, voL 94, 331b/8-332b/3.

....... 18. The first argument against the ultimate arising of things is found in,the first chapter of Nagarjuna's Millamadhyamakakiirikiis and throughout 'the subsequent Madhyamaka tradition. The second argument is mentioned WAtHa in the Bodhipathapradipa as one of the four great proofs of Emptiness . • See Eimer, Bodhipathapradipa, 128-9. English translation in R. Sherburne, :trans., A Lamp for the Path and Commentary by Atlsa (London: 1983), 136.

Notes on N agarjuna and Zeno on Motion

by Brian Galloway

(1) In interpreting Nagarjuna's Mulamiidhyamikakiirikii 2.lb gatiigatavinirmukta'f!l, gamyamiinam na gamyate, we find that th~ law of the excluded middle applies: I a thing must be eitherA or not-A, in this case either gata or agata. A thing proved to be neither can hardly exist and can at any rate have no relation t() gam. Candrakirti starts, to be sure, with a third possibility, that of gamyamiina; but he concludes,

na ca gata-agata-vyatirekerJa t'"(t'iyam aparam adhva-jatan:t pasyiimo gamyamanam nama; yatas ca evan:t gamyamanan:t na gamyate, gamyata iti na praffiayate tasman nasti gamyamanam. ato na tad gamikriyaya avisyate; na gamyata iti: nasti gamyamane 'pi gamanam. 2 [emphasis added] .

N ow as far as words are concerned, there may seem to be a contradiction between niisti gamyamiinam 'there is no [point just now] being gone over' and niisti gamyamiine 'pi gamanam 'there is no going over even at [the point supposedly] being gone over" which implies that there is such a point. All we wish to do here is to show that for Candraklrti there is a sense in which there is no gamyamiina, because by the law of the excluded middle motion must occur only in either the gata or the agata portion of the road. For as Buddhapalita states,

hdi la gal te hgro ba sig yod par gyur na, de sori ba la ham, ma sori ba la yod par hgyur. 3

"Here if there is any going-over, it must occur either at th~i gone-over or at the not-gone-over.".

(2) The na gamyate is interpreted as na vidyate or niisti (but not in a heavy-handed annihilationist sense). But actually Nagar-.

80

NAGARJUNAAND ZENO 81

·.!;;&;';ii~ making a rather clever pun here,4 intending both "is not :"IUn . 'bl " ( . - - ) d ... "1 h ~'~d";cally pOSSI e na praJn~yate an . IS not go~e over_ . _ ~ t e i.~~rse that the gamyamiina IS not logICally p?s~Ible, Nag~rJuna ~lrisreference to the law of the excluded mIddle, accordmg to j;~hich a thin~ must ~e eit?er gata or agata. In.the sense that the 'iifr6neover" IS not (m splte of ~he words) bemg gone over, he ~7t~teference to the argument m (3) below. In this context we 1·lhst keep in mind, as both T.R.V. Murti and later K. Bhatta~~rya make clear,s Nagarjuna is. not disCl~ssin.g in Stanza 2 the ?tihipg that goes by rather the ZaGl over whICh It moves, not the jg6~r but the path gone over by the goer, a point seemingly ';triissed by Sprung,6 who conflates having been moved over with JtiJ,ying moved; he suggests, as an "alternate" translation of gatar(i '1hagamyate, "~hat has moved does not move," but this is not the 'ZT~~ning, whICh is "what has been moved over is not being ~oved over." ~Jfi;1(3) Nagarjuna's fundamental argument in MMK 2.1, pace iBhattacharya, can be most conveniently and clearly explained ;jfiathematico-physically. (This is just what Candraklrti attempts ~tbdo with his foot analogy, as we shall see later.) Consider a :riii~segment bounded by-points a and b containing a fixed point '(Qot equal to a or b. A moving point x moves from left to right ~il?*g the segment. When can we say that c is being gone over pyx? When x is to the left of c (Fig. 1), i.e., has not yet reached ;tl 'fhelatter is not being gone over. When x is to the right of c, ,!:e.:, has passed through it (Fig. 2), c is not being gone over. :fiJ:J.ally, when the two coincide, i.e. x = c, only an instant of 'tiwee1apses, that is, a time of zero duration, and there can be no,Illotion in space during a time of zero duration. Besides, at t~ismoment the two points are identical, are one, and so there Gillbe no traversing or going over. There is no room for motion ,~~addition to there being no time for it. Thus we cannot find :9i1tanything about motion here, just at the precise point where It,i~hould occur (if anywhere). Candraklrti, in the quotation ~bove, says just this: niisti gamyamiine 'pi gamanam ("there is no Ming even on the being-gone-over," i.e., there is no going even ~tthe point supposedly being gone over, no motion even at the point supposedly being just now moved over). This is just what ~aparjuna intends, of course, since he is attempting to show tp~falsity of the conception of motion. In short, there is no


gamyamana because (a) it is neither gata nor agata and, beinS~; neither of these, it cannot be anything else either; and (b) therg,!~ is no gamana even at the point of sl.}pposed motion and th/'li\ there can be no gamyamana. If it is objected that the point /~;i at one timeagata and at another time gata, but that Nagarju~~~; calls it gatagatavinirmukta, the reply is that Nagarjuna does noh! call c gatagatavinirmukta; rather he calls the gamyamiilJ\ gatagatavinirmukta. But in Figs. 1 and 2 the point c is nti{i'1 gamyamana; and it is not really gamyamana when x = c eithei:;',,;; ~s for the road, it cons~sts of agata and an agata portion; nothing':\j IS left over except a pomt of zero length and hence nonexistent? a point is really only an abstraction and not found in reallid~ Vyavaharikavat, however, Nagarjuna does not deny that the roaiiii is being gone over; to deny this would be to fly in the face()f.~i~ the sarIJvr:tisatya, the conventional reality that in Buddhismj~ili never denied. Nagarjuna denies that the point at which motio~if; supposedly occurs is being gone over; this is matter of paramiir~;ti thasatya. Finally, if of the interval (a, b) the gata portion (a, e) iIi'i;, some sense represents the past and the agata portion (e, b) th2"iJ future, then of the point x = c we can say with Bareau thatiir:'j is sans passe ni futur en fonction desquels il puisse se mouvoir.8;~'

',,:~ r;

. .<:?,~ It was after the foregoing was written that the present writeI;~{ consulted the work of Siderits and O'Brien,9 mentioned unfavof~~r ably by Bhattacharya, to see whether indeed they had "deo~i monstrated nothing, because of philological limitations."l0 O~i,; examination, their argument on this point turns out to be pef-X: fecdy sound; they even have a line diagram like the above,if;~ somewhat less strictly mathematicaL Bringing upthe philolog'!~i:i ical limitations of others is of course valid in general; but afterl all, we all have them; the present writer for instance knows nQ[~~ Greek and is thus forced to depend on what he devoutly hope~:~i to be the competent translations of others; he does, howevet':~i~ have enough of the language of mathematics to have a sens~ii; of whether a mathematization of Candrakirti's argumentsif;,i valid. In any case, what philological limitations are meant in th~/~; present case? The Sanskrit of Siderits and O'Brien turns OUtt8i}(; be quite competent..7:;;i

It is difficult, on the other hand, to agree with Sideritsa~gi; O'Brien that Zeno's four paradoxes constitute a coherent syste,m:~

';~",;,:(;;~ ;:;?!i·1:'

;:.~~;~.\;,

;,;,;i:~i "-':"'Jg;;~


~~hree 'of them. can .bedisproved fai:-ly easily.ll B.ut in t?e arrow ::!'tadox Zeno IS qUIte correct and hIs argument IS precIsely that ~ffi.garjuna and Candraklrti. The arr~",: cannot move where it [;,\ipot, and the length of space where It IS has no further length t;~~here motion might be possible; and a given point on the arrow !t~not move where it is not, nor where it is, because there is z;t~room for motion in a point of space. Here is Aristotle's ;;~~l"sion of Zeno as quoted by Burnet: 12

::~:~i.i;;D; (.'i:;:: ,The arrow in flight is at rest. For if everything is at rest when it ~~,: occupies a space equal to itself, and what is in flight at any '2, ' ' moment always occupies a space equal to itself, it cannot move.

~~tit i;ijbre the inexactness of Zeno's method of expressing himself 'f~nnot conceal that he has struck at the very concept of motion .;:itself. It is doubtless incorrect to call a moving object "at rest," "~tItthis follows from its being at a particular point at every !l¥~iticular momen~; so the identity of motion and rest explodes 'rhenotion of motIOn. ~W),:pace Burnet, it makes no difference that the arrow has ;!~J)gth; we can just as well speak of amoving point, thought of ';~s;the arrow's tip or as any fixed point along the arrow's length; 'ifuepoint will occupy the point where it is on the flight path at ;~~}'point in time. Now it will not do to assume first that "motion" fs.~ viable concept and then attempt to calculate the rate of ~motion at a point as Vlastosl3 does. Zeno's argument is on a ~detper level entirely. He shows that the whole idea of any motion ~~~;;ontenable and absurd. Aristotle's formulation is important :.Mte: "Neither moving nOr resting are possible in the 'now' [i.e., ii~stant]."14 IJ,;.Bo it is not true what Bhattacharya says, that the argument ipfNagarjuna "has nothing to do with Zeno's arrow paradox", ~auegards motion their arguments are precisely the same. The '~.iJfyrence between them concerns rest, as Murti has pointed out :~~ith his customary insight and clarity: £''{ ,

'.;: . That exists whose opposite exists, e.g. darkness and light, or this i'l, side and the other side. Logically therefore, a denial of motion kd' involves that of rest as well. It is here precisely that Nagarjuna t~; , proves himself a truer dialectician than Zeno. 15


As for the foot analogy, neither Bhattacharya on the one hanel' nor Siderits and O'Brien on the other have got it right. Th} latter are not correct in stating that Candraklrti's foot analog e", as given in the extant texts, has the walker going backward';;; there has been no textual error. What Candraklrti states is th~?( the area covered by the .foot cann?t be regar~ed as "being gone"; over" because the foot Itself consIsts of partICles, and we must;. choose one of those particles to examine. Taking the atom at.} the tip of the toe, we find that everything behind it has been'~ gone over as far as that atom is concerned and everything ill 0 front has not. In a separate examination, we find that from the ( standpoint of the atom at the heel, again everything in front6f it h~s n~t been gone over fro~ i~s point of view and ~verything behmd It has. Then Candrakirti meets another possIble objec_ii ~ion, that th~ aton: it.self has le?gth, by pointing to its divisibility::: If the atom IS not m Itself a pomt, we can look at an ever smaller'S portion of it. LogicaIly, he is getting at the (lengthless) pOinti

by, essentially, a series of nested intervals. The divisibility of; matter is by no means necessary to his argument. He only divides;.', matter in order to arrive logically at the mathematical point,~t which can be seen as the limit of an infinite number of nested' intervals that decrease sufficiently fast: consider the interval (0, 1),'.\; then the ("nested") one (0, 0.5), then (0, 0.25) and so on. "Tha:ti~ atoms have spatial extension" (Bhattacharya) is not at all essen~i'i: tial to Candraklrti's argument. Candraklrti is not talking about\I matter but about motion. His arguments are best seen in term~;: of a point, which means that atoms without spatial extension?,! would have been even better for his argument. His foot analogys; shows that we can arrive at a point in spite of the spatial extension' (assumed by the Buddhist audience to whom his works are ad-·.·. dressed) of the atom, because as long as it has spatial extension': it will be infinitely divisible and thus we can arrive at a point asl;' the limit of a series of nested intervals anyway. Nineteenth-cen~i. tury mathematicians would have criticised him for not makir:g't his argument explicitly in terms of a point; twentieth-century;;; mathematicians would however be inclined to give him gooel, marks for approaching a point as the limit of an infinite numbel';{, of nested intervals and in general defining a point as the limit,:; of a process.;;)~

By Buddhist standards, of course, there is no real ontologic~l';~


•.•...•..... tuS -of the point being gone over, or to any mathematical ?,$,~aint, because a point is only an abstraction, a figment of the .;ROagination (nasti gamyamanam). But we can imagine it. And if :.!F 'do so even then we find that motion over it is inexplicable ·'·we.' _ >(~asti gamyamane 'pz gamanam). ',f:;!~,

;}!:f~: :";, )/,\';i. M

~,~i~,

iN:>O'.·TES ···r /)-,' :J\i'" ;w 1. One knows that this is a matter of controversy in some circles; but ·~~~D.S. Ruegg, "The Uses .. . ",]IP 5 (1977) 1-7l. ~:.i 2. Bauddha Bharati Series 16, ed. Dwarika Das Shastri (Varanasi: i~i983)35. 'Iv: ". 3. Mulamadhyamakavr:tti, ed. M. Walleser (Bibliotheca Buddhica XVI), ;.lSt.-petersbourg: 1913) 34. Breaks off in Chapter 13. ;;/ 4. See J. Hopkins, tr., "Analysis of Going and Coming," (Dharamsala: ;'1974) 25. :i} 5. T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (London: 1960) 178 :ff; K. Bhattacharya's article in]IABS 8(1) (1985) 7-15. )i: i. 6. M. Sprung, Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way, (Boulder, Colorado: :1979) 76 n. 6. He also translates Candraklrti's gata11} ti'ivad gamyata iti na yuJyate :('Iithe gone-over then is being gone over' does not make sense") as "it is not )ienable to say what has been traversed is in motion" (pp. 76-77). But no-one 'fuaintains that what has been traversed is in motion. He gives an alternate tritnslation in the footnote on p. 77; "past motion moves," but this is not what 'Candraklrti's opponent says nor is it maintained by anyone. Sprung's belief .'that Nagarjuna's "Sanskrit terms are both spatial and temporal, inextricably" (p .. 76 n.) is not borne out by the precise way in which Nagarjuna uses the ,langUage; in particular, the distinction between active and passive, which in ,iolloquial Sanskrit is often brought to naught (and where indeed gata frequently means the active "gone") is strictly observed, I believe, by Nagarjuna; aUeast it is difficult to make sense of his writing if one neglects it.

That we have to do this verse not primarily with a moving object or with 'P0vement as an abstraction but with the loci over which motion may occurt~at for instance gatah does not mean something that has 'gone (moved) or ,something that has been 'gone to' (reached), but something that has been gone oyer (traversed)-has been missed by most translators. As quoted by M. Tachikawa ("A Study of Buddhapalita's Mtllamadhyamakavr:itti" (1) Uournalof the Faculty of Literature of Nagoya University 63, March 1974]), J. May gives us ~'Iemouvement accompli ne comporte pas mouvement" and M. Walleser has ':im Gegangenen eben ist nicht Gehen" (this from his 1911 work, and in his ~ork of the following year we find "das Gegangene geht nicht"). Robinson as quoted by Tachikawa has ~'the gone is not arrived at", and Streng gives us !:tjlat-which-is-already-gone-to is not that which is 'being gone to'" (Emptiness [~ashville: 1967] 184). Tachikawa himself understands it properly e.g. "we


must not forget that Indian commentators allude or declare that 'gamyamiiiii'; indicates that which is being traversed" (p. 10). He quotes Avalokitavrata1U!} this word: sa phyogs gari na rkari pa hdeg pa d~ri hjogpahi mtshan iiid kyi gyo bn~ snari ba de . .. "the ground whereon there is movement in the form of lift"~i(~ up and placing down one's feet". (The gyo will be ga-hogya naro g.yo 'motion,.)l~~ij

7. Bhattacharya asks how Nagarjuna can do this (op. cit. p. 9).,"::' 8. Bareau, quoted in Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 8; see also the Genn;"I~

ver~ion, A. Ba~eau, w, .. Schubring, and Ch. v. ~iirer-Haimendorf,Die Religio~R'~ Induns ,II! (Die Rel~gIOnen der Menschhelt 13), (Stuttgart: 1964) 156fL~i Bareau s mterpretatIOns of the MMK 2 are not, perhaps, the exact words'f!: the ancient authorities, but they are certainly not bizarre; as regards timeaoa'* motion he seems to have drawn on MMK 19 also. It is not clear to w~t~ Bhattacharya objects in Bareau's presentation. a'i'

9. M. Siderits and J. O'Brien, "Zeno and Nagarjuna on Modo~,:.1 Philosophy East and West 26(3) (July 1976),281-299.''':;.

10. Bhattacharya, op. cit, p. 8. . .:,; 11. In the "racecourse", Zeno says that the mover from point a to poihC;;

b must first go half the distance, then half the remaining (one-fourth oftMi '! total), then one-half of that (one eighth), and so on; and that becaus~~~li infinite number of such distances must be traversed, and because each wilrl; take a finite amount of time to traverse, it will take an infinite amount oftilIle'] to get to b, i.e., one will never get there. In fact, however, the time can easiJf.i~ by calculated. If a point moves at 1 meter per second from Po to PI> thenit'§! will require 1/2 second to go the first 112 meter, IJ4. second to go the next 1/4 met~r:;i:; and so on; the total time will be>~i;

>',"r~~

1/2 + 1/4 + l/S + IJI6 + IJ32 + ... n= l:i1;~

which even though it contains an infinite number of terms nevertheless su~i;;~ to a finite sum (it is a convergent series-technically, a geometric seriesw[tlt"! ratio r = 1/2 , and when I r I < 1 a geometric series converges to a finite SUnI);/;; The Achilles and the tortoise paradox is not much more difficult to disperiffi~;; with. By the formula s = vt (distance equals velocity times time) wec~~,:;. calculate as follows. Let Achilles's velocity be v A and the tortoise's VT, and le,!~ the head start enjoyed by the tortoise be h. The time taken by AChilles\b'.: reach the tortoise's original starting point h units ahead of him will be hJvl~~ But in this time the tortoise will have moved vT(hlv A), and Achilles must IlO~:'\ traverse this distance, which he will do in a time vT(hlv A) I v A- Continuingil\l; this way we obtain Achilles's total time as:;j~l

%A + vT%A2 + vT2%A3 + vT3%A4 + ... =h i v:~YX~~f; n = 1 -l/<~~~~

This too is a geometric series, with ratio r = vTlv A, and if Achilles runs fas.~~/~ than the tortoise, this will be less than one, and the series will converge. HavI~g~ convinced ourselves of this, we can then adopt the simpler method of sett~.~~l


~"'t\I'~ equations of motion of the form t = slv, notion that we can put v A = VT + k, \.PY .···se the two speeds are constant and hence differ by a constant; and SA .becau ,.e'c:.:::,· _ h Thus %r~;~,,(~r'" .

~~rt~O equations in two unknowns and thus solvable for SA and t by ordinary

iiaigebra. . :<:7,As for the stadium paradox, this is based on not understanding that two i!b6dies moving ~l?ng the same line in 0pP.osite directi~ns at ~he same speed ).;:;"vewith veloCItIes v and -v; by subtractIon one obtams theIr relatzve speed 7W,ihrespect to each other, 2v, while their velocities with respect to a stationary ?:6bserver are just v and -v. ;\ci '12. J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy (London: 1930) 319. ~~;:~::13. C. Vlastos's attempt to disprove the arrow paradox (in Paul Edwards, ;~d.,Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 8, pp. 374-375) will not hold water; he itternpts to find the velocity of the arrow at a point by dividing the distance (j"aversed (zero) by the time taken to cover this distance (zero), obtains, natur

:hlljenough, the indeterminate form 010, and concludes, apparently, that Zeno is'wrong to state that the arrow cannot move at a point. But a mathematical :~bsurdity (010) cannot tell us anything about physical or philosophical reality; ·Jt'ca.n tell us that our mathematical tool has been badly chosen. Naturally we .·c'ii1not use algebra to find the speed at a point of a moving body; this has :!J~enknown since before Newton and Leibniz, whose invention of the differ~~Iltial and integral calculus had the purpose, in part, of providing a method :'fiJi-rmding such a speed. In the case of a body moving with constant velocity :.0/'Vye of course do not need the calculus; we can reason a priori that if it has '~eyelocity v always, it must have the velocity v at any particular point. Of .fptfse one can insist on using the calcUlus anyway: for example, a body ·trl()ying on the number line with a constant velocity of 20 between the points 5attd 15 will have the position function s = 20t + 5; and the velocity function, Py·differentiation, using the power rule, will be dsldt = 20; in this (trivial) Case the velocity dsldt is constant (in the general case it will be a function of . (he position s or the time t). ':;; 14. Quoted by Vlastos, op. cit., p. 375. ,':>:r' _' J5. Murti, op. cit., p. 182. fi. 16. Candraklrti: ariguly-agra-avasthitasya paramii'Yfor yalp purvo desalp sa tasya g~te'ntargatalp; piir~'Yfy-avasthitasya carama-paramii'Yfor ya uttaro ddalp sa tasya agate :rt~Tgatalp (loc. cit.). Here purvo ddalp means the length previously traversed, Ihllsgatalp; uttaro ddalp is the length in front, to be traversed afterwards, later, gIlls agata. (The de la Vallee Poussin edition as quoted by Bhattacharya op. ezl.goes not differ in this passage.)

Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Earliness of Tantra .

by John G. Huntington

1. Introduction

Although divided by two closely related OpInIOns, most scholars working on the history of Buddhism resolve the issu€l of the date of the beginning of Tantra by placing either its! "origin" or its "emergence" in the seventh or eighth century,' For one substantial group of scholars, the seventh century dat~': has become tantamount to the absolute date for the "origin" <if Tantra, and suggestions of earlier Tantra meet with categoric~ rejections by them. For a second large group, perhaps even" majority of Buddhologists, it is accepted that Tantra probablyl existed prior to the seventh century, but there is not enougn;; evidence for it to be studied and it is accepted as one of those areas of human knowledge that is beyond our reach. For this: second group, suggestions of pre-seventh century Tantra meet with skeptical interest but strong reservations as to the possibility. of really knowing anything substantial about it. In effect, these; scholars also seem to deny the existence of early Tantra on thf; grounds that any possible study of it is, by definition, epis:~ temologically unacceptable. For a remaining few individualst among whom I number myself, the idea of either a sevent~, century "origin" or "emergence" is simply erroneous. Tantrf appears to these few i~dividuals to have conspiciously traceabl~.i roots even in the pre-Sakyamuni period and, from both textu~l and iconographic studies, would seem to have been integrate9/ into some aspects of Buddhism at a verly early date. "f!

It is my purpose in this article to support the position of;' the few in an epistemologically acceptable manner by bringi~g.1 to the attention of the scholarly community a Buddhist textua.l~

(0,.«,;

88

THE EARLINESS OF T ANTRA 89

~i~l;\ sage that irrefutably places fully developed Mahavairocana '"p'as ". . d k T . d" 1 . . ~;jcicle Tantra an nown antnc me ItatIOna practICes mto a i::y,leh earlier time-frame than the seventh century. :~WuThe passage in question is a devayoga mal)c;lalic meditation (1,1;'l1tained in the version of the Suvar1!aprabhiisasutra (SPS) that ~¥J)istranslated into Chinese between the third and tenth years 'i~fthe Hsuan-shih era under the Bei Liang (i.e" 414-421) and tXg6wJisted as no. 663 of the Taisho daizokyo. The passage contains ;f;~Vidence of an advanced understanding of the practices of the ~!~aficajinama1!dala from the. Mahiivairocanasutra (MVS). cy~le and ::*ceeptance of th~se practIces as seco?d n,ature. Wh~le ~t does )Iiofprove the eXIstence of the practICes m East ASIa, It does Xg6nclusively demonstrate that such practices were known in the ~¥)laee of origin of the SPS version that served as the source for (the Bei Liang translation, presumably India proper or the Indic ~ll()rthwest (specifically the Bactro-Gandharan regions or ''Kashmir) ,

J'rZThe Problem of the Seventh Century ';Emergence"

,;'\: The continuing attribution of the development of Tantra f,tgthe seventh or even eighth century seems to have originated iiriToganoo Shoun's argument based on "negative evidence", :~hatif Fa-hsien (fifth century), Hiu-shen (sixth century), and fJsuan-tsang (seventh century) did not mention the MVS, but ltsing (second half of the seventh century) did, the text had to 'baye been written in the mid-seventh century. I In his argument, toganoo ignores the fact that an Indian pa1!dita by the name ,ofPuI)yodaya (Pul)yopaya) arrived in China in 655 and tried ~o introduce Tantric texts but was prevented from doing so by ,~one other than Hsuan-tsang/ who was primarily interested in Jhe "Ideation Only", Vijiianavadin School (Fachsiang or DhariI1<llak~ana School), and who, therefore, had not even been looking for Tantric texts in India. s That the various Chinese travelers did not come across Tan,tile texts is not surprising, since the texts were (and, in formal ~Jiddhist practice, still are) part of a very conservative esoteric ~radition open only to initiates to the system. Indeed, the trad;~tional history of the Tantras states that they were transmitted


in secret fr?m the time th~y were first revealed. Thus, it WOUl~ seem that tnere would be little reason for the Chmese pilgrim': who were not specifically searching for initiation to the Tantras!; to find them, and it was only after he had become well knoWs~.c to the Tantric masters at Nalanda that I-tsing was introduce~ to them.

Another aspect ofToganoo's reasoning reflects a common11 held opinion with which I am in complete disagreement. fl' holds that, in general, very shortly after any given text wal; created, it was written down and translated into Chinese. Accord~¢ ing to him,3 the one version of the Amoghapasa-sutra (APS) whicW mentions the MVS several times and must therefore be lat~f.~ than the MSV, was in Louyang no later than 693. Moreover, hi holds the AP S to be the model for the Sarvatathagatatattvasarh~/l graha-sutra (STTSS). However, possibly unknown to Toganoo:; the great Indian teacher of Vairocana cycle Tantras, Sui' bhakarasirhha brought the illustrations for the STTSS (know~; to the academic world as the Gobushinkan from the Onjo-ji copy:! of 855) with him to China in 716. This would have compressed~: the creation of the three sutras into less than a fifty year sparl:.~~ Yet, by any measure we can discover, whether in Japan, Nepal;.; or Tibet, the esoteric teaching tradition was extremely conserva~,

. tive in the development of ritual and introduction of "neW;':' teachings. How then could the whole system have develope4: anew and spread to historically-documented locations frorn] Kashmir (where Subhakarasirhha studied the STTSS), to Sri~:i Lanka (where Amoghavajra was initiated into the MSV), ah~, from Nalanda (where Subhakarasirhha and I-tsing studieg; esoteric Buddhism) to the Konkan (where the MSV/STTSS was' practiced)-virtually all of the Indic subcontinent-in less thar{', fifty years? .,0(1'

It is my opinion that this rapid development did not occuf:; and that, in fact, there had been a very long period of develop:;. ment. My research into art and iconography suggests that T~n:;; tric systems developed very slowly, taking centuries rather tha~0 decades. For example, relative to Mahavairocana practices, I hav§:shown that specific iconographic characteristics demonstratS:· that the sixth century Aurangabad Caves numbers 6, 6A, an~; 7, very probably constitute a dual ma'f}q,ala, virtually identicalig.1! concept to the dual ma'f}q,ala of Shingon Buddhism.5 This fa~~i

;Ti


~i~tOh~ places the developme~t of th: text two centuries earlier tj;~than Toganoo's the0.ry and raIses seriOUS doubts ~bout the whole l:~idea of the East ASl~n development of the ull1~n of the tW? ~tliJindalas. Moreo~er, If,. as I beheve,.Chen Yen/Shll~gon esoterIkfisrn was tra?-smltted mtact to Chma based on sIxth c~ntury ~irtdian practICes, the. whole problem. of developmen~ m .the t&1lahiivairocana cycles IS pushed back mto a much earlIer tIme ;Ri~a.rne, the fifth or even the fourth century at the latest, with Ir~uch "proto" ~airocana cycle development having had to take ;:;place even earlIer. .,;".

;~~:{ ::~ "

~iiI. The "MaIJ<;lala" of the SuvarIJaprabhasa-sutra

~j~irnply stated, there is unequivocal textual evidence that the ~b~sic marpj,ala of the MVS was known in the early fifth century. ;~ven the most conservative inferences to be drawn from the ~Vidence that will follow demand thatthe MVS itself be assigned ~::~ early fourth century date. And, 1 insist, based on internal .i;~~idence of the marpc!alas in the texts, that there is at least a i~frong possibility that it might be earlier, even much earlier. 6

::rrhe version of the Suvarrpaprabhasottamaraja-sutra (SPS) that was \frrst translated into Chinese between the third and tenth years ~6fHsiian Shih (414-421) under the Northern Liang by Dhar{mak~ema7 contains an unmistakable meditation in (1 emphasize \:iri,not on) a marpc!ala. While most of the sutra is a lengthy polemic jipnthe benefits that will accrue to an earthly king who supports 1'~uddhism and the teachings of the sutra by virtue of the protect~ion of the four heavenly kings (lokapala) , the sutra's primary ;~uddhological content is the universality of Sakyamuni, in which (~is life is said to be eternal,8 In the introduction to Chapter 2, .While the Bodhisattva Mahasattva Sraddhaketu is meditating on ;~the length of life of the Buddha Sakyamuni, his house becomes ;yast, extensive, made oflapis lazuli, adorned with treasures, and ~there appear four divine seats and on those seats appear, in the ~east Ak~obhya, in the south Ratnaketu, in the west Amitayus '~nd in the north (?)-susabda [Divyadundubisvara]. Then the ~uddhas of the four directions impart their esoteric knowledge :(about the length of Sakyamuni's life) to him through medita~ional means. 9


To anyone knowledgeable about the maTJqalas of the MVS' and the STTSS, this arrangement and apparent sequence ofth i meditation is immediately familiar. Th,e house was transformed into the palace of the "eight-petalled lotus hall," the Buddha~ are essentially the tathagatas of the maTJqala of Mahavairocan and, true to still current medjtational practices, the practitioner-a, in this case the Bodhisattva Sraddhaketu, is to envision himself' in the center of the ma?:ujala-identical to Vairocana-wherehei receives the "offering" of the jiiiina of the Buddhas. 1o The whole' passage in question reads as follows:

At <?ne time, in Rajag-rha, therewas a Mahasattva Bodhisattvi{ named Sraddhaketu who had done many good deeds. He won_if dered why Sakyamuni Buddha's life span was so short that he' <;>nlylived for eighty years. The Mahasattva remembered that' Sakyamuni Buddha had said that there were two virtues that! give long life spans. The first virtue was not to kill anything and); the second one was to give food to others. [Yet, during his form~t lives], Sakyamuni Buddha had obtained many virtues. He did:: not kill anything and also gained th~ ten virtues. He gave unlim_i,' ited public food and even satisfied beings with his own flesh and!; blood. [Therefore, how could it be that his life span was so lim~; ited?] The Mahasattva prayed. At that instant, the floor of th~/t room he was in suddenly became filled with gems and,as in\ buddhalwtras, the room became filled with clouds of fragrance;t From the four walls, there appeared the four Buddhas; Ak~obhya on the east, Ratnaketu on the south, Amitayus on th~~ west and (?)-susabda (Ch. Wei-miao-sheng, "Torrent of Excellent Sound") on the north. [The fo~r Buddhas] radiated great' light over Rajag-rha, the three thousand great chiliocosms, and) all buddha~etras in all directions. At that time, because of the' [four] Buddhas' divine power, the people in the three thousand;; great chiliocosms gained heavenly happiness; and, even those;i, possessing not a single virtue, attained all virtues. All the benefits',; of the world were distributed. The Mahasattva, seeing the four i

Buddhas, piously made anjalimudrii and prayed to them. He asked; the four Buddhas, why, if Sakyamuni Buddha possessed innuni-' erable virtues, did he live only eighty years? They said, "Y0l,l} should not concern [literally "stick"] yourself with this question:~: Have you not seen that no one can tell the life span of a Buddh~.;; except for the Buddhas themselves?"ll"

It will be noted that the names for the Buddhas of the ma1!dala c-;


~gf~~e SP S ar~ slightly different from those of either the MVS 1Cjits compamon, the STTSS, but they are close enough that ~::'fhe~e can be no error in _rec?gnizin~ the intention of represent':iiig the mandala of Mahavalrocana III the SPS.12 ?'J'",i, '

:~~heSPS.has: yt:',DirectIOn: t,~J!:':,,-, Center '!~f;;";

;i;:,< East ~:;; .. 'South

i~i': West '::; _,~<, ':: ~'.N orth ~'l»<. . ...

~fr'heMVS has: 1,rCenter ,ii' ..... East t:':( South r~:::{~;,,:: ;:: ~ ~

!~i};;~. :a~~~ :'/:'~;-:'<,:

Chinese: Sanskrit: (practitioner [Sraddhaketu] identical to Vairocana)

A-ch'uA Ak~obhya Pao-hsiangB Ratnaketu

Wu-liang-shouC Amitayus Wei-miao-shengD (?)-susabda

Pi-lu-che-naE

Pao-ch'uangF

K'ai-fu-hua-wan( Wu-liang-kuang Tien-ku-Iei-yinI

l~l1~STTSS has: t,i\\')

Vairocana Ratnadhvaja

Samkusumitaraja Amitabha

Divyadundubhimeghanirgho~a

\r:i:': Center ii;:~:~:« Eas t ~Jt,:':/' ~lS!; South l.~f.i West i?/' ;'North :Vi

Pi-lu-che A-ch'u

Pao-sheng] Shih -tzu -tsai -wangK

Pu-k'ung-cheng-chiuL

Vairocana Ak~obhya

Ratnasambhava Lokesvarraraja Amoghasiddhi

1R't.first reading, these names may not seem to be very closely !:t~l~ted. However, both Divyadundubhimeghanirgho~a, "Voice \1~fthe Divine Kettle Drum Cloud", and Wei-miao-sheng, "Torir~Iltof Excellent Sound", convey essentially the same meaning, f~nd both refer to the teaching nature of Amoghasiddhi. K'ai-fu',hua-wang or Samkusamitaraja, "Ruler of the Blossoming ¥l?wer", is an explanation for the nature of Ratnasambhava, !j',~em (or Treasure) Born", who demonstrates the ability of the \ipdividual to practice as a monk, which is symbolized by the .. wetaphor of rebirth on a newly opening lotus blossom. And, in itheSukhavatfvyiiha-siitras, Lokesvararaja is the. name of the .;~uddha before whom Dharmakara, the youth who was to be.)some Amitayus/Amitabha, took the vows which were to lead to theprediction of his Buddhahood, and is thus a direct reference

")-,


to Amitabhal Amitayus. Given this i~formati~n, it is easy to recog); nize that the alternate names are sImply epIthets of the familiar Buddhas of the marpjala and that aC,tually there are no real discrepancies. ,S

The description of Sraddhaketu's room, the p~sition of th~< four Buddhas, and their imparting knowledge to Sraddhaketu i

in unison parallels the imparting of the jiiana of the four Bud: dhas to the initiate in the Shingon ritual. In the Shingon ritual' the initiate, dressed as Vairocana and seated before a ma'fJ4ala:. has the water (symbolizing their respective jiiana) from the four' subsidiary vases of the ma'fJdala poured into the central vasf which is, in turn, emptied over the initiat~'s hea~, thu~ imparting'; the knowledge from the four Buddhas dIrectly mto hIm. Indeed;' the meditation in the SPS is so close to being identical to tht practice of the Mahiivairocana that the SP S could not have been3 written without knowledge of it. Regrettably, the details of th~> ma'fJdala are not spelled out, so it is not possible to determine; just how close to the detailed Shingon version of the ma'fJ4aldi~ the SPS ma'fJdala really is. However', that is the nature of refe~iiil ences to maw/alas in Buddhist literature, where they are fr~:~ quently referred to by just naming the progenitor (Jirya) or,att the most, a few of the central deities. . ..... i ..

What we are left with is the problem of the earliness of th~"! Vairocana cycle. Since the ma'fJdala of Vairocana is mentioned: in the Bei Liang version of the SPS, it must be assumed thati knowledge of the ma'fJdala pre-existed the formulation of th~f;: version of the SP S and that by the time of the formulation of; the SPS the meditational practice had already become so wei!,; accepted that its inclusion was meaningful to at least the commu:Zf nity of monks in which the SP S was formulated. Thus, assumi~gi that the SPS had at least a modest history during which it gain~q~ importance and acceptance before being taken off to Chinait~!

. be translated (see my comments above), we can chart the history: of the concept of the SPS ma'fJdala as follows:;;:

Bei Liang translation 414-421

I ;,>~

minimum of about fifty year~,g;

Formulation of SPS version (mid 4th century) (man,rjala in accepted practice)

minimum of about fifty years~;J ,:~,Ui

THE EARLINESS OFT ANTRA 95

. I formulation of Vairocana manqala text (early 4th century)

(some sort of "proto-Mahavairocanasutra?)

I minimum of about fifty years?

. formulation of Vairocana meditations (mid-third century)

I minim urn of abou t fifty years?

"Core concepts" (probably much earlier but

early third century at the latest)

While this proposed date will be an anathema to some, for !.bthers it simply falls into a pattern of accumulating evidence ,i\fdtan increasingly earlier date for Tantra. 13 One real problem !i:f9rthe study of the earliness of the literature of Tantra is that i;'t~~versions of the texts that we have are not early but are rather ii'1~t~. But, as anyone who has worked on the MVS knows, it is ~\Z9?~iously a great compilation of concepts and ideas, some of litM~ presumably belonging to remote antiquity. I do not pro!~1p8se to suggest here that the MVS, intact, as we know it from ':lle~ghth century translations into Chinese, existed in the third or \!~Rllrth century. On the contrary, while I do think that the origin Iffofthe MSV is much earlier than the seventh century date pro~'~8sed by Toganoo (discussed above), I argue that the circa fifth !/Q[sixth century text presently known is an outgrowth of com~:pg£ltions and "accretions" that spanned centuries. Initially there :.~eresets of not necessarily related practices which, in turn, had J!~~en developed from diverse "core concepts" of vastly greater ,:~:0,<:f" ,:.: ~ •

!:~EtlqUlty. !~:i/~ .. That this development took place is demonstrable even from ;\t~eMSV ma'fJriala of the Mahiivairocana itself. It is generally i:.g~epted that there is a sequence of development to the Tantric stlityrature consisting of the MVS, followed by the Amoghapasasiltra iY(Which mentions the MVS several times), followed by the Tatt-,l:~i::::" \;:~~(],'l'(tgrahasiltra.14 However, in the MVS ma'fJriala, the :}~odhisattva Amoghapasa figures prominently in the quarter of ~~v£llokitesvara.15 Presumably, he was added after the formula,~tt9nof his Amoghapafasutra and therefore long after the formu;~.~tlon of the "core" or "basic" MVS. While the MVS must await f'~;~etailed analysis before its layers may be understood, I think ~t~~et it is appropriate to insist that it is unrealistic to see it as a :lm.onolithic entity with a discrete point of origin. Simply put, it z:t?\,;;~;,


makes much more sense to understand a long period of develop_': ment and to expect a layering of accretions to the text. Such view of the literature would solve many problems.

If such a view is accepted, then it'is possible to accOUnt fa the mid-second century image of a Buddha attended-it har been arg~e.d-by PadmapaI).i and Va}rapaI).i,_ an identifYini, charactenstIC of the MVS, found at Ahlcchattra. 16 Dated in th '. year 32 of the Ku~aI).a era (about 152 C.E.), it would be icono~. graphically problematic in the extreme if the whole concept of~' the particular esote~ic trinity is den,~ed un;,il the s_ev~nth century .. ' However, by acceptmg the Idea of proto -MahavaIrocana cycle) practices in Buddhism, the figure falls into a pattern of the earlyJ development and existence in the Mathura region of several recognizable cults of Buddhism. Moreover, if it is a~cepted for. what I think it is, a trinity of a Buddha (presumably Sakyamuni/.:; Vairocana) with PadmapaI).i and VajrapaI).i Bodhisattvas as at-; tendants, it is archaeological evidence that at least the "core:. concept" of Mahavairocana cycle practices in Buddhism had. even earlier origins than the second century date of the stone image. While it is not widely known by art historians, thereis! an early literary tradition in Buddhism that refers to the making; of images in a variety of materials, except, however, monolithic' stone. 17 Accordingly, although the date of the image of ca. 152 C.E. is tentative pending the final resolution of the date of the, Ku~aI).a era, its existence in stone suggests a relativley long tra.-< dition of making such images in other materials before it was' appropriate to translate it into monolithic stone. i .

How old was this tradition? I am convinced that the artistiC' record will demonstrate a pervasive presence of Tantric, of' perhaps "proto Tantric" methodologies having "emerged" in< the second century B.C.E. At that point, it is not too much of. an act of faith to suggest that the Atharvavedic prototypes of Tantra did indeed have real significance in early Buddhism and. in the formulation of early Buddhist Tantra.

IV. Conclusions

It is surprising that this passage on the four tathagatasof' the mar],qala has gone unnoticed until now. What it does for

THE EARLINESS OFT ANTRA 97

~ii';ifantric. studies" is to provide a text~al basis for insisting ~hat !, .. ;,·,,{:;· •. o.··.riglll of Tantra was much earlIer than the usually Cited '\J,e " " Ob' I . h' ~~(()~nth century emergence. . VlOUS y, smce t IS text was i~;,~~\islated between 414 and 421 and contained this information ~\;~~~at time; the "origin of the Mahavairocana mafJdala per se

~~tl.clto be earlier tha~ that.. Since ~he ~PS cannot be later than i~J6prth ~entury, . yet It ob~lOusly Imphe~ that the .mafJ~ala of ;t)!Maha.valrocana IS already m well estabhshed practICe, It must ~'b~that the MSV or at least the "core" ideas for it were in existence ,:rlilJater than the early fourth century and probably earlier.

"x /<' ',-~ i-f< ;j,""',-«

\""

~0~;r:}X:: ::,

...... ~., 1. Toganoo Shoun, Himitsu bukkyo-shi [History of Esoteric Buddhism] ~{(J{~oto: 1933), 17. There is a~ple reas?n to ~~lieve that I-tsing would have .;been introduced to the esotenc Tantnc tradItIOn whereas others who had ~{g'bpe before him rr:ight not have had th: opportunity. He stayed at. Nalanda i'Jorten years, certamly long enough to wm the confidence of a Tantnc master. i';i:!6f~n English version of this widely accepted theory, see M. Kiyota, Shingon i:':!lliiildhism: Theory and Practice, (Los Angeles and Tokyo: 1978) 19-20. '(';:,1/;" 2. See K. Ch'en, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey (Princeton: 1964) :;!~2. \/ij;)/;,i( 3~ Ibid. pp. 19-20. l'ii,,(, 4. A full analysis of the texts will demonstrate that there are actually iC~Ih~ny problems with this, especially since the Amoghapasa-dhiiranisutra (T. 1096, ffJt;apslated by Li Wu-ch'an in c.E. 700) has a full ma1JlJala cycle of its own, one \,Which is clearly an outgrowth of the system of secondary ma7Jqalas of individual "deiti~s that grew up around the deities in the various quarters of the ~?Mahavairocana-sutra . {,J·. 5. See my "Cave Six at Aurangabad; A Tantrayana Monument?" in ';#aliidarfana: American Studies in the Art of India, J.G. Williams (ed.) (New Delhi, ~ombay and Calcutta: 1981) 47-55.

';::.. 6. I hope to produce a comparative study of certain Buddhist and other ~!,pfoto-Buddhist" mawjalas demonstrating my arguments on this point in the ,relatively near future. 'l< 7. T. 663; K 1465. ~," 8. T. 663, Chapt. 2.

:,'\,';",!, :It 9. T. 663, p. 326, A. .. ' 10. Ryujun Tajima. Deux grands ma7Jqalas et La doctrine de l'esoterisme Shin

ffo~,(Tokyo: 1959) 170-172. ;;... 11. See footnote 8. I wish to express by gratitude to my student Yin-fen ·~Hung for her preliminary draft of the translation; however, the final transla:'j;,tion and any faults it may contain are my responsibility.


12. It is not relevant to the thesis of this article whether any of the I ..... . . . 'j N . h J N b I ater verslOnsoftheSPShaveslmlarnamesornot. elt er. 0 e ,Suvarnabh- ,'.

tamasutra, Das Goldglanz-Sutra, ein Sanskrittext des Mahiiyana-Buddhism~ (L~ot::. zig: _1937); Suv~r1Jabhas~ttam~utra, pas Goldglanz-Sutra, ein .. Sanskrittext Xl: Mahayana-Buddhzsmus, Du tzbztzschen Ubersetzungen mzt eznem Worterbuch, 2 vo( (Leiden and Stuttgart: 1944 and Leiden: 1950); and Suvar1Jabhiisottamasut s'" Das Goldglan~-Sutr.a, ein Sanskrittext des M~hiiyana-Buddhismus, I-tsing's chinesis::;' Verszon und zhre. Ubersetzung, 2 vols. (Lelden: 19~9) nor R.~. Emmerick (The!; Sutra of Golden Lzght (London: 1970)) have dealt wIth the earlIest extant Chine ;, version in any detail. However, it is only the Bei Liang version that presen;e; the necessary documentation of the early mawiala. Accordingly, in this articl~;] no notice is taken of alternate r~adings and expanded sections that exist i~ the later versions. y

13. See, for example, A. Wayman's arguments for the date of tht GuhyasamaJatantra in his Yoga of the GuhyasamaJatantra: The Arcane Lore of For~'; Verses (Delhi: 1977) 97-99. ,

14. Kiyota, op. cit., 23-24. 15. Ryujun Tajima, op. cit., 87-89. , .• 16. For the trinity from Ahichattra, see S.L. Huntington withJ.C. Hun?'

tington, The Art of Ancient In.dia: Buddhist, Hindu and Jain (Tokyo: 1985) 153-155. '"j

17. I have dealt at length with these traditions concerning early images' elsewhere. See "Origin of the Buddha Image, Early Image Traditions and .. the Concept of Buddhadarsanapu1Jya", in Studies in Buddhist Art of South Asia,'; A.K. Narain (ed.) (New Delhi: 1985) 24-58. For a specific list of materials see, L. Hurvitz, trans., Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (T!{~;' Lotus Sutra) (New York: 1976) 39.·"1

List of Significant Characters

~{[he Inscription on the Ku~an Image of ~~1nitabha ~nd th~ Character of the Early ~i;Mahayana In IndIa

~H Gregory Schopen i'"),,,

. In August, 1977, an inscribed image pedestal was recovered Y¥;()m Govindnagar, on the western outskirts of Mathura City, I :r\vhich made available for the first time Indian epigraphical evi)d~nce for the early phases of that "movement" which we have i:tbme to call "the Mahayana." The inscription contained an un;~~mbiguous reference to the Buddha Amitabha and what appears /i'iobe an early form of the donative formula invariably associated f~~ith the Mahayana in later inscriptions (see below p.120). It ;'~lso contained a precise date: "the 26th year of the Great King tIIuve~ka." Assuming that 78 A.D. marked the beginning of the ~!<:ani~ka Era, this would give 104 A.D.2 <~",;;The significance of this find is clear if it is kept in mind ",that the earliest known occurrences of the term mahayana in ;iridian inscriptions all date to the 5th/6th century: one from 8;,ullaighar, in Bengal, dated 506 A.D., one from Jayarampur, :liiOrissa, ascribed to the 5th or beginning of the 6th century~i;~9th of which also refer to Avalokitdvara-and a fragmentary ))1scription from Ajama.3 The earliest known epigraphical refer~e,p:ce to Amitabha prior to the Govindnagar inscription occurred fin a fragmentary slab inscription from Sand which Majumdar :~~ted to the end of the 7th century, and even here the reference ;i~ not to an independent image of Amitabha but occurs in what appears to have been an extended hymn of praise to Avalokitd,~ara.4 Moreover, the "classical" Mahayana donative formula oc.~u, rrednowhere before the 4th/5th century.s At Mathura itself

;},i

99

100 JIABSVOL.IONO.2

the terr~ Mahay~na ~oe~ not occur. at all, and, a~ain prior td: the Govmdnagar m~c~lptlOn, the earlIest Mathuran mscription~L' reference t? a Mahayana figure that w.e ~new occurred in a 5th century epigraph and was to Avalokitesvara. 6 At Mathura .••.. everywhere else, the earliest occurrence of the Mahayana d;n::, tive formula cannot be dated before the 4th/5th century. Th' Govindnagar inscription therefore predates anything else thai· we had for "the Mahayana"-whether from Mathura or from: India as a whole-by at least two or three centuries. . .•..•...

Happily, the importance of the Govindnagar inscription' was almost immediately recognized and it was quickly pUblished. by H. Nakamura, B.N. Mukherjee, and by R.e. Sharma more than once. 7 Several art historians also were quick to utilize it:: J.C. Huntington, on several occasions, J. Guy and SJ. Czuma have all referred to it as evidence for their individual arguments.B' I myself have discussed it very briefly in terms of its relationship to the "classical" Mahayana donative formula. 9 ".

Unhappily, the two most widely and'easily available editions: of the inscription differ markedly at crucial points. Neither is'~ altogether reliable and bot~ are in different w~ys .misleading.f. A good deal of the second hne and both the begmnmg and end of the fourth line, are-along with individual a'k.aras elsewhere'::~ not well preserved, but neither Mukherjee nor Sharma is very' careful in indicating this. Sharma in particular has made a number of silent "corrections" and emendations in his text ot the inscription. Mukherjee does this as well, but in addition h~i omits syllables, and in one case an entire word, from his text..; These silent "corrections," emendations and omissions have,6f... course, misled on occasion those who have used either editio~r· myself included. But the sometimes misleadiIfg editions account: only in part for the fact that several scholars have tried to geK: out of the inscription much more than is in it, and have over~:;' looked much of what it actually contained. This, it seems, is~, result of the fact that the inscription has not been read and: interpreted in anything like its proper context. At the very leasf'

. it has to be read as a piece of Ku~an epigraphy and evaluated and interpreted in comparison with other Ku~an inscriptions: from Mathura, as well as contemporary or near contemporary: inscriptions from-especially-Gandhara, and other Buddhis( sites. il.

Before the inscription can be properly evaluated, therefore;

THE AMIT ABHA INSCRIPTION 101

~i'.j:/. th'I'ngs are required: the text it contains must be reliably ;~itWO . ~f'~aited; and the te.xt th~n must be fixed firmly m the cont~xt ?f ::ftlie other BuddhIst epIgraphs t~at are contemporary_wIth ~t, it"d both preceded and followed It, not only at Mathura, but m :~t&ndhara and at the other Indian Buddhist sites as well. I have ~\lfieDlpted to do both here. . ;s;~:::f<X.-

~~fF {r "

:::::~t:: ',~~k, My edition of the inscription is based on both the published mJhotographslo an~ on a set of pho~ographs taken by my col~leaglleJohn H~ntmgt?n who very km~ly sent t~em to me an~, ~thereby, made It pOSSIble for me to dIsagree wIth some of hIS ~:c~nclusions. My edition is-in part as a reaction to those already ~r~llblished-a conservative one. I have tried to avoid "reconstruc:tions" or emendations unless there was very strong support from tiIffiown parallels. This has resulted in something less than a :~"perfect" text, but it is, in compensation, a text which I hope is )!a.t1east an accurate reflexion of what remains on the stone and ~6f}\rhat can legitimately be taken as certain. ,\)\;;\,:1" '

!'\~I The Text: p. .L. 1 mah(ii)rajasya huv~~kas[y}a (sar(L) 20 6 va 2 di 20 6 '/' "\,

~'~t;L. 2 (etaye pu[r}vaye) sax-cakasya satthavahasya P[i}t[-x](rp)[-x} . 'balakattasya sre~(hasya niittikena ;'t;~: L. 3 buddha(pi)la(na) putra(rp)a niigara~itena bhagavato bud:;4¥Sya amitiibhasya pratimii prati~th( ii )Pi[tii](. . .) ~~j' L. 4 [Sa](rva)buddhapujiiye im(e)na k(u)salam(u)lena ;,~ar(va)(sat)[v}ii anut(t)ara(r(L) bud( dh)ajniinar(L prii(pnva)r(L(tu)(. . .)

::N6tes to the Text ".e(These "notes," in fact the rest of section II, may be skipped ~by those few readers who are not particularly interested in the <paleography or the minutiae of Indian Epigraphy. It is here, ;"~owever, that I justify my reading of the inscription and indicate "JJllY understanding of its grammar.)

if: M reads the king's name as Huvash(ka)s(ya), SII as Huvi~kasya, ;:-:: , Y;';;'"

~\:~>:: f~<':1: :


but there ca~ be l.ittl.e d?u~t that t~e se~ond ~10ara is -ve-. l'h~~ a10ara in our mscnptlO~ IS. vIrtually IdentICal wIth the ~k:)ara read' by Luders as -ve-: agam m .. the name of th: same kIng, in Mi' No. 180. There m fact Luders says of thIS a~ara that it \,i'i distinctly -ve-" (p. 206 _n.2; cf. MI.No. 176 and EI, pI. I (Li~~; No. 125, from Mathura), both -vedzka). The -y- of -sya has bee'; lost where a bit of stone has been chipped off.~!

Although indistinct the ~an:t. is fairly sur~ and-althought at first re~d 20 8-the 20 6 IS vIrtually certam (cf. esp. MI NO~(i 72 and OJha pI. LXXI, top column 3).\:

. M. reads the month as (va)4. Though somewhat faintth~; va is sure, but M's 4 is unsupportable. S, oddly enough, doe~;~ not read any number at all after va in his edition, althoughhis'~ translation "of the second month" presupposes a 2. In fact.~ though faint, a numeral 2 after va is fairly sure.)\

, //

Line 2

The first part of line 2 is difficult to read. As a result of th~\; fact that the stone has been rounded off the upper portion 6[ the first six or eight a~aras has been lost, as well as the vow~( signs for several other a~aras in the line. Numerous parallell! from Mathura would lead us to expect, immediately after th~ date, something like etasyan:t purvvayam (MI No. 15), asyan:t p~~.} vayyam (MI No. 30), etasa purvaya (MI No. 150), etc. S reads' etasya purvaya, but the conjunct -sya occurs four times in this' line and a comparison of the third a~ara in the line with any, of these makes it virtually certain that it cannot be that. M's ~et is much more likely. It is virtually certain that the following' a~ara is pu-, not pu-. As a close parallel for my (etaye puroaye) MI No. 182-etaye purvay[eJ-may be cited. ,.,.r

The next four a~aras, which appear to constitute the fir§X proper name, are relatively sure except for the second whichi~ a conjunct. S reads satvakasya, but his -tva-, as a glance at the' numerous instances of that conjunct in Ku~an inscriptions ~t Mathura would indicate, is extremely unlikely. The bottom por:! tion is almost certainly -c-, the upper portion could be any of several letters -r},t,n- but almost certainly not -n-. M reai sancha(? )kasya. It appears impossible to interpret the a~ara sati~:' factorily in its present state. ;1

M's reading of the next five a~aras as satthavahasya, seems-?

THE AMITABHA INSCRIPTION 103

~;l;~:irt from the long a after v-sure (cf. EHS 68). S's sarthavahasya @~/o:Snot correspond with what can be rea~ on the .stone, e.spe~~a.Ilyfo~ th~ se~ond of these a~aras, and IS essentIally a sIlent j,i"Qrrnahzatl0n. ~i&l\The next three a~aras are very problematic. In additon to fR~fact that virtually all vowel markers that would have occurred ~fbove the a~aras have been rounded off, the stone on which :iffi~second and third of these a~aras are written is both abraded :';~fidchipped. There appears to be a trace of an i-matra on the "~r~takl'ara, but it is far from certain. Neither S's pautreyta nor ~M's pitriyta is verifiable, but we would expect here the instrumentalof a term of relationship. Pitrna, which is attested in literary jiO)1fCeS, is possible and might be reconciled with what remains 6Elhe a~aras (BHSG para. 13.38), but pitryta in epi;graphical sources has generally been interpreted as gen. pI. (EHS 118-19). ';".My reading of the remainder of line 2 agrees with M. S's ik(i)rtasya sres.thisya nattikena does not correspond with what is ftI~arly readable in the photographs. '~j ;\ .. ,

:~:~~i1'; :19'iLine 3. !];/The first two syllables of line 3 are fairly surely buddha- but J.vertical groove has been worn right through the middle of the third a~ara. Enough remains of this a~ara to suggest a p"Mth what appears to be a fairly distinct i-matra. Then follows a UlSvithout-as far as I can see-any vowel matra, which is followed In turn by what appears to be (na). If, as seems to be the case, thIS is yet another proper name, it has no case ending. S reads .b~dl1ha balena, but that the fourth a~ara is not -le- is clear iEit is compared with the certain -le- in the middle of the next line. Moreover we would expect a gen. here not an inst. M in fact has read a gen., buddhabalasya, but he seems to query it, and ;t~itt the fifth a~ara is -sya is extremely unlikely, as a comparison Fith the numerous clear instances of -syain our inscription will show. ;',Similar difficulties are also encountered in the next word. §Teads putreyta, but I can see no e-matra after -tr-, although the l~st syllable could be read -yte. M reads putrayta, but this, like my putra(yt)a, creates grammatical problems. We should expect here, of course, an inst.

104 ]IABSVOL.IONO.2

Fortunately, the rest of line 3 is clear. M reads the dono ,: name as Samraksh(i)tena, but this is wrong. Nagara~itena is c:r~ tain and so S has read it.

M omits -sya after buddha-, but this probably resulted fro a slip of the pen. It is very clear in the photographs. Itt?

M has assumed that the -pi of prati-1th(a)pi[taj was the last a~ara written in line 3. He reads the first extant a~ara of lin~ 4 then as -tao But this, as we shall see, is not possible. S assUllles' on the other hand, that at least one syllable. has been lost at th~} end of line 3 a~d reads prati.<jthaPi{t~). The Ill.tende? reading is, of course, not III doubt. That a -ta III fact or IlltentlOn followed prati.<jth(a)Pi- is virtually certain (cf. MI Nos. 4, 23, 27, 29, 74 94, etc.). What is not certain is if more than one a~ara has bee~; lost at the end of line 3. This is compounded by the fact that at least one syllable also seems to have been lost at the beginning of line 4.

Line 4. The fourth and final line presents a number of difficulties,"

and the readings ofM and S differ markedly. Both the beginning and end of the line are damaged, the corners of the base appar, ently having again gotten rounded off and the stone somewhat abraded. The bottom portion of several a~aras has also been lost by the same process. It is not certain whether line 4 begati with the first extant a~ara. In fact, there are some indications that at least one syllable has been lost at the beginning of the: line. To judge from what remains of the inscription, each line began more or less at the same distance from the edge of the· stone-although line 1 may have been slightly. indented. The first ak-1ara of each line appears to have been written more or less directly beneath the first a~ara of the line immediately above it. If this had been the case for line 4 as well, it would appear very likely that one a~ara has disappeared. M has ignored this possibility, as well as the possibility that one or more a~aras have been lost at the end of line 3. He reads the first extant ak-1ara of line 4 as ta and takes it as the final syllable of the prati.<jth(a)Pi- which now ends line 3. But this is not just problematic in terms of the likelihood of syllables having been: lost both at the end of line 3 and at the beginning of line 4; it is. also problematic from a strictly palaeographic point-of-view.


~~~?he 'ahara in questior: cann~t po~siJ:ly be .ta. Seve~aI very clear ~~ekarnpleS of -t- occur ~n our mscnptlOn, wIth a v~nety o~ vowel i~;"~triis, and a companson of the first akJara of hne 4 wIth any )f,Nf'.these cle~rly rul~s it out. In fact it is virtually certain that t?is ;J(fi' st aharals a conjunct. The lower part of the akJara looks lIke

f If l'd" h 'd If h b f h " " ;}.wiRornan V at on Its ng· t SI e. t e ottom 0 t e v were ~!~iear1y closed to for~ a triangle-this is not perfectly clear in :r~ihephotographs-thls could only be taken ~s.a Brahml v._ Th~ 'i{likelihood that the lower part of our akJara IS mdeed a Brahml ;Tv is supported in fact by a number of considerations. On at least t{hvo other occasions-in (purvaye) in line 2; in bhagavato in line ,3--our scribe has written his v in much the same way. In these "'ihstances, too, what should be the right leg of the triangle, if it i;jphere at all, is not at all strongly cut (this is especially the case in the Huntington photos). Oddly enough the upper part of ~our ahara also confirms the strong likelihood that the lower ;cpart is a v. It cannot easily be anything else than a superscribed I'.;r-, and our scribe uses exactly the same, somewhat distinctive, >iform of superscribed -r- when he attaches it-again to v-in the ;da.rnaged but certain sarva-Iater in this same line. A very similar cform-again attached to v-can be seen in at least two other i'JIlscriptions from Mathura dated in Huvi~ka's reign (MI Nos. ?:3Land 126). ,', If, however, the first extant akJara of line 4 is rva-and this :'seems fairly sure-then it is equally sure that this cannot be the ;beginning of the first word of the line. Something had to have ;preceded it either in this line or at the end of line 3, and this '1sjust one more indication that at least one or more syllables have been lost. If numerous parallels from Mathura allow us to ,b~fair1y sure that one of these lost syllables was the final ta of .prat4th(a)pi[ta}, other but equally numerous parallels allow us • t() be equally sure of what another of those syllables was.

.... There is no doubt about the five akJaras that follow (rva) in line 4. They can only be read as -buddhapuJaye, although both M and S read -pu-. With the virtual certainty that at least one syllable-and probably more-came before (rva) we would then " have: x( rva )buddhapuJaye. Just this ill uch makes it virtually certain that the intended reading was some form of a formula that ?ccurs in at least nine Kharo~thl inscriptions l2 and, more impor-

:tantly, in at least eight other inscriptions from Mathura. The


formula occurs assarva[pjuddhapujart[thja[mj inM1 No. 29 (dated; in the 51st year of Huvi~ka); as sarvabudhapujaye in M1 No. 80 (classified by Luders as K~atrapa); as sarvabudhap(u)[ja](y)e in M1 No. 86 (also classified by Luders as' ~~atrapa); it also occurs in M1 No. 89 (which Luders classifies as Sunga) as savabudhanarn pujaya; as sa[rjva(bu)[dhajpucaye in M1 No. 123 (dated in th~ 270th year of an unspecified era but again classified by LUders as K~atrapa); as [sajrvabuddhapujaye in MI No. 157 (dated in the 16th year of Kani~ka); as sarvabudhapujaye in M1 No. 187; and as savabudhapujaye in an inscription recen'tly discovered at Vrin~ daban. The same basic formula also occurs as savabudhanam pujaye in an inscription from KausambI "in Brahm! characteis of about the first century A.D.;" as savabudhapujaya in a Brahmi inscription from Nasik; and as sarvabudhiinan; pujatham in a 1st century inscription from Sravastl. 13

These parallels indicate that the formula sarvabuddhapujaye had a wide geographic distribution in the; first centuries of the Common Era and that it was an attested set phrase in Mathuran inscriptions both before our inscription (in perhaps both the Sunga and K~atrapa periods, and in the 16th year ofKani~ka.) and shortly after it (in the 51st year of Huvi~ka). This frequent' and attested occurrence of the formula at Mathura, taken to:: gether with the still extant a~aras in our inscription, makes it virtually certain that a sa- in fact or intention preceded the (rvaf at the beginning of line 4, and that the whole should be recon~ structed as [saj(rva)buddhapujaye. S, too, reads sarva at the beginning of the line-(sarva) buddha pujaye- but he does so with no indication of the problems involved and without any supportive argument. This is not only methodologically unacceptable, but in regard to this particular formula it is especially unsatisfactory. The presence of this formula in our inscription is-as we shall see-extremely important for what it can tell us about the early history of that "movement" we now call "the Mahayana." .

The three a~aras that follow [sa](rva)buddhapujaye are, apart from the vowel matra of m-, clear and unproblematic. M's (1)1mtna· is at least in part almost certainly the result of a printing error; i.e., t for e; but his (I) and his capitalization are inexplicable.S reads imena and this is undoubtedly correct although the e-matrii of m- is not absolutely sure, especially on the Huntington photo-' graphs. . ..


-M and S read the next six aks,aras in exactly the same way "cept in regard to the length of the -u attached to m-. S read ~as short, M as long. In fact theu-matra here-as well as in the ~ase of the k- which begins this collocation-is simply not clear. In both cases the u-matra would have occurred beneath the ~Maras in places which have now been chipped or rounded off.

Both M and S read the next two aks,aras as sarva. The sa- is ~ure and the following aks,ara, though damaged, is almost certainly -rva-. It has almost exactly the same upper portion as the ifirst extant aks,ara of the line, the same elongated vertical stroke i~ridthe same-though slightly shorter-horizontal top bar, here sandwiched between the bottoms of two aks,aras in the line above it. The left leg and the start of the bottom stroke of a BrahmI Vare clear underneath it, but again, as with the first extant aMara of the line, little trace of the stroke that should have formed the right leg is discernible, although the stone in part has been chipped away here .

. After sa(rva)- M reads (satana) and S (satva). As the use of parentheses by both would suggest, the stone has to a large pegree peeled away here and the reading is not entirely sure. it is, however, certain that there were only two aks,aras here and lhat, as a consequence, M's (satana) is impossible. What remains 9fthe two aks,aras is fairly surely the upper part of a sa- and the tIpper part of a tao The long a-matra attached to the t is quite distinct. -(sat)[vJa can therefore be accepted with reasonable cer't~inty and this, in turn, is a reading of some significance: sar(va)(sat)[vJti can hardly be anything but the grammatical subject of this final sentence. . The next four aks,aras are almost certainly anut(t)ara(rlJ). The tight leg of the subjoined -t- in the third aks,ara has been chipped away, but enough remains to indicate its former presence. Apart from this, the only question is whether there is an anusvara after -ra. In Professor Huntington's photographs, as well as in those published by S, a dot above and slightly to the left of the -ra appears to be fairly sure, although it is not so well defined as the one above the na that occurs a few aks,aras later in this same line. Moreover, its placement to the left of the ra is easily accounted for: there is a subscribed -y- on the aks,ara immediately above the ra which takes up the space where the anusvara would normally go. Although neither S or M reads an anusvara, I think

108 ]IABSVOL.IONO.2

it probable that we must. Note that the following compound.......:: whichanuttara would modify-ends in a clear anusvara.

There are very clearly four a~arCfs after anut(t)ara(n:t). I\.f has unaccountably read only the last two. He reads only jiiiinarn .. S reads buddha jiiana'f(l, and while -jiiana'f(l is virtually certain-th~" -ii- is, however, only partially visible-the dh- of buddha-, if indeed it had been present, has all but disappeared. The collocation buddha occurs three other times in our inscription. "A comparison of our two a~aras in line 4 with these o.ther occurrences Would seem to suggest that the original reading in line 4 was bUdaonly. Note that in the other occurrences the dh- is attached to the d- in such a way that it occurs on exactly the same level as the u-matra of the preceding bu-. This was clearly not the case. here. It is, of course, not unlikely that even if the original reading was buda- this was only a scribal error for buddha-. Unfortunately there are no parallels to help us out here. The "classical" form of the formula involving anuttara-jiiana, though frequent, is much later, and apart from two exceptions there is never anything between anuttara- and -jiiana. One of the exceptions referred to occurs in an inscription on the base of a small bronze image of the Buddha from Dhanesar Khera. Smith and Hoey say that the inscription is "probably not later than A.D. 400,' and certainly not later than A.D. 500." Sircar dates it to "about' the beginning of the fifth century A.D."14 Here instead of the; "classical" anuttara-jiiana the inscription has anuttara-pada-jiiana. It is then just possible, but only that, that buda-if that was the original reading in our line 4--may have been a scribal error not for buddha-, but for pada. This, however, seems unlikely. The other exception-a 7th century inscription on a small bronze Buddha from the Terai area of Southeastern Nepal.....:..: indirectly supports the reading bud(dh)a-. It inserts not buddhac, but a comparable epithet, sarvajiia, between anuttara- and -jiiana: [a Jnuttara-sarvva-jiia-jiianavaptaye. 15

The final a~aras of the line present serious problems. There are at least three a~aras which are extant-in whole or in partafter -jiiana'f(l. It is possible that there were more: the bottom right hand corner of the front of the pedestal has been knocked. entirely off. Of the three that remain, only the first a~ara is· clearly readable, and even it is slightly damaged. Confronted

.' with this situation, we should not be surprised that the readings


::~fbo"th Sand M are conjectural. S rea?s (sra~i~a11J), but this not :;i"nly does not make any sense grammatIcally, It IS also completely .:\econcilable with what remains of the ak<jaras. A glance at ,/festhasya in line 2, or kwala- in line 4 makes it unmistakably );fIe~r that the first of our final ak<jaras cannot possibly be sra;,'6r involve a palatals in any way. Moreover, the second of these :;U,haras-however it be read-is just as dearly a conjunct. These :\~~~siderations make it certain that S's reading must be rejected. "ii1's reading-"pratp(i)m (should be praptim) (bha)(va)(tu)"-has . 'the merit of being in part at least more reconcilable with what 'remains of the ak<jaras, but it too is problematic. If-as seems !;fairly surely the case-sar(va)(sat)[vJa is the subject of the sen,'tence, then M's (bha)(va)(tu) will not work. For it to do so it Would have to be plural and we would have to have a com ple

;'Jhent that would express a state of being or condition as in, for ;~example, a 4th or 5th century inscription from Kanheri where :'\ve find: anena sarvvasatva buddha bhavantu. 16 Moreover, the last temaining ak<jara in line 4 would have to have been bha to fit M's reading, but enough remains to make it certain that it could

'hot have been that (cf. bha, twice in line 3). ..... Again, if sar(va)(sat)[vJa is subject of the final sentence of (our inscription, then anut(t)ara(11J) bud( dh)ajiiana11J would appear 'io be not nominative neuters, but accusatives, and therefore the 6bjects of a transitive verb--bud( dh)ajiiana11J as a bahuvrzhi seems very unlikely. The numerous-though later-"classical" occurences of anuttarajiiana- in Buddhist inscriptions, though always

:incompound, might also lead us to expect an accusative con.struction, although in these occurrences anuttarajiiana- is invar,ia~ constructed as the object of some form of a derivative of V,iiP in a genitive tatpuru!ia: anuttarajiianavaptaye. We would ex·pect then that the final ak<jaras of line 4 contained a transitive verb. Moreover, since our inscription most certainly does not read sarvasatvena or sarvasatvanam or the like, but almost certainly sarvasatva, we would also expect that transitive verb to be ~nite, and the Kanheri inscription just cited, as well as everything we know about the syntax of Buddhist donative inscriptions would lead us to expect further that that finite transitive verb would have been perhaps in the optative, more probably in the imperative mood. Finally, both context and the numerous later OCcurrences of anuttarajiiana would make it fairly sure that the


finite, probably imperative verb that ended our inscription w probably a derivative of the root .Viii !hese expectations ca~ be to at least some degree reconCIled wIth what remains of the aksaras. ':

.' The first of t~e final remai~ing a~aras in line 4, though' slIghtly damaged, IS almost certamly pra-. One can compare it' with prii- in MI Nos. 46, 74, 124, 133, and 178, and with th '. two occurrences of pra- in the line immediately above it. Th:' second ak)'ara-which M read as -tp(i)rh and corrected to -Ptim-is again almost certainly a conjunct, one element of which appears' to be a -p-. The anusviira, if that is .what it is, is not pl~ced directly above the ak)'ara, although there IS ample room for It there, but; above the space between the ak)'ara and the one that follows it. Only a fraction of the last ak)'ara remains. It might, but only. very conjecturally, be taken as a t-. Taken together, this would allow us to read priix-(p)-X-r(l(t)-x, which with the greatest reserve might be reconstructed as pra(pnva)r(lt(u). ,Such a reconstruction would at least conform to what remains of the ak)'aras and to both the grammatical and syntactical requirements. It would also give a good reading for what seems to be the required sense. Still, it remains very tentative, and I know of no exact parallels that would support it. 17 It must also be kept in mind that one or more ak)'aras may.have followed those that remain .. This simply cannot be determined.

III.

Although the general purport of the inscription is clear, as,: well as a good deal of its specific phrasing, there are a numbe(( of elements which are not. At least two of the proper nouns' and two of the kinship terms are unclear because the condition' of the stone does not allow for a sure reading. The same applies. to the final verb of the final sentence in our inscription. A third .•.• kinship term-niittikena-is problematic in a different way: al-\ though there is no doubt about the reading, neither its meaning'.: nor its form is well attested. IS A translation that is sure on all but these points can, however, be made:

The 26th year of the Great King Huve~ka, the 2nd month, the" 26th day. On this day by Nagarak~ita, the (father) of the trader

THE AMIT ABBA INSCRIPTION 111

(Sax-caka), the grandson of the merchant Balakatta, the (son of Buddhapila), an image of the Blessed One, the Buddha Amitabha was set up for the worship of all buddhas. Through this root of merit (may) aU living things (obtain) the unexcelled knowledge of a buddha.

l Two things are immediately clear about our inscription: it r~ontains, as I have said, both an unambiguous reference to the \"Buddha Amitabha, and an equally unambiguous and unexpec"tedly early date. Again, as I have already said, the earliest known ;'tererence to Amitabha in Indian epigraphical sources prior to i:()llrinscription occurred in a 7th century epigraph from Sanci. l'What is not so clear, of course, is what this means. Both Mukher?J~eand Sharma, for example, have seen the inscription as evi~;g~nce for the early presence of "the Dhyiinz Buddha Tradition." '~he latter, in fact, explicitly declares that "the most important ;PQint is that it [our inscription] establishes the prevalence of the tphyiinz Buddha Tradition just in the beginning of the second ;;~eIltury A.D."19 Sharma also makes clear what he means by "the ;JJhyiinz Buddha Tradition" by his frequent citations of V.S. Ag,:rawala's "Dhyanl Buddhas and Bodhisattvas"2o: he means that ;elaborately schematic construct in which the five "iidibuddhas" ~flte provided each with a corresponding bodhisattva, miinu~z"buddha, mudrii, viihana, etc., and which B. Bhattacharya has argued does not occur anywhere in the literature prior to the 8th century.2! Unfortunately, while he cites Agrawala's paper, Sharma does not cite de Mallmann's refutation of the argument j~.grawala presents there for the early existence of the dhyiinz buddha complex at Mathura. 22 This need not be surprising, however, since the points made by de Mallmann against Agrawala are equally applicable to both Sharma's and Mukherjee's remarks. The primary difficulty is that all three ignore certain facts. There is, of course, no doubt that Amitabha has an important role in "the Dhyiinz Buddha Tradition," but there is also no doubt that he had an important role as an independent figure, and there is no doubt either that his role as an independent figure was primary and continued to be primary. His role in thedhyiinz buddha complex can only be documented in late liter-


ature of a very specific and restricted kind. His role as an in de" pendent figure, however, is easily.documented from the very beginnings of Mahayana sidra lIterature, not only in the Sukhiivattvyuha but in other early texts like the Pratyutpan_ nabuddhasar(tmukhavasthitasamadhi23 and Samadhiraja 24 , as well as perhaps, the Ajitasenavyakara7j,anirdeSa. 25 These texts attest no~ only to his early independent character but also indicate that his primary association is not with the dhyanz buddha complex~ which these texts know nothing about-:-but with Sukhavati, his "buddhafield," as a place of potential 'rebirth. And these texts are almost certainly nearly contemporaneous with our inscrip_ tion. Moreover, Amitabha's role as an independent figure COlh

pletely free of any connection with "the Dhyanz Buddha Tradic tion" continues to be amply attested throughout what might be called "the middle Mahayana" period in texts like the Bhai~ajya_ guru-sutra,26 the Buddhabaladhiinapratihiirya27-'-both of which are concerned in part with the ritual use and making of images-the Karu7j,apu7j,darzka,28 the Manjusrzbuddha~etragu7j,avyuha, 29 etc. What is perhaps even more important is the fact that Amitabha's independent role continues to be primary in texts which were almost certainly written after the dhyanz buddha complex might have been articulated in at least some form. This is the case, for example, in Mahayana Avadana texts like the Rate namalavadana and the Kalpadrumavadanamala. 30 This is also the case for the Bodhigarbhiilarikarala~a, the Rasmivimalavisuddhaprabhii, the Samantamukhapravesa, the Dasa- and Saptabuddhakasutras, the Sitatapatra, etc., many of which are known by archeological and epigraphical evidence to have circulated widely until at least the 10th century.3! These texts, if they know Amitabha at all, know him as the resident Buddha of Sukhavati,' not as one of the complex of dhyanz buddhas. In fact in this late literature Amitabha, rather than gaining in importance as we might expect if the dhyanz buddha conception had had any impact, actually is mentioned less and less. The entire focus has shifted to his buddhafield, to Sukhavati itself, as a place of rebirth. Moreover, exactly the same pattern can be traced for the buddha Ak~obhya-another of the buddhas incorporated int? the dhyanz buddha complex-from the very early A~obhyavyuha sutra,32 through the whole of Middle Mahayanasutra literature,33 up to the late Sarvakarmavara7j,avisodhanz-dhara7j,z.34 From the


;!;;b~ginning, Ak~obhya was. prin:arily, in fact almost exclusively, :~J;~iindependent figure wIth hIS own buddhafield. And he re;~~~;ined so even after "the Dhyanf Buddha Tradition" had been ·.::.' . ."····t·.l·c·.ulated. 'rear ;ii~gThis is not to say that Amitabha does not occasionally appear ~;/i!~one of a "group" of buddhas in Middle Mahayana sidra liter~~tllre. He-like Ak~obhya-does, but these "appearances" occur !'}fa part of what appears to be no more than a set narrative t~i~e~ice. In this. set narrative. piece, buddhas from various ,?ud;i'~~afields-thelr number vanes but they commonly have a direci(~brial association-:--eome together in one place (on two occasions i;:ieis an individual's house) to impart a specific teaching. Their :;~~~ppearance is co~monly con~ect;,d with a. more or le~s /·.stereotyped set of transformatIOns and photlC events. ThIS ;,'qevice appears to be designed to signal the degree of the signifi":cance of the teaching involved, a way of narratively indicating 'i,itssignificance. In the Suvarryabhiisottama-sutra, both Amitabha ;i'and Ak~obhya appear to a bodhisattva as two of a "group" of ,ti~uddhas which the text earlier called "the buddhas in the four i~idirections." They transform the bodhisattva's house in typical X.fashion and then in unison impart the "explanation of the meas'c,\1~e of the life of the Lord Sakyamuni" (bhagavatalr sakyamuner ;;ayuh.pramaryanirde.sa7IJ).35 In the Vimalakfrtinirde.sa, both Amitabha i;fc'~ridAk~obhya again appear as two members of a "group" of 't~Welve named buddhas who together with "the innumerable .tathagatas of the ten directions" are said to come to Vimalaklrti's ;jHouse whenever he wishes them to "precher l'introduction a la ,lpi (dharmamukhapravesa) intitulee Tathiigataguhyaka,"36 In the ~I<atnaketuparivarta, both again appear as two members of a group ,2fsix directional bLfddhas who come together in a great assembly )(mahasannipata) at Sakyamuni's request. Their appearance transi'(forms the audience. They then in unison deliver a specific Ahliraryf.37 \ Though different in detail all three "events" are clearly built

fj1p.on the same basic narrative frame and all three serve the /same purpose: they all are used to indicate the importance of (~particular "teaching" or pronouncement by narratively indicat.jug that it comes from and is taught be "all the buddhas from '~l1of the directions." This directional emphasis is a constant. hS? too is the fact that the place where all the directional buddhas


come together-Vimalakirti's house, the house of the Suvarn';;( bodhisattva, the Assembly of Sakyamuni-is explicitly or ias,; plicitly assimilated to a buddhafield.38 nt ..

Thurman, referring only to the Vimalaklrti,39 and Hu}! tington, r~ferring only to th~ SuvarTJa,40 ~oth failed to recogni~it the narratIve structure and mtent of theIr passages and tried (; see in them the descriptions of maTJqalas in a specific tantri2~ sense; the latter, in fact, wants his passage to represent eve more specifically "the Mar::u;iala of Vairocana," and, therefor:r the "Dhyani Buddha Tradition." But neither Thurman nor HUIl~; tington seems to have been aware of the fact that their individual'passages had parallels elsewhere in Mahayana sidra literature; and that they were only variants of a standard narrative structur{ which has a consistent literary function but no demonstrable; connection with tantric maTJqalas. Moreover, both ignore thefact' that the passages themselves both explicitly and implicitly assiIlli.; late the places where the directional buddhas temporarily reside not to maTJqalas, but to buddhafields. To this can be added th~j; fact that in neither case can the list of buddhas be reconciled with~ any specific established maTJqala without convoluted and unsub~ stantiated "equations."41 But perhaps the most telling point is; the fact that in both cases what would be the one essential indi: cation of a tantric connection is simply not there. Neither passage knows a thing about the buddha Vairocana, and it is hard to see, how one could have a description of "the Mal)<;l.ala of V airoCan~"l' without Vairocana himself. 42 Oddly enough, Vairocana does ap.;' pear in the Ratnaketuparivarta passage as one of the six direc~ tional buddhas, but even here it is quite clear that he is no more,' important than any of the other five, and he is clearly not the central figure of the group. He is simply the buddha "froIn' below," "from the nadir" (adhastad), a Jnanarasmiraja being the Buddha "from above," "from the zenith" (agradigbhagiit). .'

It is, of course, significant that a text like the Rat:.) naketuparivarta, a text which is both relatively late and clearly knows the Buddha Vairocana, knows nothing of the dhyiint buddha tradition. 43 That even when Amitabha occurs as one ()f a "group" of directional Buddhas in Mahayana sidra literatu:r:ei, that "group" has no connection with the dhyiini buddha traditioll is equally significant. All of this, in fact, would seem to indicate that not only was Amitabha's role as a dhyiini buddha seconda.ry


it was even then very"little known outside of a very scholastic literature and had little, if any, impact on literature as a whole even after it had been formally " This, in turn, makes it very difficult to see how the

1I1Ll"~l"'-- inscription can be referring to Amitabha in this

U.l.~,~~'~- Huntington has questioned the association of the inscription with the dhyiini buddha form of

from a different, but equally important, point-of-view. ".'~--'~h'~' image was, as far as we can tell, a single image

uun~---- alone. The inscription tells us that much. It was of a set. But, as Huntington points out, "the separate

-'''"~ ___ of a single image as an object of devotion is completely keeping with any known pancajina [i.e., dhyiini buddha]

Unfortunately, however, Professor Huntington's Z~~"o ... r,"'''1r",· is-thougIi in different ways-equally prob-

sees our inscription as "a key document in the of Sukhavati cult Buddhism." He elsewhere in the same

uses the terms "the Sukhavati cults" and "the cult of "45 but he nowhere gives these terms anything like a

meaning and it is difficult, as a consequence, to know he intends. If he means by "Sukhavati Cult" or "the Cult . " the kind of" cult'~ we know from Chinese sources~ , epigraphical, and art historical-then it is still difficult how our inscription can be used to establish an Indian

" of the same thing. our Chinese sources make it abundantly clear that the crucial element involved in these cults was the intent rebirth in Sukhavati. Religious activity of all sorts was to this end. E. Zurcher says: "On September 11, 402

Hui-yuan assembled the monks and laymen of his commubefore an image of the Buddha Amitabha in a vihiira on

side of the mountain [Lu-shan], and together with made the vow to be reborn in SukhavatL .. the "vow before

'~,,,,,,u'.la" has been taken in later times to mark the beginning Pure Land sect."46 At Lung-men it is not simply the

of numerous images of Amitabha which testify to the there of a Sukhavati Cult-Amitabha, in fact, is only

.of a series of Mahayana buddhas imaged there. Nor does

116 JIABSVOL.IO NO.2

the expression there by donors of a wish "que tous les hi doues de vie ... s'elevent ensemble a l'intelligence COlTecte." '. "goal'; has nothing specifically to do with a cult of Amitab the~e, but is-a~ ~ts cou~terpart in' Gupta and post-Gup IndIa-pan-Mahayana. It IS, rather, the frequently express "wish" of donors that their meritorious acts result in rebirth' Sukhavatl which establishes and specifically· characterizes t' Sukhavatl Cult at Lung-men (see inscription Nos. 8, 26,31,3 42, 90, 120, 135, 154, 168, 172, 179, 191, 195, 196, 197,23 248, 268, 269, 270, 274, 275, 282, 201, 375, 405, 406, 49 464).47 In fact, the desire to achieve rebirth in Sukhavati w and always remained the pr-imary definitional component of these "cults." Curiously enough, our inscription knows nothi" of this. It explicitly expresses the donor's intentions, but the intentions have nothing to do with rebirth in SukhavatL Rath they are in part-as we shall see-the same intentions that w expressed by numerous donors in early India who almost c tainlyhad no connection with a "Sukhavatl Cult," and in pa the same intentions that were later expressed by all Mahayanil who, again, had no demonstrable connection with a "Sukhava Cult." Professor Huntington asserts in the face of this that 0';

inscription "contains several advanced features of the cult [ Sukhavatl]''' He says "the accumulation of roots of me' kuSalamula, and the hearing of the highest buddha knowledg anuttarabuddhajiiiina, are features of the later forms of the cuI as evidenced by the Wei, Tang and Sanskrit versions of the called 'Larger Sukhavatlvyiiha Siitra.' "48 But even if this 1 were true, our inscription contains neither. Our inscription sa nothing about "the accumulation of roots of merit," but rather. in typical epigraphical fashion-expresses the donor's wish divest himself of his "roots of merit" by "transferring" them all living things. And while it is not perfectly clear exactly it is our inscription hopes will be done in regard to n.n~'lttl7,rn..n1J.f1:;1I dhajiiiina, it most certainly is not "be heard." Professor tington was here, at least in part, misled by Sharma's r"~l1pt':!ii

. tural-and, as we have seen, impossible-reading of the syllables of our inscription. It is absolutely certain that syllables cannot be read as sriivita'Y(l,.


If, then, our inscription cannot be taken as evidence for the ,i!',;','1,',1"',1,Y existence at Mathura of "the Dhyani Buddha tradition," ",ear , . b k 'd f' I d' . tli~ija if it cannot e ta en as eVl ence or an ear y In Ian verslOn q~~¥"the Sukhavati: Cult," still-when put in its proper context-it ~;~~tell us, perhaps, some important things about the early i'Zthases of what we have come to call "the Mahayana." As a first ~r~~pin this direction we might. start again wi~h some remarks :~V~f'Professors Sharma, Mukherjee, and Huntmgton. All three f;~fii'one form or another want to claim that our inscription estab}li~hes the "prevalence" or "popularity" of Amitabha-however (~lie/be conceived-in the Ku~an period in Northern India and tiilMathura in particular.49 But when put in the context of what {is'actually known so far of North Indian epigraphy our inscrip~~Qn, rather than establishing the "popularity" of Amitabha ;i~~ere, establishes something very like the opposite. There is not 'a'single undisputed reference to Amitabha anywhere in our 1~ii~able corpus of Kharo~thl inscriptions from Gandhara and if,torthwest India-neither before, during, or after the Ku~an f.Reriod. Epigraphically, he did not exist. 50 There is not a single J~t~f~rence to Amitabha in any of the dozens of inscriptions we ;~h~ve from other sites in Northern India~Sravasti, KausambI, ~$p-nath, etc.-until the 7th century inscription from Saud. Until litlien, epigraphically, he did not exist at Saud, and again, he ;}l:ever existed at our other sites. About Amitabha's "popularity" :;~fMathura we can be even more precise. i~. " If we use Das' "list" together with biders' collection of in~$Friptions from Mathura, and supplement both with more recent ~r~blications, it would appear that we have at least 159 separate ;;llpage inscriptions from Mathura that are dated in, or can be .. a,ssigned to, the Ku~an Period. Of these, at least 26 are so fragilrientary that their sectarian affiliation cannot be determined. 51 'Qfthe remaining 133, at least 85 are Jain and record the erection ;OfJain images,52 4 are connected with the Naga cults, 53 and 1 ~~ecords the establishment of an image of Karttikeya. 54 Only 43 of the I 33-or less than one third of the inscriptions-are Budi.cJhist.55 This means, of course, that, to judge by the Ku~an in-


scriptions known so far from Mathura, Buddhism itself was th:'i~k~ d h ., . ere·;,

an . t en a mmonty movement·/:i{*, If it is clear-in so far as we can judge from known ins <ilt~

tions-that Buddhism generally was a distinct minority mCI'tPi~.:~ ment in K\1~an Mathura, it is equally sure that any move~Y:~'~:; associated with Amitabha was even more distinctly a mino~~~:~ movement within that minority movement itself. There iJ~Y:;;'; f 1· 1 d b b h" 1" " 1· . .1n¢ act Itt e ou t a out t e popu ar or preva ent" BUddhii'1 cult form in Ku~an Mathura. Of the certainly Buddhist inscrl'~~:} tions we have, 19 are either fragments or do not indicatet~i~; "person" being imaged. 56 Of t~e remaining 24, at least 11 rec6i~~i t}le installation of an image of Sakyamuni under ~arious titlesJ:25'! Sakyamuni,57 3 Buddha,58 2 Pitamaha59 and 1 Sakyasi11J,ha.60J}1% others record the setting up of images of what they call "aB~] the bodhisattva."61 And while there has been a good deal ofdis~i cussion as to what this can mean-and there will be more 62i;iit1 has been clear for a long time that many of the images whitKAi ~re refer~ed to as "b?dhisattvas" in their accompa~y~ng inscr,ie~~: tIOns are IConographICally buddhas. Moreover, a declSlve cont~rrl;~ porary document has recently come to light which establishe~ii the fact that in Ku~an Mathura the terms buddha and bodhisattJ~; were used interchangeably. The document in question is~~l bi-scriptual epigraph of the Ku~al)a Period from Mathuf~:'r, Here, what in the BrahmI part of the inscription is calle4sif bodhisattva, is, in the Kharo~thI part, said to be a b(u)dhasa pratirrle,~ "an image of the Buddha."63 S:;:i

These inscriptions would seem to indicate that the "pop/Vi'] lar," "prevalent"-indeed, overwhelmingly predominant-"~~ll\: figure" in the Buddhist community of Ku~an Mathura was! Sakyamuni, Sakyamuni either as a fully enlightened buddhapf:' in his bodhisattva aspect. Apart from these inscriptions thereal"~,; only two others. One refers to an image of KiSyapa Budd~~i; one of the previous "historical" buddhas who is also known fr9111. two later Kharo~thl inscriptions from J aulian. 64 The other is o~r;, inscription from Govindnagar which refers to Amitabha. If-:-~~ the material known so far would seem to indicate-KasyaN Buddha, though known, was peripheral to the concerns oft,~~ Buddhist community at Mathura, the same surely appliest9i Amitabha. Neither appears to have received anything like wid,y: spread support or patronage. Both appear to have been of int~r~i


to a very small part of an already restricted community. not only was the concern for the Buddha Amitabha

very limited during theKu~an Period, it also had-to . by the available evidence-absoilltely no impact on the . development of Budd,hism at Mathura, or almost

else in Northern India. We have, in fact, noticeably inscriptions from post-Ku~an Mathura, but enough

that any "cult of Amitabha" that had occurred in the Period did not survive into the Gupta Period. This is

. surprising in light of the fact that our Gupta inscrip-Mathura amply attest to the prominent presence of

there at that time. We have, for example, an from Mathura which is dated to the end of 5th cen-

which records the installation of an image of Aryaand the emergence of Avalokitesvara

.n"lhpY"P in the 5th/6th century-but not before-is easily UIH"U"~~"~' Not only do we have the Mathura inscription

end of the 5th century. We also have references to l":':h;,~o6"..,.·", from Sarnath, J ayarampur and Gunaighar in the

century, and from Sand and North Pakistan in the 7th.65 have other evidences, to be discussed in a moment,

clearly establish the emergence of the Mahayana at and almost everywhere else in India, during the 5th/

''''"TllY'', but nowhere do we have the slightest indication "Cult of Amitabha" was associated with the emergence

" . presence of the Mahayana there. In fact when finally hear of Amitabha again-at Sanci in the late 7th

reference to him is not as an independent "cult but occurs, as we have seen, as a part of an extended

of praise of AvalokiteSvara. After this, Amitabha, epig, disappears entirely from India, even though we con

to find dozens of individual Mahayana inscriptions up the 13thcentury.66 , then, the concern with Amitabha recorded in our inscrip

represents the beginnings of at least a part of that movement call "the Mahayana," it is clear that that 'movement in

.......... 1"1 was, and remained for several centuries, a very minority movement that received almost no popular and that when it did finally emerge fully into the public as an independent movement the concern with

120 JIABS VOL. lO NO.2

A~itabha w~s ~o longer an active focus. B,:t ~~ere is also sonil eVI~ence to mdICat~ that not onlr was the mitIal. concern wIth' Amitabha not a major and endunng movement, It also Was n~f'

. d ,Ot/l an mdepen ent movement";~1

Between the end of the Ku~an Period and the rniddl/tl1 the Gupt~ Period, the people involved in the Mathuran BUddh~ commumty and the patterns of patronage changed-as they d~ in almost all Buddhist communities in India-in some profourla1 ways. The changes at Mathura were manifested-as they w~~~ elsewher~-by the appearance of Avalokitesvara as a cult figur:?1 by a deCided drop m the ~lUm~er. of lay donors-particularJj women-and a correspon.dmg nse m monk donors, by the s~,~.,1 den appearance of a specIfic group of monks who called them' selves siikyabhik4us, and by the appearance of a very specific an.1l characteristiC donativ~ for~ula. We want here to focus on d~l~l the last of these mamfestatIOns.:,',1

There are 15 inscriptions from Mathura which date to tlt\.;C1 Gupta Period in which the donative formula is clear.67 In 9~61 the 15-or 3/5ths-the donative formula is some variant Ofthl!! following formula: 68 ',I'

yad atra pUrJ,yarIJ tad bhavatu sarvvasatviiniim anuttarajiiiiniiv.a.·.-.... ·.'.iB.,~,'.·.· .. ,.-.·.',

taye (M! No. 186) ;"~'

"may whatever merit there is in this be for the obtainingQ~' the un~xcelled kno~ledge by_ all living things":._

ThIs formula Is-as has been shown elsewhere-bot~ characteristic of, and specific to, the Mahayana.69 It is, therefdf~l of some intere.st that our inscription from G?vindnagar co~ta~~ a formula whICh, although not the same, IS almost certamly}~, forerunner to it or a prototype for it. Professor Sharma, ho~4 ever, ignores the differences between the Govindnagar formuI,~ ~nd the. "cla~sic.al" Mahayan.a donativ. e for~~la and .asserts.t.h,.,.,~.~,',~.;.:

. m our mscnptIOn "the creed of AnuttaraJnana whIch becaJI,l~ very popular in the Gupta Period is met with for the first tir,Th~ in the KushaI).a Period."70 But even if many of the different§~) are of a minor-if not entirely verbal-nature, still this overlO()~ ~t least one ve~y i~portant fact: w.ith one e:x:cept~on. which po~~~ m the same dIrectIOn as our Govmdnagar mscnptIon, the an .. u .... 'r .• ,f ... i.', tarajiiiina formula always occurs by itself, and never in conjun~~ tion with other formulae. This is the case in at least 65 separ~s~ inscriptions from all parts of India, ranging in date from 4th/~~~

{I


to the- 12th/13th century. This pattern, then, is invari-over very large expanses of territory and equally large

of time, and reflects . .the standard usage of the as a completely independent movement. In the Gov

inscription, however, the anuttararJ} buddhajiiiinarJ} for-is used in conjunction with another, much older formula, points very much in another direction. Before the anut

buddhajiiiinarJ} statement our inscription says that the image UI1JLL"L"'~ was set up [sa](rva)buddhapujiiye, "for the worship

Buddhas." The Govindnagar inscription therefore is virunique in that it uses its version of the anuttar-jiiiina forwith another formula. Even more important, however, is

that that other formula has absolutely nothing to do the Mahayana and is in fact a recurring element in earlier

which are explicitly associated with named nongroups. The formula sarvabuddhapujiiye-sometimes

, sometimes as a part of longer formulae-occurs in at .9 Kharo~thI inscriptions, one of which is from Mathura all of which probably predate our inscription from Gov

.71 It also occurs in at least 8 other BrahmI inscriptions Mathura-2 from the Suilga Period, 3 from the K~atrapa

and 3 from the Kusan, only 1 of which is later than the inscription 72-and in one inscription each from

KausambI, and Nasik, all three of which date to the . "rpntlrrv A.D.73

earliest of the inscriptions from Mathura dates from and records the gift of one Ayala which was made

the worship of all buddhas . .. for the acceptance of the ~nOf,laaI1sali:a teachers" (MI No. 89), and Mahopadesaka, accord

Hiders, "must be considered to be the name of a [Budschool, although in literature it does not seem to have up until now." One of the K~atrapa inscriptions records of an image by a monk that was made "for the acceptance

Samitiya teachers" and "for the worship of all the buddhas" No. 80); another, a gift made again "for the worship of all

," but "for acceptance of the Mahiisaghiyas (Mahiisiin" (MI No. 86). Of the Ku~an inscriptions, one dated in 16th

of Kani~ka records again the gift of an image by a monk was made "for the worship of all buddhas" and, again, "for

,ac(:ep,taIlce of the Mahiisaghiya (Mahiisiinghika) teachers" (MI

122 JIABSVOL.IONO.2

No. 157). The remaining four inscriptions from Mathura tl1J@ contain the formula do not specifically designate a particuI~~J' group as recipient. At Mathura, then, whenever a religious ar,f.

d k "f h h' f "II ' ddh ". actA was un erta en or t e wors lp 0 a au as m associati'~ with a specific group, that group was invariably a named nO~}';;i Mahayana school: either the Mahopadesakas, the Samitiyas>; -twice-the Mahasiirighikas. The pattern in the Kharo~thi'i?Y) scriptions is similar.\~.

Only 2 of the 9 Kharo~thi inscriptions which contain til:};' formula sarvabuddhapujiiye also contain the name of a BUddhist school: in th.e ~athura Lion Capital, which dates prob~blyt&':; the very begmnmg of the Common Era,74 the. K~atrapa SUdasa' gave a piece of land for, in part, "the worship of all buddhaS':~~ and "for the acceptance of the Sarviistiviidins" (KJ XV); and;; Bhagamoya, t~e King of Apaca, "established" the relics of "th~: Blessed One, Sakyamuni," in 19-20 A.D. for "the worship of all buddhas" and "for the acceptance of the KiiSyapiyas" (II] 1~; .. 108). In addition to these two Kharo~thl inscriptions which:! explicitly name a school, at least three more use a set phrase; which my colleague Richard S(ilomon and I have shown isdi-,~ recdy dependent on a passage found in at least two placesifl'~ Hlnayana canonical literature, in the Ekottariigama translated' into Chinese and in the Gilgit text of the Vinaya of the Millasar"'; viistiviidins. 75 The Taxila Copperplate ofPatika, which datestoi the end of the 1st century B.C., is typical of these inscriptions,' It records the fact that atra [dejse patikoapratithavita bhagavata'j sakamurtisa sarirarJ} [prajtithaveti [sarJ}ghajramarJ} ca sarvabudhana: puyae, "here on a (previously) unestablished spot Patika establishes" a relic of the Blessed One Sakyamuni, and a monastic iiriima, for .. the worship of all buddhas" (KJ XIII; BEFEO 67, 6; 74,37), it

In the Kharo~thl inscriptions which contain the formula sar~0 vabuddhapujiiye and in which there is any indication of sectarian association it is clear therefore-as it was in the Brahm! inscriptions. from Mathura-that undertaking religious acts "for the worship; of all buddhas" was invariably associated with non-Mahayan<t, groups: the Sarviistiviidins, the KiiSyapiyas, etc. 76 What this mea~s.o for our inscription from Govindnagar is in some ways obvious:. the setting up of the earliest known image of a Mahayana buddlw; was undertaken for a purpose which was specifically and explicitlYi associated with established non-Mahayana groups. This, in tUrrl,i?

THE AMIT ABBA INSCRIPTION 123

strongly suggest that the concem with Amitabha which our inscription in the 2nd centUry AD. was not only,

.... have seen, very limited and uninfluential-a minor preoccu. also was not a part of a wholly independent movement.

"n"'ps~:ea itself half in old and established idioms, and half in finished new formulae that would come to characterize

cult of Amitabha, but the Mahayana as a whole; it dictated uu._u .. u·,vu of a new image, but for-in part at least-an old

.t:lll.<1L1J..L"~J.~'" purpose. is interesting to notice that the "exception" referred to the one other instance where the anuttarajiiiina formula in conjunction with another formula, suggests that at .. at least the movement we now call "the Mahayana"

not yet achieved complete independence even as late as the quarter of the 5th century AD. The inscription in ques

,-·"."v recently discovered at Govindnagar-is dated in the 115 of -'-presumably-the Gupta Era, and therefore in AD.

After the date the inscription reads in Sharma's clearly transliteration: 77

1. ......... . asyii'TIJ . . . divasa puvvayiiim [sic] bhagavatalp aa£luuCA~~H'1 ou siikyamunelp

. pratimii prat4thiipitii bhi~urj,a sa'TIJghavarmarj,ii yad atra tan miitiipirtriit [sic] purvvagamatkr:tvii sartvasatviina . sarvvaduMhaprahararj,iiyii-[rd.-prahiirj,iiyii-]· nuttara-

navacm:ave [rd.-iiviiptaye] . . . (BAM 223n. 148) ... on this day an image of the Blessed One, the One Powfrom the Ten Powers, Sakyamuni, was set up by the monk

varman. What here is the [resulting] merit [may that _r1'Hr',n put his parents foremost-for the abandoning of

of all living things, for the obtaining of the unexknowledge."

This inscription is atypical in several ways. It uses the forasyii'TIJ . . . divasa puvvayiii'TIJ [sic] .. . pratimii prat4thiipitii which

,,~ .. ".~U'''''' everywhere in earlier Ku~an inscriptions, but, apart a few transitional Gupta inscriptions,18 nowhere in "classMahayana epigraphs. The latter inscriptions invariably the phrase deyadharmmo =yam at the head of their formula,

...• there is no trace of it here. The epithet dafabalabalin used of Sakyamuni is never found in Mahayana image inscrip. When the donor is a monk in Mahayana inscriptions he

124 jIABSVOL.IONO.2

is never referred to as ;;t bhik:$u, as he is here, but almost alwa as a sakyabhik:$u; very rarely some other title is used. 79 This inscriX~ tion, then, is quite clearl~ not charac~~ristic~lly ~a~ayana, aJei may in fact represent-like our Amltabha InSCnptIOn but at a much later date-a stage or sector of that movement we call "th Mahayana" that had not yet achieved complete independencee Its mechanical fusion of an older formula-sarvadukhaprahii'YJiiyd (cf. MI Nos. 29, 8 I)-with what became the "classical" Mahayana formula might at least suggest this.

VII.

That a new "movement" should look like this in the begin~ ning is not very surprising. What is a little more surprising i~ the fact that--epigraphically-the "beginning" of the Mahayan~ in India is not documentable until the 2nd century A.D., and, that even as "late" as that it was still an extremely limited minoriti movement that left almost no mark on Buddhist epigraphyof art and was still clearly embedded in the old established purpos~s of earlier Buddhist groups. What is even more surprising still is the additional fact that even after its initial appearance in the public domain in the 2nd century it appears to have remained an extremely limited minority movement-if it remained at all that attracted absolutely no documented public or popular support for at least two more centuries. It is again a demonstrable fact that anything even approaching popular support for th~ Mahayana cannot be documented until the 4th/5th century A.D.,' and even then the support is overwhelmingly by monastic, not lay, donors. In fact, prior to our inscription from Govindnagat there was simply no epigraphic evidence for the "earIY'~i Mahayana at all. This, in the end, is the real significance of th~; Govindnagar inscription when seen in its proper context: it establishes the presence of the very beginnings of "the' Mahayana" as a public movement in the 2nd century A.D., anq, indicates, by its total isolation and lack of influence, the tenuouS)" hesitant, and faltering character of those "beginnings." .!rr.;

All of this of course accords badly with the accepted anqr long current view-based almost exclusively on literaIJ: sources-that the movement we call "the Mahayana" appeare%:

THE AM IT ABHA INSCRIPTION 125

,~ti/thesce~e somehow fully formed and virtually.finishe? at $!.beginnmg of the Common Era. Common sense Itself mIght ;:hi~e suspected such ~ view:, but Indian. epigraphy makes it very ~far that "the Mahayana as a publIc movement began-to jg~ert an old line of T.S. Eliot's-"not with a bang, but a ~hirnper:' It suggest~ that, although there was-as we ~now iiom Chinese translatlons-a .larg~ and early Mahay~na hterai~e, there was no early orgamzed, mdependent, pubhcally sup

'~~rted movement that it could have belonged to. It suggests, 'hlfact, that if we are to make any progress in our understanding we may have to finally and fully realize that the history of 'Mahayana literature and the history of the religious movement that bears the same name are not necessarily the same thing. '!f~is, I would think, should raise some interesting questions. 80

\!fABBREVIATIONS

';;~'J\M =R.C. Sharma, Buddhist Art of Mathuri'i (Delhi: 1984) I:B~FF:0 = Bulletin de Ncole franqaise d'extreme-orient ~;~H?G =F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar (New Haven: 1953) ~Bf=H. Liiders, Bharhut Inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. ~;;:.,U,Part II), rev. E. Waldschmidt & M.A. Mehendale (Ootacamund: 1963) ~{Das= K. Das (Bajpayee), Early Inscriptions of Mathuri'i-A Study (Calcutta: 1980), )j{:,;:Appendix B, 161-239 itHS =Th. Damsteegt, Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit. Its Rise, Spread, Characteris;;1;.'lics and Relationship to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (Leiden: 1978) i·tI""Epigraphia Indica ';GI = J.F. Fleet, Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and Their Successors (Corpus ).,;.;,)nscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III) (Calcutta: 1888) lm==lndo-lranian Journal iJAIH = Journal of Ancient Indian History '.JIi\BS = Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Wt= Journal of Indian Philosophy ::JlJPHS = Journal of the United Provinces Historical Society iKI =S. Konow, Kharosh(M Inscriptions With the Exception of Those of Asoka (Cor;~>pus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. II, Part I) (Calcutta: 1929) +~F=H. Uiders, A List of Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to About q:., A.D. 400, with the Exception of Those of Asoka (Appendix to Epigraphica ;J;'Indica, Vol X) (Calcutta: 1912) W=B.N. Mukherjee's edition ofthe Amitabha Inscription inJAIH II (1977-',;.;, 78) 82-4. ,;W=H. Liiders, Mathuri'i Inscriptions, ed. K.L. Janert (Gottingen: 1961)


Pek = The Tibetan Tripitaka (Peking Edition), ed. D.T. Suzuki (Tokyo-Kyot: f 1955-61) 0:;

S =R.C. Sharma's edition a.f the Amitab~a Inscription in BAM 232 n. 169. WZKS = Wzener Zeztschrijt fur dze Kunde Sudaszens ' '.

NOTES

1. For one version of the rather sad story of the Covindnagar site s:~:'Y~ BAM 92-3. ; ,t,:

2. The date of Kan~~ka is, of ~ourse, not yet settled, and the assumptionq: that the era named after hIm began m 78 A.D. lIttle more than a good workli{",:! hypothesis; cf. most recently C. Fussman, "Un buddha inscrit des debutsd;',) notre ere" BEFEO 54 (1985) 44. <i)

" 3 .. D.C .. Bhattacharya, "A Newly Dis~overed Coppe~plate from Tipp:>.:: era, Indzan Hzstorzcal Quarterly 6 (1930) 53 (lmes 3, 5); S. RaJaguru, "]ayaram:'r! pur Copper-Plate Inscription ofthe Time of Copachandra," The Orissa Histo;_;·J ical Research Journal, 11:4 (1963) 227 (lines 29-30); C. Yazdani, Ajanta, ParL. IV: Text (London: 1955) 112 and n.4.. '

4. J. Marshall, A. Foucher, and N.C. Majumdar, The Monuments'if Saiichi (Delhi: 1940), Vol. I, no. 842./,

5. G. Schopen, "Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions," IIJ 21 (1979) I-Hl';:', I am now working on a more complete and revised treatment of this material.';;:'

6. P.R. Srinivasan, "Two Brahmi Inscriptions from Mathura," EI3~'; (1971) 10-12 (lines 3 & 4).;~:

7.cf. M. Shizutani, Indo bukkyo himei mokuroku (Kyoto: 1979) no. 1823;/;. B.N. Mukherjee, "A Mathura Inscription of the Year 26 and of the Periodbf; Huvishka," JAIH 11 (1977-78) 82-4; R.C. Sharma, "New Buddhist Sculptures'; from Mathura," Lalit Kala 19 (1979) 25-6; BAM 232 n. 169. ".}>"

8. ].C. Huntington, "A Gandharan Image of Amitayus' Sukhavati>? Annali dell' Instituto Orientale di Napoli 40 (1980) 651, 672; Huntingto~;; "Mathura Evidence for the Early Teachings of Mahayana," to be published,l in a volume of papers read at an International Seminar on Mathura at Mathuia\ in January 1980, pp. 4-5a of type-script; S.L. Huntington with contributions' by ].c. Huntington, The Art of Ancient India. Buddhist, Hindu, Jain (TokY()L;! 1985) 114; 630 n. 6; J. Guy, "A Kushan Bodhisattva and Early Indiaqi Sculpture," Art Bulletin of Victoria (Australia) no. 24 (1983) 43 and n. 20; SJ.:' Czuma, Kushan Sculptures: Images from Early India (Cleveland: 1985) 75 n.2.'},

9. G. Schopen, "Two Problems in the History of Indian BUddhisnl:; The Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of; Merit," Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10 (1985) 40-1.·~~~

10. Sharma published a photograph of our inscription in both Lalit Kala; 19 (1979) pI. XLII, fig. 18 and in BAil1 fig. 151. Both in his text (e.g. p. 23H; and in the "Description of Illustrations" (p. 280-1), however, Sharma confus~r the Amitabha pedestal, which is in actuality his fig. 151, with his fig. 154,; which is the photograph of a completely unrelated inscription transliterat,~?}

v}~v

THE AM IT ABHA INSCRIPTION 127

~'J;'hisn. 153, p. 226. Mukherjee too, at least in part, worked from a photograph ;",10 ... , ):"<82). i:,(¥::;.'ll. My references throughout this section are to Sharma's edition in ;;:;~AM and do not refer to his earlier publications at alL 10;:('12. For references, see below n. 7l. ;~~.',13. For references, see below n. 73. ~~,,"14. V.A. Smith & W. Hoey, "Ancient Buddhist Statuettes and a Candella ;t;topper-plate from the B~nda ~is.trict," j~u~~al of the Asiatic Society of Bengal ~64(l895) 155-62; D.C. Smar, Kmg HanraJa of Bundelkhand," The journal !~bforiental ,~esearch, Madras 18 (1949) 185-87; Sircar, "Copper Coin of ;~'Harigupta, EI ~3 (1 ~6~) 95-98. . il:?'; J5. D.C. SlrCar m Monthly Semmars at the Centre, Thursday, the 18th :j$~ptember, 196~," JAIR ~ (1969-70) 280-81; S. Czuma, "A Gupta Style 1"Sronze Buddha, The Bulletm of the Cleveland Museum of Art (Feb. 1970) 54-67. :;-",16. J. Burgess, Report on the Elura Cave Temples and the Brahmanical and

;.Jdina Caves in Weste~n India (~ondon: 1883) 7~, no. 9.. ... ~~:~(.17. Gene~ If a donative formula contams a filllte verb It IS an Imp era.Iliveform ofYbhu or ~(cf. ERS 129-31; KI, cxv; etc.). The occurrence of ~;~hilIlperative or optative form from other roots is very rare in inscriptions, !,~'litde more common in literary donative formulae: e.g ... . pujii11J. kr:tvii ~pr~'fJidhii1W11J. ca k~tam/ _ anenii~a11J. _kuSalamulenaq,hye mahadhane mahiibhoge kule lJ,ay~yam (S. Bagchl, Mulasarvastzvadavznayavastu, VoL II. (Dharbhanga: 1970)

j:Jl79,21). ';;;;1,18. On niittika, see H. Hiders, "On Some Brahmi Inscriptions.in the 'f/L'ucknow Provincial Museum," journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain ';~ndlreland (1912) 160; D.C. Sircar, Indian Epigraphical Glossary (Delhi: 1966) ;l!212,s.v. naptr:ka; EHS 21 and n. 131,63. :ipi! 19. BAM 23l. '.,,, 20. V.S. Agrawala, "Dhyani Buddhas and Bodhisattvas," jUPRS 1l.2 7:(1~38) 1-13 (reprinted in V.S. Agrawala, Studies in Indian Art (Varanasi: 1965) :;137--146. :';(.21. B. Bhattacharya, The Indian Buddhist Iconography (Oxford: 1924) rix:Xi y; Iff. ':6';'22. M.-T de Mallmann, "Head-dresses with Figurines in Buddhist Art," Z,Ndian Art and Letters, ns. 2l.2 (1947) 80-89. ~<, 23. P.M. Harrison, The Tibetan Text of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha>:Sa'rr.tmukhiivasthita-Samadhi-Sutra (Tokyo: 1978) 3a-c, 3e-f (cf. P.M. Harrison, ,.;'Bllddhanusmrti in the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Sarp.IDukhavasthita-Samadhi;;~iitra,"]IP 6 (1978) 42ff.) ~: 24. N. Dutt Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. II (Srinagar: 1941) 32.3; 165.9; Vol. J:lLPart II. (Calcutta: 1953) 271.11; 350.15; 450.3; etc. (On Amitabha in the !,~~amadhiraja and the following texts see G. Schopen, "Sukhavatl as a :,yeneralized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahayana Sutra Literature," IIj 19 \(1977) 177-210). ;25. N. Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. I (Srinagar: 1939) 106.12; 107.3;

li'J26.6. What is not sure in regard to the AjitasenavyakararJa is not whether it )~.t~fers to Amitabha, but to what period it dates. Dutt (p. 73) says "it represents


the semi-Mahayanic form of Buddhism," and there are a number of passa which would support this. But whether that means it is early has yet to g~S determined. e

26. Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. 1. 14.5 f. 27. 'phags pa saris rgyas kyi stobs bskyed pa'i cho 'phrul rnam par 'phrul b

bstan pa ies byaba theg pa chen po'i mdo, Pek. Vol. 34, 192-2-8, 192-5-6 (cf. Ga

Schopen, "The Five Leaves ofthe Buddhabaladhanapratiharyavikurval)anirdes : sutra Found at Gilgit," ]IF 5 (1978) 319-36, esp. 323). a

28. 1. Yamada, Karu17iipuTJriarzka, Vol. II. (London: 1968) 106.1-117.7" 29. 'phags pa 'jam dpal gyi saris rgyas kyi iiF gi yon tan bkod pa ies bya b~

theg pa chen po'i mdo, Pek. Vol. 23, 126-5-1; 131-5-8f; 133-3-2f; 134-3-1; 135-5. 7; etc.

30. K. Takahata, Ratnamiilavadana (Tokyo: 1954) 62.20; 63.9; 279.21' and index s.v. sukhavatz (on both the Ratnamalit and the Kalpadruma see J.8:'-· Speyer, Avadanaqataka (St. Petersburg: 1906-09; reprinted The Hague: 1958). xxi ff. For Amitabha in the Kalpadruma see esp. xxvii-xxviii; xci. There are' according to Speyer (p. xcix), several references to "the five dhyanz-buddhai in the VicitrakarTJikavadana which is one of the so-called Vratavadanas, aU of which "are obviously quite late Mahayana works" (M. Winternitz, A History oJ' Indian Literature, Vol. II. (Calcutta: 1927) 292.and n. 2).,,~

31. On these texts and the references found in them to Amitabha! .• Sukhavatl see G. Schopen, "The Text on the 'Dharal)l Stones from': Abhayagiriya': a Minor Contribution to the Study of Mahayana Literature id' Ceylon," ]lABS 5 (1982) 99-108; Schopen, ','The Generalization of an Old; Yogic Attainment.in Medieval Mahayana Sutra Literature: Some Notes oli; Jatismara,"]lABS 6 (1983) 146 n. 48; Schopen, "The Bodhigarbhalarikaralak~a:<: and Vimalo~l)l~a Dharal)ls in Indian Inscriptions: Two Sources for the Practice:; of Buddhism in Medieval India," WZKS 29 (1985) 119-49.;'

32. 'phags pa de Min gsegs pa mi 'khrugs pa'i bkod pa ies bya ba theg pa che~': po'i mdo, Pek. Vol. 22, 128-1-1 to 160-2-5; cf. now J. Dantinne, La splendeu"r. de l'inebranlable (Akjobhyavyuha), t.!. (Louvain-La-Neuve: 1983). Also see, foreariy, references, R. Mitra, A:j(asahasrika (Calcutta: 1888) 365.7-369; 449.12-453.5;~ 457-58; etc.; P.L. Va,idya, Samadhirajasutra (Darbhanga: 1961) XI. 60; XIV:i~: 68; XXXIV. 48; XXXVI. 1; N. Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. I 107.4 (the" AjitasenavyakaraTJa). .i·

33. For references to Ak~obhya in Middle Mahayana Sutra literature:, see 1. Yamada, KaruTJapuTJriarzka, Vol. I. (London: 1968) 234 ff; to whichL; would add: Et. Lamotte, L'enseignement de VimalaMrti (VimalaMrtinirdesa) (Lou:; vain: 1962) 64, 85, 279, 360-67 and ns; N. Dutt, Paiicavi'r(L5atisahasrika Pra}· iiaparamita (London: 1934) 91£; E. Conze, Gilgit Manuscript of the A:j(adaSasiihas~:, rikaprajiiaparamita, Chapters 55 to 70 (Roma: 1962) 63, 21£; 65.4f; 66.9; 80.8f;h MaiijuSrzbuddhakCietraguTJavyuha, Pek. Vol. 34, 122-2-4 = C. Bendall,( SikCiasamuccaya (St. Petersbourg: 1897-1902; repr. Tokyo: 1977) 14.15; Bud., dhabaladhanapratiharya,Pek. Vol. 34,192-2-8; Y. Kurumiya, Ratnaketuparivarta, (Kyoto: 1978) 121.1f; 176.20; Kusumasan;caya-sutra, Pek. Vol. 37, 67-5-8ffC Ratnajaliparipr:ccha, Pek. Vol. 33, 245-3-4, 3-5; Yamada, KaruTJapulJriarzka~;; 16l.6-178.4. ,.


34. 'Phags pa yas kyi sgrib pa thams cad rnam par sbyori ba zes bya ba'i gzuris, :;;{p~k.Vol. 8, 162-1-3ff; cf. alsoRasmivimalavisud~haprabha, Pek. Vol. 7,189-2-3; (~<''athiigatiiniim-buddha~etra-gu1].okta-dharma~aryaya, ~ek. Vo~. 28, 262-4-1;. ~tc. :~i;J1te that the finallme of the Sarvakarmavara1].amsodhanz m the Pek. edItIon :l'if~?ds de biin gsegs pa de iiid byon nas 'di skad du rigs kyi bu tshur ria'i gan du sog ",rea b" / h f h h . 'kh h . 'ltl1fskyan gSU1i ar gyur ro , t e. name 0 t. e tat agata-mz rugs pa- avmg e"ft';'dentallydroppedout; cf. Nymg Marepnnt of the Derge, Vol. 36, 916-1, etc.) :';i~~f;'35. J. Nobel, Suvar1].abhasottamasiitra. Das Goldglanz-Sutra, ein Sanskrittext

¥ahiiyana-Buddhismus (Leipzig: 1937) 6.lff; R.E. Emmerick, The Sidra of

i;FtlieGoldenLight (Lon~on: 1970!,.s-~. Note that t~e "e~planation of the measure ii,t'&nifeof the Lord Sakyamum gIven by the dIrectIOnal buddhas responds to i;~;iihajor buddhalo~ical problem ~~at preoc:upied t~e a~t~ors of several Middle ri'hM3hayana texts: How could Sakyamum have dIed If m fact he really was ;;~1!#athe was said to be?" The same problem-in different terms-had already t'l';~teoccupied the authors/compilers of the Mahiiparinibbana-sutta. It was also a ~':lpa.jor preoccupati~n of the compilers of Saddharmapu1].(jarzka. Chapter XV"of \;,~ihe Saddharma, whIch some have taken as the central chapter (Mus says Ie t'{::&lltrasoit essentiellement contenu dans Ie seul chapitre XV," P. Mus "Le :~:ihuddha pare," BEFEO 28 (1928) 178ff.) has exactly the same title as the chapter ~';'Df the Suva'f7'!£t which contains our passage-Tathiigatay~pramii1).aparivarta-and t11~ddresses exactly the same problem. The same problem again is a central Y:'r1:occupation of the Buddhabaladhiinapratihiirya; cf. Schopen,]IP 5 (1978)

9236. '0,36. Lamotte, L'enseignement de vimalak'irti, 279-80; R.A.F. Thurman, The i:§f.to& Teaching of Vimalakzrti (University Park: 1976) 61. Note that according 'ltd Lamotte "l'introduction a la loi (dharmamukhapravesa) intitulee {~[~iliagataguhyaka" taught by the directional Buddhas is the Tathagatacin~iGdguhyanirdeSa (T. 310, 312) to which the Vimalak'irti makes a second allusion ';fi~Ch. IV. Sect. l. Thurman calls this into question in part at least for the iWijUItearnazing reason that "it does not seem quite certain that so man y tathagatas tc,lvtuld be required to expound the same text" (p. 128 n. 23). ~i1·ii'i,37. Kurumiya, Ratnaketuparivarta 12lff. Note that the dhiira1].z given by t~fuedirectional buddhas in Ch. VI. is the same text "entrusted" to Brahma, ~&~,akra, etc., by Sakyamuni in Ch. XI. and is in this sense at least implicitly "~quated with the text as a whole. '5'38. Lamotte, L'enseignement 280 (Ch. VI. Sect. 14.8); Thurman, The Holy gfaching, 61; although the term buddhaks.etra does not actually occur in the ".~xtant-Sanskrit text of the SuvaT1).a it does in the "early" Chinese version (T. 663) ;~cjFed by Huntington (see next n. 42); Kurumiya, Ratneketu 123.4 & n. 3. ~1?\39. Thurman, The Holy Teaching, 128 n. 23. ,};i,i, 40. J.C. Huntington, "Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Ear(.li~9ssofTantra," JIABS 10(1987) 8 Off. ~j,?;;)41. Huntington himself (p. 93), after a table giving the various names, .;,npt'es that "at first reading, these names may not seem to be very closely l,reIated. " ~01;~·42. ,Thurman refers to the "cosmic maI;lQ.ala" in the Guhyasamajatantra, j:~,~tthere too Vairocana has a crucial role. See y, Matsunaga, The Guhyasamaja Y~~Jtra (Osaka: 1978) 4ff. 'f' ;.;::;,\:


43. Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts, Vol. IV. (Calcutta: 1959)i, dates the R naketu, on the basis of the Chinese translation of it attributed to Dharmarak a~_ to "about the fourth century A.D." at the latest. Kurumiya, however, poi ~a: out that the attribution to Dharmarak~a has been put in doubt; see Ratnak ~ts xi-xiv. e u,

44. Huntington, "Mathura Evidence for the Early Teachings o~;.> Mahayana," p.5 (type-script).

45. Huntington, "Mathura Evidence for the Early Teachings Mahayana," pp. 5-5a.

46. E. Zurcher, The Buddhist Conquest of ChiTl;a. The Spread and Adaptati of Buddhism in Early Medieval China, Vol. 1. (Leiden: 1972) 219. on

47. For an overview of these inscriptions see K.K.S. Ch'en, Buddhism .,; China. A Historical Survey (Princeton: 1964) 170-80; a much older but st;~~ invaluable treatment of the Lung-men material is E. Chavannes, Mission ar':; cheologique dans la chine septentrionale, t. I., deuxieme partie (Paris: 1915) 320--:' 561, in which almost 500 separate inscriptions are translated. The quotation{\ given here is from, and the numbers refer to, Chavannes. ,i.

48. Huntington, "Mathura Evidence for the Early Teachings Mahayana," p. 5a.

49. Sharma, BAM 231-32; Mukherjee, 83; etc. 50. The only possible exception to this is the inscription published in J.

Brough, "Amitabha and AvalokiteSvara in an Inscribed Gandharan Sculpture,'" Indologica Taurinensia 10 (1982) 65-70. Butthis inscription is very problematic: "(Presumably) about one-third of the inscription, or possibly slightly more"',: has been lost, according to Brough. He goes on to say that "the inscriptiori': is of a somewhat unusual form"-in fact, the syntax there is extremely odd::' R. Salomon, who is working on the innscription now, is of the opinion that! there is no reference in it to Amitabha at all, and, while we must await hiiX published conclusions, this seems very likely. It is also worth noting thatJ.:'· Huntington has argued that the Mohammed Naristele is "a representation, of the SukhavatI paradise of Amitayus" (J.e. Huntington, "A Gandharan~ Image of Amitayus' SukhavatI," Annali dell' Institutio Orientale di Napoli 40; (1980) 651-72; etc.), but this identification has already been called into ques::'i tion from an art-historical point-of-view (see R.L. Brown, "The Sravasti Mira-: cles in the Art of India and DvaravatI," Archives of Asian Art 37 (1984) 81ff.)! and it is open to other types of criticism as well. Huntington, for example, on the basis of his figure 4, assumes that the stele represents an instance.' where the historical Buddha shows a buddhafield to the monk Ananda. He. is aware of the possibility "that Abhirati either predated Sukhavat! or, at the. latest, developed simultaneously with it," and that as a consequence "it wilI. be necessary to be certain that the Mohammed Nari stele does not represent Abhirati" (p. 657, my emphasis). He thinks that this is "rather easily deter,; mined" and cites as his primary evidence the fact that in the one instance tha:t' he is aware of where someone "grants" a vision of Abhirati to someone else,:; it is not Sakyamuni who shows the buddhafield to Ananda, but "Vimalakirtj himself who displays Abhirati to the assembly." On this "evidence" he rules;: Abhirati out. Unfortunately, the Vimalakirti passage is not the only one i~,i


l~[~;UJayina lite~ature wher~ ~~~eon~,"~how~" Abh~rati to someone else. In the ;'1k bhyavyuha Itself, Subhutl shows It to Ananda (Pek. Vol. 22. 148-4-4ff.), "'{this raises no difficulties for Huntington. However, in what appears to

;;bu '. very old passage found in all the larger "redactions" of the Prajiiaparamita

;;~j:a_the. Altasahasrikii, t~e ~~(a~aSasahasrika: the Paiicavi7(li~ti, etc.-it is i£.slyarnUlll who shows Abhlrau to Ananda, whlCh fits exactly with what Hun:~ihgton sees on the Mohammed ~ar.i Stele (the earliest ~xtant versio~ of the :j)'assage, and the best preserved, IS m E. Conze, The Gdgzt Manuscnpt of the ·li~tOdaSasahasrikiiprajiiaparamita.Chapters 55-70 (Roma: 1962) 80-8l. Conze, n~ specifiC regard to the Al(a, has held that the Ak~obhya passages were later Y'dditions, but Lancaster has shown that they were already in the earliest Han :;~iarislation; see L. Lancaster, An Analysis of the A~tasahasrikiiPrajiiaparamita?s~tra,PhD. Thesis, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968, p. 316). In :';~4dition to these considerations, it might also be noted that Huntington sees i\TajrapaI).i in the stele and, although VajrapaI).i has no connection with i'Ain~tabha, he has a formally expressed connection with Ak~obhya (see Pek. ;VoL 22, 134-4-8; Dantinne, La splendeur de l'inrfbranlable, 106-07). Moreover .::~e presence of a woman in the stele and therefore in Sukhavati creates ;i>roblerns for Huntington, but women have a conspicuous place in Abhirati {(D~ntinne, La splendeur, 194-96 & n. W). Just this much is enough to show TIllar Huntington's argument does not meet his own conditions, i.e., that "it ::'wiIIbe necessary to be certain that the Mohammed Nari stele does not represent ;:c.2\bhirati." There is, in fact,- probably more "evidence" to suggest that it reprei;1~ritsAbhirati than there is to suggest that it represents Sukhavati. But in ;.truth it probably represents neither. {;.51. Das' nos.-Ku~an Dated: 73.-Ku~an Undated: 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 'i~7,82, 86,88,96,100,103,104,109,110,119,124,127,128,129, 130, 131, (1\132, 135, 136. ;:,..52. Das' nos.-Ku~an Dated: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,12, 13, 16, 18,21,22,23, ;24,25,28,29, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, '60,61, 65, 56, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 75, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 'i95,97, 98, 99.-Ku~an Undated: 3,21,55,56,57,58,59,62,63,64,67,68, C6~,70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77,78,79,80,81,94,98, 113,122.

53. Das' nos. Ku~an Dated: 11, 49, 64.-Ku~an Undated: 52. i.1'('·', 54. Das' no.-Ku~an Dated: 15.

/ .55. Das' nos.-Ku~an Dated: 1 (MI No. 172,F), 3 (Sircar EI 34,F), 9 (MI No. 154,F), 10 (MI No. 128), 17 (MI No. 80, Luders classifies as Ksatrapa), 19 (MI No. 157),20 (MI No. 150),26 (MI No. 73), 30 (MINo. 74), 31 (MI No. 136), 35 (MI No. 28,F), 40 (MI No. 103,F), 42 (MI No. 24), 46 (Agrawala

.';]UPHS No. 21,F), 48 (MI No. 126), 54 (MI No. 180), 62 (MI No. 134), 63

. ..(MINo. 29), 71 (Sircar EI No. 30,F), 95 (SrivastavaEI No. 37). Ku~an Undated: l(MI No. 135),9 (MI No. 76,F); 19 (MI No. 41,F), 51 (MI No. 26,F), 53 (MI No. 95,F), 54 (MI No. 90), 83 (MI No.3), 84 (MI No.2), 85 (MI No.4), 99 JlYIINo. 183), 108 (SrivastaJUPHS ns. 7-1 have not been able to see this inscription so I leave it out of account), 117 (MI No. 153,F), 120 (Agrawala -.,!UPHS 10), 121 (AgrawalaJUPHS 21,F), 125 (MI No. 121,F), 134 (MI No. :n,F). To which should be added: MI No.2, MI No. 81, BAM 181 n. 41, BAM


lSI n. 42(F), BAM 191 N. 63, BAM 232 n. 169,jAIH 13, 2S7ff. 56. All those inscriptions which are marked with an F in the preced"':

note, plus nos. 17 (which Liiders classifies as K~atrapa) and 62 (which ding; not indicate who the image is of) of Das' Ku~an Dated. O~Sj

57. MI Nos. 4, 29, ISO, IS3, and BAM 191, n.63.., 5S. MI Nos. 74, 135, Das, Ku~an Undated no.l0S.;::?; '\"<.,.,/ 59. MI No. SI, Ku~an Dated no.96..;J. 60. MI No.3. 61. MI Nos. 2, 24, 73, 126, 12S, 134, 136, 150, 157; BAM 181 n.4~."!

jAIH 13. ":: 62. see JPh. Vogel, "Epigraphical Discoveries at Sarnath," EI 8 (1905.1):'

06) 173-?9; L. Bachhofer, Di~/rilhind~che ~lastik (Miinchen: 1929) 103; J.f.f van Lohmzen-de Leeuw, The Scythwn Penod. An Approach to the History, Art'!; Epigraphy and Palaeography of North India from the 1st Century B.C. to thdrd ' Century A.D. (Leiden: 1949) 177-79; B. Rowland, "Bodhisattvas or Deified} Kings: A Note on Gandhara Sculpture," Archives of the Chinese Art Society ol America 15 (1961) 6-12; B. Rowland, "Rome and the Kushans: Images()[': Princes and Gods," F oreward to JM. Rosenfield, The Dynastic Arts of the Kuslul:rts' (Berkeley: 1967~ vii-x~i (for Rosenfield's .own vie,w see pp. 23S-44); N. Ray,;~ Idea and Image zn Indwn Art (New DelhI: 1972) 9-52; A.L. Basham, "Thei Evolution of the Concept of the Bodhisattva," The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Bud/ dhism, ed. L.S. Kawamura (Waterloo: 19S1) 29-31; etc. (This is meantasB representative, not an exhaustive bibliography). ..ii;

63. B.D. Chattopadhyaya, "On a Bi-scriptual Epigraph of the Ku~al.l~j! Period from Mathura," jAIH 13 (19S0-2) 277-S4; B.N. Mukherjee, "A Nott on a Bi-scriptural Epigraph of the KushaI).a Period from Mathura," lAIR 13) (1980-2) 285-86.,,';;

64. V.S. Agrawala, "A New Inscribed Image of Kasyapa Buddha froini, Mathura," jUPHS 10.2 (1937) 35-3S; Konow, KJ, XXXVI. 9, 11 (d. ].PII.'; Vogel, "The Past Buddhas and Kasyapa in Indian Art and E pigra phy," Asiatic~. Festschrift F. Weller (Leipzig: 1954) SOS-16. ':;.

65. See Srinivasan cited in n.6, Bhattacharyya and Rajaguru cited i~~ n.3, Marshall et al. cited in n.4, and add D.R. Sahni, Catalogue of the Museum i

of Archaeology at Sarnath (Calcutta: 1914) D(f)2 (p. 239); O. von Hiniiber, "Zti'i einigen Felsinschriften in Brahm! aus Nordpakistan," Ethnologie und Geschichte:[ Festschrift fur K. jettmar, Hrsg. P. Snoy (Wiesbaden: 1983) 272-79 (the date c;r these inscriptions is problematic; cf. Jettmar, Zentralasiatische Studien 16 (1982y':

·296 and journal of Central Asia IV.2 (19S1) n.15); S. Konow, "Arigom Sarada Inscription. Laukika Samvat 73," EI 9 (1907/08) 300-02; N.G. Majumdar, "Nalanda Inscription of Vi pula sri mitra," EI21 (1931-32) 97-101; etc. . >

66. See Schopen, "Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions," 14 and add: VY Vidyavinoda, "Two Inscriptions from Bodh-gaya," EI 12 (1913-14) 27-30; D.C. Sircar, "Indologica1 Notes. No. 24--Inscriptions on the Bronze Images) from Jhewari in the Indian Museum,"jAIH 10 (1976-77) 111-12; D. Mitral Bronzes from Bangladesh: A Study of Buddhist Images from District Chittagong (Delhi:, 1982) 17-21,39,42,43,44, etc.; R.D. Banerji, "Four Sculptures from Chall~.t dimau," Archaelogical Survey of India. Annual Report 1911-12 (Calcutta: 1915('


'{D.R. Sahni, "Saheth-Maheth Plate of Govin&:handra; [Vikrama] Samvat 6 6"£111 (19}l112) 20-26; etc. In regard to Sukhavati:, I know of only

,', 'ossible reference (see N.G. Majumdar, "Nalanda Inscription ofVipulas'&a" EI 21 (1931/32) 99, vs.12) but that it is actually Sukhavatl that is n.gr~ferred to here is not clear. This inscription dates to the 12th century .

• .• · •• 67. MI Nos. 8*,67*,78, 179*, 184, 185*, 186*; Srivastava EI 37*; Fleet iff!>J~'rl().63*; Sircar EI 34; Srinivasan EI 39*; BAk[ 223 n.148*, 226, n.153, 226

54,228 n.159., ' <68. Those inscriptions marked with an asterisk in n.67.

69. Schopen, "Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions," 4ff.; Schopen, Studien "ndologie und Iranistik 10 (1985) 37ff., especially ns.87 and 88 which correct ig'n1e D f the statements made in the first paper cited here; cf. M. Shizutani, ll~~ahayana Inscriptions in the Gupta Period," Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 10.1 Hf(i~62)358-55 (Shiz~t~ni h.er~ says that "the title sak!'abhik$u ... does not :;::ipp~arin any BuddhIst lr:scrI?tJons ofthe p:e-Gup~a penod except a Kushana ~mscription from Mathura (Luders no. 134), "but Luders (MI p. 76) has shown r~'tb'a.t"we may rest assured that the reading sakyabhik$usya [in the inscription 'Vt~ferred to in Shizutani] is due merely to arbitrary alteration," and that "the )~~I1tinghas evidently been altered in the facsimile"). i'mO. Sharma, Lalit Kala 19 (1979) 26.

;.~71. Konow, KI XIII (pp. 28-29), XV (p. 48), XVII (p. 52), XXVII (p. ~~~f7),XXXII (p. 87); S. Konow, "Charsadda KharoHhJ: Inscription of the Year :~;~p~,"Acta Onentalia 20 (1947) 109; R. Salomon, "The Bhagamoya Relic Bowl i;~Jpscription," IIJ 27 (1984) 108; G. Fussman, "Nouvelles inscriptions saka: ere 7!d'~~cratide, ere d'AZes, ere Vikrama, ere de Kani$ka," BEFEO 67 (1980) 6; t~9:'Fussman, "Nouvelles inscriptions saka (III)," BEFEO 74 (1985) 37. i;/::iIS 72. Sunga: MI Nos. 89, 187; K$atrapa: MI Nos. 80, 86, 123; KU$an: MI ~~o:r29, 157, BAM 181 n.4l. D.C. Sircar ("Mathura Image Inscription of tiyaslldeva," EI 30 (1953-54) 181-84), in editing an inscription dated in the .?~4fh or 67th year of Kani$ka, has suggested (182, 184 n.4) that this inscription ~{Wight originally have read, in part, piljartha sarvabuddhiina, but this seems :;\Wilikely. i:(/ , 73. BAM 180 n.38; A. Ghosh, "Buddhist Inscription from Kausambi," 'i~I34 (1961-62) 14-16; E. Senart, "The Inscriptions in the Caves at Nasik," :~I8(1905) 90, no.18. n.. 74. cf. R. Salomon, "The K$atrapas and Mahak$atrapas of India," WZKS it? (1973) 11; A.K. N arain, The Indo-Greeks (Oxford: 1957) 142ff. ;875. R. Salomon & G. Schopen, "The Indravarman (Avaca) Casket In~'scription Reconsidered: Further Evidence for Canonical Passages in Buddhist }pscriptions," JIABS 7 (1984) 107-23. ::',. 76. We do not actually know who was included in the category sar.r~abuddha, although all our actual evidence indicates that probably from the beginning-certainly before Asoka-the Indian Buddhist community knew ~ahd actively worshipped a plurality of buddhas which included at least the six )!former" buddhas. We also know that Kasyapa, at least, was known in KU$an ·Mathura. Vogel seems to have connected the term sarvabuddha exclusively :With this group (Asiatica (Leipzig: 1954) 816; he gives here a survey of the


evidence for the early plurality of the buddhas). The Jains also knew as' ' of former jinas and it is therefore interes~~ng to note th~t a parallel toe~~ formula sarvabuddhapuJiiye, arahatapuJiiye ( for the worshIp of the arhat"): occurs frequently in Jain inscriptions from Mathura as the sole stated purp~'~ for which a religious donation was made. (G. Buhler, "Further Jaina Inse .s.~; tions from Mathura," EI 2 (1894) nos. II, V, IX, XXIII, XXX, XXXII). np:

77. Sharma's text is full of mistakes. (The same is true of Sharm / transcripti.on of the same in~criptio~ published in J.G. Williams, The Art ~f Gupta Indza Emptre and Provmce (Pnnceton: 1982) 6B n.31) I have ignorl several, marked two of the most bizarre with sic, a'nd corrected two. The Whd~!' inscription needs to be re-e?ited, but the published photographs (BAM pi~ 142 & 143) are so bad that It cannot be done from them..:"~:y

78. V.N. Srivastav~, "Two Image Inscriptions from Mathura," EI31~ (1967) 153-154 (dated III the 125th year of the Gupta Era); Srinivasan,E;t (1971) 9-12 (either 148 or 178 of the Gupta Era). ~I(~

79. Schopen II] 21 (1978) 8-9 and n.18; Mitra, BronzesJrom Bangladesh;. 39,43.'//;:

80. I would like to thank Richard Salomon for having read a draftlir the present paper and for having let me profit from his always valuabii observations.' '

The Ku~an Amitabha Inscription

Right side enlargement of The Kus.an Amitabha Inscription.

Left side enlargement of The Ku~iin Amitiibha Inscription.

r···tT ..... · j): ·::r

lk F!ii umon i-5 our oldest .source for the l.XJrd 0{ the BudOhd. We- ,gre .g cf.grit.!d publishing ~li 1exts ) tr~tiot1s c)ictionaries ~ primers 10 incredSe public ,gw,gre.ne0S of &c\3fist uteDture.lf ~OIJ ~ve ~y oimcul~ in f/noi~ ow- books) pbsewrite for ... our list of publicMions if order ~()l..(r book dll""F .. c.t frcm us.

&tte.r still) (unhe.r our work ~ be..corrur1!j j member. ;111 members receive. 10 % disCDW"lt Oft. pW"Ch~e.s) but Spcn.sorif"8 members C;Jrt

~Iso ~ .Q k hoot<. ever.!:!. !:jedr.

PQU T(n SoCILT'i,

BR.Odtx..Jd'1 House, Nf),,:m;wN ROd D J

HUJLD-I- ON THdMlS,

tNC.~ND. RC.q 1t.N

Ordi~r;ll'1.tmber5hip : 1 ~r ...... .i6·00 5 ~e.drJ . . . .. .125·00;

Sponsoring Membership: 1 lbr ...... .£15·00 5 Lfedrs ..... .i6500.

~'ackground Materi.al for the First '6fthe Seventy TOpICS 1riMai trey a -natha' s Abhisamayalar(ikara

I.

Bodhicitta (enlightenment mind) or cittotpada (generation of il:ilii~d) is the first of the seventy topics (Tib. don bdun bcu) under ;;~hich Maitreya-natha2 (310-390)3 discusses the concealed mean,t,fug4 of the Prafitii Siitras in his classic Mahayana text the Abhi. U-Iedevotes three verses (sloka) to the topic, only the first of ;1~Which(Abhi: 18)-explaining what cittotpada is and how it is to :~b~defined-is pertinent to the limited aim of this paper. The :'~ther two verses (Abhi: 19-20), listing the twenty-two divisions ~(~f.cittotpada5 in correspondence with the stages of the path, go t;~~yond the scope of the present paper. :!!;\ The verse itself presents no linguistic problems either in ;fheoriginal Sanskrit or in Tibetan. The Sanskrit (cittotpiidaly, ',~~riirthiiya samyaksambodhi-karnata, samiisa-vyiisataly, sa ca yathiisiitra11J, [ra,cocyate) literally translated reads: 'T,,:'" -

Generation of mind is a desire for perfectly complete enlightenment for the sake of others.

That and that are spoken of briefly and extensively according to the [PaTica] siltra. 6

c' In this paper an attempt will be made (1) to supply the context Jqr the verse within the Prajiiii tradition in general and the Abhi t}.~ iparticular; (2) to give some background to the traditional :~~egesis of the verse by briefly explaining some of its metaphysical ~lmp1ications; and (3) to present two small translations-from :tlaribhadra's (fl. mid-ninth century) Aloka and Tsong Kha pa's .{J357-1419)gSer Phrengwhich explain the meaning of the verse.

139


II.

Broadly speaking, Prajiia literaty-re passes through th·· "ei d I · ree;.~

stages of eve opment: revelatIon (buddha-vacana)-the period';% the Prajiia sutras;1 systematization-the period of Nagaljuna's to);?,; 150-250) Kari~ and Maitreya-natha's Abhi;8 and scholaSticisrn4[J stretching from Arya-vimuktisena's (c. 500)9 VXtti through the PaW~ dynasty into the fourteenth century Tibetan reformation.lo<,;)~

Our familiarity with the Prajiia S. utras is without dOubt th··it;: e·! legacy of the late Dr. Edward Couze's tireless effortst~"ij, popularize these basic Mahayana texts. II He translated, mOr'?' or les~ faithfully, large parts of the A.\'(a, Paiica and Sata (th~i:j most Important of the longer sutras) as well as the Heart Siltfa;; (Prajiia-hr:daya-sutra), Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedika-prajiia) ~n9"il other smaller condensations important in the daily religious life:} of ordinary Buddhists throughout Southeast and North ASia.J';f

Dharmamitra (c. 850-900), the celebrated contemporarY()f~ Haribhadra,12 appears to be the first writer to clearly set?~t;ri two lineages of exegesis of the Prajiia Sutras. In his Prasphutap~;~ he makes reference to a "profound" (gambhira) and "vast" (v4;~;i tara) traditionY This division is worked out in detail byt4#,il Tibetan Tsang Kha pa (gSer Phreng:3b.1-6b.l). According'to~~ his traditional explanation the "profound" tradition begins Witllft; the mythological being Maiijusri, emerges in the human realriill with the "Six Collections of Reasons" (Tib. rigs tshogs drug) 14 andt~ passes down through Buddhapalita (c. 500), Candrakirti (c. 65Q,:.f Santideva (695-743), etc. The "vast" lineage springs from MaG';; treya, the mythological being who taught Asanga (i.e., Maitreya::') natha) the "Five Texts of Maitreya" (Tib. byams gzhung sde lnga)\~;:;~ in TU.\'ita. Asanga brought these books back to the human realrii':~ where the tradition continues with Vasubandhu (fl. 320-350),:'1; Arya-Vimuktisena, Bhadanta-Vimuktisena (c. 650)/6 Haribh~~:t> dra, Dharmamitra and Abhayakaragupta (1077-1130), etc::i{R

These two lineages of exegesis are differentiated in terrr,:t~l~ of their expressed subject matter (Tib. dngos bstan). In the "PF9!:;} found" tradition commentaries take the actual meaning of thf,.~ Prajiia Sutras, i.e., sunyata (emptiness), as subject matter, whil;¢;}~ in the "vast" lineage the expressed subject matter is the conceal~R:;; meaning, i.e., the seventy topics. (See notes 4 and 8.) '>,i';'''~?

As a systematization of the topics of the major Prajiia Siltr~~~~;:

THE ABHISAMA Y ALAMKARA 141

ref~re, the Abhi occupies a pivotal position between the lessl.;;~'~ternatized and quasi-mythological Mahayana Sutras on the :~~f:;{hand, and the emergence of distinct philosophical and ~'~~taphysical Mahayana schools. on tht.: other. In this respect its t~~l~tion to the later commentanes of Arya-Vimuktisena, etc., is 11i6h,ghly analagous to Nag~rjuna's Kiirikiis and the later ffr1li.d:hyam~ka texts. T~e Abhl ta~es seven hundred years of ~metaphyslcal speculatIOn (the PraJiiii Sutras) and systematizes it i~thin an edifice comparable in size and grandeur to the cosmos' ~~£Dante's Divine Comedy. Furthermore, the clearly delineated fiiiAerstructure of the text-mirroring and formalizing the ten~~pcy of the Prajiiii Sutras to present the same ideas in more 'lipd less condensed fashion-becomes a distinct literary ~p#fadigm fol~owed. by most later writers in the tradition.!7 i~i~J,The Abhl has Itself been somewhat neglected by western :~th()larship. Apart from Obermiller's pioneering efforts in the ~~)ltlier part of this centuri8 and the important spadework by CGonze and Tucci there has been a singular lack of interest in lthiS$mall yet arguably most influential of all the works associated ~itl1Asailga. Specific questions raised in the Abhi have been ;(Q8~ed into deeply by some of the more distinguished names fi~contemporary Buddhist scholarship. Amongst modern Amer;~~aIlscholars, Dr. D. S. Ruegg!9 for his work on gotra (lineage), :tliefourth of the seventy topics, as well as Dr. Jeffrey Hopkins20 i~ti~his associates at the University of Virginia for their work :6rimental states (Tib. sams gzu:gs) , the eighth topic, deserve ;g~rtitular mention. There is a critical edition of the first {~q~isamaya of the Vr:tti by C. Pen sa. Also worthy of note are the :~~rlier contributions of Japanese scholars such as U. Wogihara. ;~ore recently Hirofusa Amano and Keikai Mano,. etc., have !mfde available excellent critical tools for some of the important ,~()rks. However, contemporary scholars have not dealt with the i~bhias a total integrated work. 2! ~;"Expanding on and explaining in detail the Abhi's seventy ,topics in conjunction with the Paiica, Arya-Vimuktisena's Vr:tti l~aiks the beginning of a scholasticism where, by and large, ;~~ch later writer incorporates the work of earlier writers into a (,generally accepted orthodoxy, building up and increasing in {gimension a massive edifice of metaphysical belief. Arya-Vim ukfisena is followed by Bhadanta-Vimuktisena and then the most !,-;. "


important of al! Indian Pr~jiiii exegetes, .H~ribhadra.22Bi~"* Sphu~iirtha, a bnef explanatIOn of the Abhz wIth explanato\1 transitional passages, is the basic text for many later comlllry< taries (particularly in t~e Tibetan tradition) while his Alo~.~-\ accepted, together with Arya-Vimuktisena's V'(tti as authoritarl~':i in doctrinal matters. 23 The vast tradition ends in India with t~e·.1 intricate speculations of Abhayakaragupta arid Dipamkara-aW~ji' and continues in a highly systematized fashion in Tibet with t~'·;. encyclopaedist Bu-ston (1290-1364) and later in the worksly the scholastic reformer Tsong Kha pa and his disciples. 0;.

Concerning the structure of the Abhi and the context of th~ opening verse defining cittotpiida within the text itself, one finds~ instead of the more usual linear development of ideas, a dis~' tinctly concentric pattern; i.e., the Abhi sets out its subject matter numerous time~ in. the same. order, each pres~ntation ~overin~' the same matenalm successIvely greater detaIl. The eIght sup~ jects (padiirtha) of verses three and four (prajiiiipiiramitii~(abhih padiirthaih samudiritii: (1) sarviikiirajiiatii (2) miirgajiiatii (3) sarvaj~); iiatii tatah (4) sarviikiiriibhisambodho (5) milrdhapriipto (6) 'nupur-~ vikah (7) eka~aniibhisambodho (8) dharmakiiyas ca te '~(adhii) encap~\ sulate the seventy topics (beginning with cittotpiida) taughtiui

;

verses five to seventeen. Verses eighteen to the penultimateartf in turn a more detailed presentation of each of the seventy) topics listed in the preceding thirteen verses. .

These three sections (Abhi:3-4 listing the eight subjects,", Abhi:5-17 listing the seventy topics and Abhi: 18-penultimate/ detailing the seventy topics) comprise the body of the text. They are preceded by a traditional excursus (Abhi: 1-2) setting forth· the subject matter (abhidheya), purpose (prayojana) and so forth' and a homage to Prajiiii as mother of all iirya beings.,:

The homage describes the first three of the eight subjects (the sarviikiirajiiatii, miirgajiiatii and sarvajiiatii):

Homage to the mother of the Buddha together with the collection of Hearers and Bodhisattvas:

The knower of all by which Hearers and those desiring peace are led to peace,

The knower of paths by which those who benefit the world accomplish the welfare of mankind,

And that by possession of which the Sages speak this various (doctrine) in all aspects.24

THE ABHISAMAyALAMKARA 143

~~Jta is a feminine abstract noun meaning literally "the state i;~~Fteing that which ~~o~s.': The tra~slati~n "knower': in prefer-1'5'f,~Y>:e to "knowledge IS Jarnng, but IS retamed to aVOId a potentl!~ihciy misleading am~i_guity between ~hat is kno.wn ,vneya) and 1~\thatwhich . kno,,:,s (jn~). In BuddhIst sc~olastlC h.terature .a ~J~}qiower subst~ntlally dIff~rent to "a knowmg conSCIOusness IS f:';:"·n···· 'e' rally demed. Hence knower does not refer to an agent j:;rge '.' . . !;:Jjut to a conSCIousness ItSelf.] \!:'g:::Since the three knowers (jnata) include the remaining five ~';~llbjects25 this ope~ing homage is .itself said to teach the subject ;;'~matter of the entIre text. And smce the second two knowers f~{the margajnata and sarvajna.ta) are themselves inc.luded in the *\~J1ower of all aspects, the WIsdom of Buddhas, thIS first of the 0'~ight subjects incorporating the entire Mahayana doctrine is of fyrimary import.ance. (See also figure one.). :!,,;The great Importance of the first abhzsamaya (the knower :::6fall aspects) is attested to in the opening verses (Abhi: 1-2) ;~'~here the aim or purpose of the Abhi is stated to be "ease of A;,'rinderstanding and cultivating the path of the knower of all iifispects taught by our Teacher in the (sidras)".26 Thus the position ;~of cittotpada as first of ten phenomena exemplifying the path of ~'~e knower of all aspects (Tib. rnam mkhyen gyi mtshon byed kyi l'~tijos bcu) becomes highly significant. It reflects the theory that ;;i&ittotpiida is not only the start of, but also the demarcator of i;i1v.fahayana, and that it alone, not penetration of reality or any fi'pther higher yogic practice, is the final arbiter of Mahayana ::~,~!atus. 27 According to many Tibetan writers this theory of citto:\tpada as entrance into the Mahayana (Tib. theg chen 'jug sgo) ;,~iplains the positioning of the verse at the beginning of the ?third and most detailed presentation of the seventy topics. It Wtay also be an indication that the author of the Abhi accepted :~piiya (in this case cittotpada) alone and not prajna (i.e., under\standing of fiinyata) as the sole unique factor in delineation of

Mahayana path. 28

III.

For Indian writers like Haribhadra this verse raises two : (1) what is cittotpada? and (2) how is it to be defined?


The first question they consider within a division of conscio/2

ness (vijiiiina) into citta (main mind) and caitta (mental factoU~-i; an~ the second by a~alysis. of the cittotpiida's two objects of obs:r~~ vatIOn (iilambana, Tib. dmzgs pa). . <'('

The division of consciousness into mind and mental fact; is found ~nearlie: texts. 29 It i.s, however, the. Vijiiiinaviida, wii~;::i its deep m~erest m the work1~gs of perceptIOn, .that develop~0 the theory m an attempt to dIscover' better termmology to deJ scribe the intricacies of human awareness.,,;;,

In Asanga's Abhidharmasamuccaya-which, together Witt" Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-kiirikii, is the main source for the'i citt~/caitta theory-a categorization of ~eeper .an.d more clearly~ dehneated aspects of speCIfic perceptIOns wIthm a theory or: main mind and of fifty-one secondary mental factors is dei: velo~ed i~ line with the idea of specific f~nction (Tib. thun mOi!gl ma ym pa z byed las). Each mental factor IS defined by a uniq~~\ function carried out under the purview of mind as the main" cognitive event. This idea is exemplified in later Tibetan schoj1: las tic texts by a manager and a staff of special functionaries:~: store-keeper, foreman, secretary and so forth, where eachar~i) subservient to and work under the authority and directionof; the manager. 3°~1'

Asanga admits fifty-one mental factors and defines twenty?:, six of them in terms of afflictive states (kleSa) , eleven in terms:, of wholesome states (kausala), and four in terms of changeabl~ states. 31 Of the remaining ten mental factors-the five, vedani')l (feeling), cetanii (intention), samjiiii (discrimination), sparta (con~~: tact) and manasi-kiira (mentation), and the five, prajiia (intelli~;\ gence), samadhi (stabilization), chanda (longing), adhimo~a (incli2~ nation) and smr:ti (recollection)-Asanga says that only the firs'(; five are omnipresent (Tib. kun 'gro) and absolutely prerequisite;! to cognition, while the remaining five are present when there:~ is assertainment of an object (Tib. yut nges). . i.·

Tsong Kha pa says that Arya-Vimuktisena arrived at th€" ,conclusion that cittotpada was mano-vijiiana (mental conscious~;~ ness, a main mind) by a process of exclusion (gSer Phreng:93a.2).'0 He eliminated the five sense consciousnesses because they vie~~ only externals, and the seventh and eighth consciousness ofth~.· Cittamatra system (i.e., the alaya-v~'iiana and the kli~(a-manas.X; because they are, theoretically, incapable of being virtuous state,s2j


He was thus left with the sixth, mental consciousness no-vijn~na), as an instance of cittotpada. Tsong Kha pa also

",tays that Arya-Vimuk~isen~ and Haribhadra felt .constra~ned, ~fi'venin the face of desIgnatIOns such as kamata (desIre, Abhz: 18), ff~i~~t~na (intention, Sutralarhkara ) and prarjidhana (resolve, ~;~ddhisattvabh~mi), to'po~it cittotpada as a main mind in order to ';~!":;tain the pnmary slgmficance of the term. ?j(,<r~ l;;;(?~;;.iThere is, however, a theoretical basis for the idea. Within :ifI1eframework of the Mahayana path there are ultimate citto~f:ipadaand conventional cittotpada, corresponding to the wi~dom ii',a'hdmethod of the path. Just as the anantarya-marga (unmter;;ilipted path) is said to be a main mind even though its primary "~~haracter is the mental factor of wisdom or intellect (prajna), ':gihlilarIy the conventional cittotpada is a main mind even though ;Ji.~~sprimary characteristic is compassion (kr:pa). Viewed from two 'iYkilgles-as wisdom realizing emptiness directly and as com pas~;(sion feeling pity for sentient beings-the main mind called citto~f~iida is the substantial cause that evolves into a Buddha's knower '~bfall aspects (sarvakarajnata). 32

:;~i.:<Whether cittotpada is a main mind or mental factor is a jJgrtestion largely confined to scholastic manuals. The question :i1pfthe definition of cittotpada within a consideration of its objects ',;'()fobservation (alambana) is discussed more widely in religious :~f~xts since it has a direct bearing on Buddhist religious attitudes. 1:l;<,All Indian and Tibetan Mahayana writers appear to agree ~iPat a fully qualified cittotpada requires two objects of observa<~~on.: (1) the enlightenment the practitioner hopes to attain for {t~~ benefit of others and (2) the benefit of others itself. The 'iformer is viewed as the tool or cause for the achievement of the i~1l~2ond. Hence the enlightenment directly sought by bodhisattvas :\i~ithe rupakaya, comprising the sambhogakaya which proclaims ~f~e Mahayana for all time and the limitless emanations of the i'njrmarjakayawhich accomplish the welfare of others. 33

IV.

Aloka:24.1-25.13

i\ '. It is said, {'/

146 ]IABSVOL.10NO.2

There, first, because of the potency of lineage (gotra)

The seed of compassion is awakened, And with the full complement of practice and thought The mind of enlightenment is apprehended.

According to this, bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment) bor~.i of emptiness and compassion arises through the potency of': lineage (gotra) and so forth, because of taking on fully th~M. bodhisattvas' commitments (samvara). One makes a resolve"; (prarpidhiina): "Having become a perfectly complete Buddhamay:~' I strive for the sake of others' well-being by teaching the doctrin~: of the three vehicles, etc." [And one thinks:] "It shall be brought') to completion through practice". [Bodhicitta] is, therefor,ei'i characterised as a desire to attain enlightenment having in min(r~ the welfare of others. And it has a cause and effect [division]:; for it says [in the Bodhicaryavatara] "

Just as a division into wanting to go and goer is set out,

Similarly a division of these two [bodhicittas] in accord with that enumeration is to be known by scholars.

Hence bodhicitta is twofold: (1) resolve (prarpidhiina) and (2) gaging (prasthiina).34

However, [the Sutralamkiira] says:

The intention (cetana) of bodhisattvas which has great enthusiam (mahotsaha) ,

Great undertaking (maharambha), great purpose (mahartha)

Then great emergence (mahodaya), and which has Two aims, is the birth of a mind (citta-sambhavaft).

This is perhaps [saying] that cittotpada is a [main] mind wit~.~ associated intention and the discernment of a special object. <;~j

[Objection:] Desire for perfectly complete enlightenmenl<!:' (samyaksar(l,bodhi-kamata, [Abhi: IS.I]) is a yearning (prarthana) for,~~ that [enlightenmentJ-themental factor (caitasika) of longing,~ (chanda) for virtuous phenomena. How could that [desire] b~'~i cittotpada?


(Response:] True. However, there is no fault for the following :bteason. Here the result [cittotpiida] is being indicated by the cause \,.[desire to ~enefit others] sin~e one wh~ sees huma~it~ leaderless :>~hdsunk m the ocean of mIsery and mtends to hft It up has a ji~earning characterized as a longing for virtuous phenomena. cfr.is on account of that that he or she generates the thought to '.b{a Buddha. [Hence, cittotpiida is designated desire] in order ';Hlatit will be known that all virtuous phenomena increase for ;bddhisattvas with such a longing and yearning. 'it Alternatively, the resolve (prartidhiina) or yearning is desire ';for perfectly complete enlightenment, and the cittotpiida which .¥unctions simultaneously with it is taught by way of that yearnling. This is beca~se ye.arning i.s fo~e~ost at the time of ci~totpiida. ~iViewed from thIS pomt of VIew It IS tenable [to call czttotpiida ?esire] since that [bodhi] mind is produced simultaneously with

~.th~ resolve . . ... . What, then, is this perfectly complete enlightenment? What 'is the well-being of others? What is the nature of the desire, :)~#d towards what purpose is cittotpiida directed? l?i; I will answer in accord with the Parica Sidra. In it, the brief ;'explanation of perfectly complete enlightenment says: ',',;:'

Sariputra, a great bodhisattva wishing to fully enlighten all phenomena in all respects should apply himself to practice of the perfection of wisdom.

;the extensive explanation of it says:

Sariputra, a great bodhisattva abiding here in the perfection of wisdom through the mode of non-abiding should make complete the perfection of giving (danaparamita) through the mode of nonbenevolence since what is given, the giver and the receiver are not observed ...

'The brief explanation of the well-being of others says:

A great bodhisattva who wishes to place in complete nirvar]a as many beings as there are in worlds as numerous as the sands of the river Ganges in each of the ten directions, in anirvar]a where there is no remaining aggregate (anupadhisqa), should practice :he perfection of wisdom.


The extensive explanation of this says:

A great bodhisattva who wishes to plac,e in benevolence those wh" are miserly, in ethical conduct those who are immoral, in patienco

those beings who are malicious, should practice the perfectio e of wisdom. n

The Abhi therefore says:

Generation of mind is a desire for perfectly complete enlightenment for the sake of others.

That and that are spoken of briefly and extensively according to the (Parica) Sutra.

v.

gSer Phreng: 92b.5-94a.6

WHAT IS Cittotpiida35

Explanation of the Other Masters [Asanga and Vasubandhu];

Asanga, in his Bodhisattvabhumi, says: "cittotpiida is thl bodhisattvas' finest resolve (Tib. smon lam)". He is therefore ofth~ opinion that cittotpiida is in its nature a resolve. And Vasubandhu comments in his commentary on the Alamkiira36 that, "cittotpiida is an intention that has three qualities and is concerned with two objects". He thus takes the position that it is in its nature an intention (Tib. sems pa). In the Sutriilamkiira it says:"

The resolve of the steadfast ones Is an intention together with longing.

Thus it describes the resolve [i.e., cittotpiida] as an intention by longing. It seems, therefore, that Asanga's opinion and th< opinion of Vasubandhu are equivalent.

Level One

Level Two

Level Three

····L·;i··oUTiiNE76FirsONGLKH;g~PA;§rA.~A.L¥sIg+6'F;.fI;i~r}Ulii~·(cli1ii~"dh~r;1i~;

THE THREE WISDOMS I ~~~i~~~-;~~~~~~~-'" ~~~~~~~~~-~~- ~-~~ To be known Tobedone The result

Chapters 1-3 Chapters 4-7 ChapterS 1 ,--------------------------------------------

SARVAKARAjNATA (OMNISCIENCE) To be known

Chapter 1 (the ten topics of omniscience)

MARGAjNATA (KNOWER OF PATHS) Means of Attainment (Bodhisattva path)

Chapter 2

SARVAjNATA (KNOWER OF ALL) To be avoided (Hlnayana path)

Chapter 3

l ,--------------------------------------------

CITTOTPADA (Bodhicitta)

The heart of the path

Topic 1

A VA V ADA NIRVEDABHAG]Y AlYGA (Advice) (U nderstanding of)

emptiness) To refine cittotpada The result of

advice

Topic 2 Topics 3 + 4

PRACTICES

To implement advice

Topics 5 - 10 l '- --------------------- -------------------------------------See Chart Two

i-J ::r:: M

~ ::r:: H CJ)

> a::: ~ >, ~ ~. ~ >, ~

...... ~ <.0

CITTOTPADA: THE HEART OF THE PATH

GENERAL EXPLANATION

PHYSICAL AND NATURE OF BODHICITI A BENEFITS MENTAL BASES

,

I

Instances Definition ~s

Other Views Arya& Haribhadra

D r-- r--

c

\

--'-

EXPLANATION OF THE SPJ-IU7;'ARTHA

,~ .

>-' V< o

'-< >-< >td \fl

-< o r-' o z Q. l~

THE ABHISAMAY ALAM:KARA 151

Explanation Based on the Present Text [Abhi] This has two parts: explanations of those who concur with

;%~~rya_Vimuktisena and explanations of those who differ from

t~~;Explanations of those who concur with Arya-Vimuktisena. [In his ~~Jti] Arya-Vimukti~ena explains citta (mind) and utpada (gener;&~tion) in the followmg manner. He says:

Citta (mind) is consciousness (vijiiana) since it is a particular aware~ ness (vibuddhi). Of the [eight] consciousnesses it is mental consciousness (mano-vijiiana) because that which is concerned with wholesome phenomena would be [of that sort]. Utpada (generation) lets it be known that something has been generated anew. Hence it is to indicate the initial thing, [i.e.,] when the mind [newly] realizes the phenomenon.

;~iya-Vimuktisena thus takes the view that a mental conscious'ness suited to be a basis for wholesome phenomena is an instance i?~fcittotPada since he considers the five sense consciousnessesto ~b.econcerned only with externals, and the alaya-v&"iuina and ;ll~ta-manas to be neutral (Tib. lung ma bstan). Furthermore, in ~~fCplaining why desire for enlightenment [in the Abhi] seems to .'gecittotpada, he structures an argument [in resolution of which] .~~says that "desire" (kamata) is merely used to designate cittotpada but is not cittotpada itself. ;,tyc Bhadanta-Vimuktisena gives a similar instance [of cittotpada] 'ihhis Varttika and Haribhadra, both here [in his Sphutartha] and ihhis Aloka quotes the argument set out by Arya-Vimuktisena b~ndasserts that desire is merely used to designate [cittotpada] {vhich is in fact a [main] mind. e l • Abhayakaragupta in his Marmakaumudz also presents the :~:ntireargument [of Arya-Vimuktisena], and the Panjika sets forth mental consciousness as an instance. j Dharmamitra, in his Prasphuta-pada does follow Arya-Vimuktisena, but is a bit obscure. He says:

According to some, [the word desire is used] for cittotpada in order to teach the primary thing in the actual cittotpada, i.e., longing and so on. According to others it is imputed to that aid .which increases cittotpada, i.e., benevolence and so on. And according to others it is imputed to the result, i.e., the path that all traverse.

152 jIABSVOL.IONO.2

Explanations of those differing from Arya-Vimuktisena. dhasri37 [in his Pradfpavali] contradicts Arya-Vimuktisena Haribhadra. He says:

Since yearning is itself awareness it is enough that such a nation is used: Others say that the name of the cause is given the result or the name of the simultaneous aid is given, but does that establish its true character?

Since he is asserting yearning (prarthana) to be a mind he asser,ting mind and msntal factors to be substantially the same.

and

Santipa,38 in his Suddhamatf, says:

This thingcittotpada is a mind, i.e., mental [consciousness] and it is desire.

Therefore, cittotpada is characterised as a desire focused on fectly complete enlightenment for the benefit of others.

He thus asserts [cittotpada] to be both mental consciousness longing.

Why do Arya-Vimuktisena and Haribhadra feel to state that it is a mind?

They contend that if it were a mental factor the basic "''''.lUU-''

cation of the word would be lost. For Haribhadra in there is the underlying suspicion that the last line of the ing verse from the Sutralamkiira is talking about a mind.

The intention (cetana) of bodhisattvas which has great enthusiasm,

Great undertaking, great purpose Then great-emergence, and which has Two aims is the birth of a mind (citta-sambhavalp).

For he quotes this in his Aloka in the context of tisena's argument and says:

This is perhaps [saying] that cittotpada is a [main] mind associated intention and the discernment of a special object.


}~eseem~ to b~ con)ecturin?" that. this quotation teaches that ;Cittotpada IS a mmd aIded by m~e~tlO~. _ . , '!~:, In the verse from the Sutralamkara, "great enthusIasm' i;"eans being armed with enthusiastic perseverence and not be;~rning depressed at having to work diligently for a long time. ;~Great undertaking" means accomplishing, by enthusiastic per?bverence for the task at hand, what one is armed for. "Great 1~urpose" means it is fo~ the ben:fit of [both] onesel~ and others, :ina "great emergence means It goes to great enlIghtenment. Th~ first two [i.e., great enthusiasm and undertaking] teach that 'fiproduces [enlighten.ment], the third [i.e., great. purpose] teaches the purpose It fulfills, and the fourth [l.e., great ernergence] teaches that [cittotpada] is in charge of enlighten-'.\

'rllent.

;~'NOTES :k":.,, '<\><

:~':)~i 1. Abbreviations and List of Principal Indian and Tibetan Sources ~~(lJsual abbreviations for Tib. titles of Indian works are first given in paren···:th~sis, followed by the author. An asterisk before the Sanskrit indicates the twork is no longer extant in the original.)

~~\;~~;1,,_ iP. The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition. Reprinted under the supervision of r,;;: the Otani University, Kyoto. Ed. by D. T. Suzuki, 168 vols. (Tokyo and ~:';' Kyoto 1955-1961). i[Tib. Tibetan e;Abhi Abhisamayiilamkara-niima-prajiiiipiiramitii upadeSaSiistrakiirikii (mngon par ~\: rtogs pa'i rgyan) (Maitreya-natha) P. 5187. Ed. in Sanskrit and Tib. by T. '1" Stcherbatsky and E. Obermiller (Bibliotheca Buddhica, 23) (St. :;: Petersburg 1939); trans. with Sanskrit-Tib. index by E. Conze (Serie ';!: Orientale Roma, 1) (Roma 1963). The Sanskrit edition of the Abhi found

, in Unrai Wogihara's Aloka has been used for this paper. Wogihara's

i~,{·,·.· nhumb~rindg of the I verse~ hads bheenfjfoltlotwed even thfough he ar:>dPeart~ to ave lila vertent y omitte t e Irs wo verses rom consl era IOn

r~. (Aloka: 1,7-10) and begun his enumeration from verse three. ~Alokii 14tasiihasrikii-prajiiiipiiramitii-vyiikhyiibhisamayiilamkara-iilokii (rgyan gyi ~; snangba) (Haribhadra) P.5189. Ed. by U. Wogihara (Tokyo 1932-1935). " , Cf. the earlier edition by G. Tucci (Geakward Oriental Series, 62) (Baroda ? 1932). /A,fia 14iasiihasrikii-prajiiiipiiramitii (rgyad stong ba) P. 734. tgSer Phreng Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa'i man ngag gi bstan beos mngon par

rtogs pa'i rgyan 'grel ba dang beas pa'i rgya eher bshad pa. 'Legs bshad gser gyi phreng ba' shes bya ba (Tsong Kha pa) P.6150. A blockprint edition in the


library of the Buddhist School of Dialectics, Dharmsala, Indian has b ';' .. . een

used for thIS paper. Kiirika Prajiiii-niima-m~lamad~yama~~ri~ii (rtsr: ba :hes rab) (Nagarjuna) P.52. * M armakaumudf As.\asahasnka-praJnaparamzta-vr:ttzmarma-kaumudf (gnad kyiz~

'ad) (Abhayakaragupta) P.5202. . Paiica Paiicavimsatisiihasrikii-prajiiiipiiramitii (nyi khri) P.73 1.

* Paiijika A~\asiihasrikii-prajiiiipiiramitii-paiijikiisiiratamii (snying po mchog) (San:; tipa > Ratnakarasanti) P.5200." '.,

*Prad'ipiivali Abhisamayiilamkara-bhagavat'i-prajiiii-piiramitii-upadesa-siistra_ ...... . vr:tti-prajiiii-prad'ipiival'i (shes rabsgronme'iphreng ba) (Buddhasrl) P.5298'/

* Prasphu\apadii Abhisamayiilamkiirakiirika-prajiiiipiiramitii-upadesa-siistra_\'ika~.;t prasphu\apadii (tshig gsal) (Dharmamitra) P .5194.

Prajiiii Prajiiiipiiramitaii (sher ph yin).). Efatniivc:l'i Riija~parikathii-ratnaval'i (rin chen 'phreng ba) (Nagarjuna) P.5658 .. ~ Sata Satasiihasrikii-prajiiiiparamita (bum) P. 7 3 0 "f * Sphu\artha Abhisamaya~amkara-nama-prajiiapar~mita-upadesa-sii~tra-V'l:tti Cgre(

ba don gsal) (Hanbhadra) P.5191. Partial reconstruction, Hirofusa' Amano, A study on the Abhi-Vr:tti (Japan Science Press, 1975). Cf. als~

(Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica, 2) Sarnath 1977. * Suddamat'i Abhisamayalamkarakarikiivr:tti-suddamat'i (dag ldan) (Santipa)

P.5199. Sutriilamkara Mahiiyana-sutriilamkiira-niima-kiirika (mdo sde rgyan) (Maitreya:'

natha) P.5521. *Viirttika Paiicavimsatisahasrikii-prajiiaparamita-upadeSa-siistra-abhisamaYiilaiz~\.~

karaviirttika (nyi khri rnam 'grel) (Bhadanta-Vimuktisena) P.5186.;. Vitti Paiicavimsatisiihasrika-prajiiaparamita-upadesa-sastra-abhisamayiila- .

mkiirvr:tti (nyi khri snang ba) (Arya-Vimuktisena) P.5185. The firsf abhisamaya ed. by C. Pensa (Serie Orientale Roma, 37) (Roma 1967) ....

* * * Abhidharmakosakarikii (mdzod) (Vasubandhu). Abhidharmasamuccaya (mngon par kun btus) (Asanga). Bodhisattvabhumi (byang sa) (Asanga). Bodhicaryiivatara (spyod )'ug) (Santideva). Dharmadharmatavibhangakiirika (chos dang chos nyid rnam 'byed) (Maitreya~

natha). Madhyamakavatiira (dbu ma la 'jug pal (Candrakirti). Madhyiintavibhangakiirika (dbu mtha' rnam 'byed) (Maitreya-natha). Mahiiyiinottaratantrasiistra (rgyud bla mal (Maitreya-natha). Sutriilamkarabhiisya (rgyan gyi 'grel ba) (Vasubandhu). Sunyatiisaptatikarikii (stong nyid bdun bcu pal (Nagarjuna). Vaidalyasutra (zhib mo rnam 'thag) (Nagarjuna). Vigrahavyiivartanikarika (rtsod bzlog) (Nagarjuna). Yukt4a~\ikiikarikii (rigs pa drug bcu pal (Nagarjuna).

2. For convenience, in this paper Maitreya-natha and Asanga are

THE ABHISAMAyALA1>IKARA 155

;>~&,:"

~)~' different names for the same person. The former refers to Asariga in an [;Js lted state directly inspired by Maitreya, while the latter refers to Asariga : ,.exa I . A d b D . . .;j;;f a persona capacIty. s suggeste y r. Kawamura of the Umversity of ;~;talgary, M~~treya-natha ~ay be a bahuvrfhi a~jecti:e meaning "h~ whose lord 'J~ilsMaitreya. Dr. ~ayashima of Nagasa.ke Umversity however pO.mts out that YJi'ne would expect, m that case, to find It at least once together wIth the noun ;}rnodifies, while such an instance is not forthcoming. A survey of traditional ',ltnd modern discussions of this problem is found in D.S. Ruegg; La Theone :.:~u Tdthagatagarbha et du Gotra (Paris: 1969) 50-55. ;'j:/ 3. Dates for Indian authors are taken from K. Potter, Bibliography of ~i1hdian Philosophy (Delhi: 1971) and Tara~atha, rGya gar chos 'byung, tran~. :.'i,aiua Chimpa and A. Chattopadhyaya (SImla: 1970). The date 310-390 IS '\assodated with Asariga not Maitreya (who is, one should point out, traditionally ~:!l~~derstood by the name Maitreya-natha). ~';.:;.:i'.· 4. T'ib. sbas don means the hidden or concealed meaning; i.e., the se:;Auence of the ei~~t clear realiz~tions (abh~amaya) .. See :. Obermiller, :'The ;': Doctrine of PraJna as exposed m the Abhz of Maitreya , Acta Orzentalza 11 i:(1932) 7 an~ 341. An additio~~l signi~cation is. as. follow~. Since sbcis don. is ;:hlntrasted wIth dngos don (explrcit meanmg)-whlCh IS emptmess-an esotenc! )'~xoteric contrast becomes possible. The detailed explanation of the path (the ,:~soteric) would then be understood as concealing the ultimate nature (the :i'esoteric). See also note 8 below. ;:; .... ' 5. A. Wayman has compared the twenty-two cittotpadas to other samadhi

'i;lists. ;t:~, 6. The clumsiness of "that and that" is not evident in the Sanskrit in }~hich the feminine sa evidently refers to the feminine kamata (desire for '1el1lightenment), and the masculine sa to parartha (the benefit of others). '; 7. See E. Conze, Selected Saying From the Perfection of Wisdom (London: ~j'g78) 12-14. New sutras were revealed in the classical period, but the most ;"rmportant are prior to the Kankiis and Abhi . . :.' 8. gSer Phreng 6a: "Therefore one can say, with Dharmamitra, that in ; regard to the subject matter of the Prajiia there is the essential meaning (snying :;po'i don)-the ultimate truth, and the vast-the sequence of the clear realiza,':lions. The former is dealt with in the "Six Collections of Reasons" and the 'latter in the Abhi" . . ::; 9. Arya-Vimuktisena was probably a contemporary of Bhaviviveka who :f~ved ca. 570-590. See Taranatha, p. 177. :, 10. The tradition continues even today, though on a much smaller scale, "amongst Tibetan refugees in India as a recent publication of Khensur Perna ,Gyaltsen, bLo gsal dga' bskyed sning gi nor bu (Mundgod: 1980) makes abundantly (dear. The culmination of the Tibetan scholastic tradition, however, is to be ;found in the works of Tsong Kha pa and his disciples in the fourteenth and i;early fifteenth century . . { 11. For an exhaustive bibliography of the works of E. Conze see Prajiia ;~nd Related Systems: Studies in Honour of Edward Conze, ed. by Lewis Lancaster ::(Berkeley: 1977). 'f, 12. Dharmamitra's exact dates are unclear. Since his Prasphutapada is a

: commentary on Haribhadra's Sphutartha it is likely he flourished slightly after


him, towards the end of the ninth century. See D.S. Ruegg, "Thegotra, eka _',i and tathiigata theories," Prajiia and Related Systems, p. 284. yana,

13. Prasphutapada, P.5194, vol. 91, 65.2.8-66.3.2:de la snying po'i do'.', mdo sde zab mo 'am gsal par bstan cing 'Phags pa klu sgrub kyi zhal snga nas ::1; ma rtsa ba'i shes rab la sogs par . .. gang du rn.nffon .p~r rtogs pa'i don bstan pa ni~ rab tu rgyas pa dang zab par ldan pas . . . don dz nyzd -phags 'fa byams pa . '. . .......••

14. Karikiis, Vigrahavyavartanzkarika, RatnavalZ, Sunyatasaptatikarilw, Yukt4~(ikakarika and Vaidalyasutra. j •

15. Abhi, Sutralamkara, Madhyantavibhangakarika, Dharmadharmatavibha {J gakarika and Mahayanottaratantra-sastra. n.: .. _

16. Contemporary with Candraklrti (flourished ca. 650). See Taranath .... a, ,,,' p.212·'.i'

17. In fact, the Abhi presents the same subject matter six times in basicaII ': t~e same order: the hO.mage, conde~sed pre~entation (~bhi:3-4), slightexpa;-~, Slon (Abhz:5-17), detaIled explanatIOn (Abhz:18-penulumate), and condensa_' tion into three categories in the last verse.

18. Besides his "Doctrine of Prajiia," Obermiller's Analysis of the AMi' Calcutta Oriental Series, 27 (London: 1933-1936) stands out as a masterpiec~ of Prajiia scholarship.'

19. See particularly part 1, chapter 3, "La Theorie du gotra dans L'Abhi' et Ses Commentaires" and part 2, chapter 2, "La Theorie de L'eveil Universel', et de L'ekayana dans Les Commentaries de l'Abhi in his La Thiorie.. .. "

20. J. Hopkins et aI., Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism: The Concentra)."; tions and Formless Absorptions (London: 1983); with Denma Locho Rinpoche'\ and L. Zahler, "The Seventy Topics" (unpublished manuscript); with G. New-;; land, "Achieving Through Armor" (unpublished manuscript), etc. "The Se3; venty Topics" is described as a translation of Mi pham bla ma'i zhallung withy a transcription of an oral explanation. "Achieving Through Armor" is a trans-,; lation of the samnaha (Tib. go sgrub) section of bSod nam grags pa's Phar phyin

. spyi don. 21. Obermiller is the exception but unfortunately his untimely death·,

prevented the completion of his work. " 22. An assessment shared in common by Obermiller, Conze and Ruegg;."" 23. Arya-Vimuktisena and Haribhadra are collectively referred toas'f

'Phags seng in the Tib. tradition and their common assertions as 'Phags sengi gi lugs. Although there are occasional divergences in their view both are said~ to be Yogacarya-Svatantrika-Madhyamika (Tib. mal 'byor spyod pa'i dbu ma raig.> rgyud pal. . .. ;

24. ya sarvajiiataya nayaty upaSamar(! santa4irpalJ, sravakan, ya margajiiatay"d; jagad-dhita-kt:tar(! lokartha-sampadika, sarvakaram idar(! vadanti munayo viSvar[! yay4.) sar(!gatalJ" tasyai sravaka-bodhisattva garpino buddhasya Matre namalJ,. Tib. transla'~F tion of jiiata is shes pa or the more usual honorific mkhyen pa. It is explained: as shes byed and not as shes bya. The translation "knower" or "exalted knower'.); is borrowed from J. Hopkins.>J

25. Sphutartha, p.5: de la thams cad mkhyen pa nyid gsum gyis ni don brgyM;'. bsdus la, de dag kyang shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yin zhing. . .........••

26. Abhi: 1-2 sarvakarajiiata-margalJ, sasina yo 'tra deSitalJ, ... sukheng,:' pratipatsirann ity arambha-prayojanam. ,,\'v;


tj~fJ(:,<"',' "'i'i('.27. This theory of cittotpiida as the entrance into Mahayana informs the :,l~'~!ening lines of homage in C~ndraklrti's (.a Miidh~amika) Madh!amakiivatiira !'i~S,P slated in part by J. Hopkms, Compasswn m Tzbetan Buddhzsm (London: l(tran I'd I .;~0,:i980); also partial Fre~ch t~ans_ ation by L. e ~ ':,alle~ Pouss~n (Museon, ;~i'i1907-'1910)], and exp~ams Dlgnaga.and Dharmaklrtl s (Czttamiitr:n) apparent ;~).'itiation with comp.asslO_n a~ the .pnmary pro_o~ of Buddha's e~Istence .. ~he ~';i!lie?ry states that cztt~tp~d~ IS basIc to all Mahayana paths. In thIS form It IS a ;1lh~W held by all Mahayamsts. i~i\r;';i28. This analysis is particularly important in understanding the developr<eht of Tib. ideas after Tsong Kha pa, In the dGe lugs pa explanation of L';;~isarigika-Miidhyamika the theory of cittotpiida is carried a step further and it )(;s~id that there is no difference between Hlnayana and Mahayana paths in '/;~~fmsof view (Tib. lta ba), only in terms of method (Tib. thabs). [See Tsong '('.Kha. pa's sNag rim chen mo, t:anslated in part by J. Hopkins, Tantra in Tibet ';'(bondon: 1977).] Although TIbetans generally regard the Abhi as a Sviitantrika

!fUadhyamika teaching, and although it cannot be characterized as a uniquely f0rriisangika text, there are a number of distinctly Priisangika passages (e.g., ,;4bhi:37), so both aspects of the assertion that cittotpiida is the entrance into lri:Mahayana are applicable to a greater and lesser degree. Ni~29. dGe 'dun grub, in his mDzod tik thar lam gsal byed (Varanasi: 1973) ',9,8 quotes "a sidra" which in Tib. says: sems las byung ba mad par ni, sems ni nam :,~dnJ mi 'byu~g ste. Nyi ma .dang ni 'od zer bzhin. See also E. Frauwallner, History

i:50/ lr:dian P hzlosophy (DelhI: 1:' 84) 164. .. i~f(!i30. Lobsang Gyatso, Rzgs lam che ba blo rzgs kyz rnam gzhag nye mkho kun :;btus(Dharmsala, 1974) 121 ff. ":, 31. vitarkah (coarse investigation), viciirah (subtle investigation), middham V (sleep ) and kaukl;tyam (regret). See Mahiivyutpatti: 1980-1984. ;~.\ 32. This explanation is based on a conversation with H.H. the Fourteenth .Oalai Lama in June, 1985. Although the iinantarya-miirga is clearly an instance '\~tultimate cittotpiida (Tib. don dam sems bskyed) a clear spriptural reference to Ditnecessarily being a main mind (Tib. rtso sems) has not been found. ;';.';. 33. For the idea that the rupa~kiiya is the main goal of bodhisattvas see

;;Wsong Kha pa's Lam rim chen mo, gSung bum ed. (New Dehli: 1980), vol. Pa, ;~\p,350:5-6.

t< .. ,. An investigation of Indian and Tib. views about resolve (pradrJidhiina) /flnd engaging (prasthiina) cittotpiida, though necessary, is beyond the scope of ,;this paper. A summary of the views of earlier Indian writers on the criteria iE,orthe division is to be found ingSer Phreng:94b.I-96a.2. It concludes: "There;~f9re resolve cittotpiida is posited on the small path of accumulation (tshog lam) :'ahd engaging cittotpiida from the middle [path of accumulation] ... This mas'ttr[Haribhadra] also quotes from Santideva in explaining resolve and en gag,i~g [cittotpiida], so Indian scholars also arrived at this same point of view [i.e., :}hat resolve and engaging cittotpiida are delineated in terms of the small and ~iddle paths of accumulation, respectively]". This and other relevant passages

:!~.the Tibetan tradition have been masterfully analysed by Lobsang Dargyay ;icnhis article "The View of Bodhicitta in the Tibetan Tradition", in The \,~,o.dhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism, ed. L.S. Kawamura (Waterloo, Ontario: 1981), )~p.95-110. «I: p.u.p. drop 11 points to note 34. }i,:!f"

t':1


. 34. Alokii 24;4-~ 0. samyaksambuddh~ bh.u.t~ii ya:hii~bhavyatay~ par~rthaf(i,Pra;i:; tn-yiina-dharma-desanadzbhzr yatna'T(L kuryam ztz prar}zdhana'T(L kr:tva pratzpattyil sa" :: piidayed. iti pariirthiilambanal! sa-hetu-phalal! samyaksambody-adhigama_karna~' laks,ar}o "gantu-kiimasya gantuS ca yathaii bheda~ pratzyate, tathii bhedo 'nayor .}a;<:, yathiisar(!khyena pawf,itail),." iti prar}idhi-prasthiina-svabhiivo dvividhas cittotPa::ey~.c

. Tsong Kha pa interprets this "cause and effect" (sahetu-phalal),) as rei •...•.. ~ ring to the resolve and engaging cittotpiida r~spectively. (gSer Phreng:99a.~.: 99b.2) "This is the way the mind is generated. [One thinks] 'In the future{: will become a Buddha and for the sake of sentient beings I shall teach th~ doctrines of the three vehicles, etc., presevering exactly in accordance With! individual aptitudes'. This wish is. th.e first cau.sal cittotpiida. Then, '1 shall: complete the full means of accomplrshmg the enlrghtenment thus wished for;';; is the way in which the resultant, engaging cittotpiida arises".;

Alternatively, the cause and effect could be the two stages of achievemenT\ implied by the two iilambana: first, the enlightenment to be attained for tM benefit of others, and second, the benefit itself. .

35. Subtitles are based on the sa bcas (outline) of the text of gSer Phren~.:; See chart 2. .. •• ;;

36. Lobsang Dargyay "The View of Bodhicitta", p. 104, says Tsong Kh~ pa conjectured that for Vasubandhu citta-sambhava (Tib. sems las 'byung) (Silt~' riilamkiira:4.1) was used to mean not that cetanii was "a birth or arising of [bodhi]citta", but rather the "origin of [bodhi]citta". Dargyay thus translateS' cittotpiida as "rising mind" and says, Ibid., pp. 106-107: ,.

~;:';\~j:: '/j' '

The Tibetan scholars ... concluded that mind is lucid, motionless and merl' perceiving. When the wish for enlightenment arises in the Bodhisattva this mo,;: tionless citta becomes elevated, moved. The cause for this 'Rising Mind' (cittotp¥a)i; is the wish for enlightenment <prarpidhi). This wish is a mental factor (caitta) not' mind as such. . <:;

~\:;:,:

37. Buddhasrljfi.ana -> Bl.lddhajfi.anapada -> Buddhajfi.ana: a dis~i;'i pIe of Haribhadra, flourished mid-ninth century. < •• J

38. Santipa -> Ratnakarasanti, flourished late eleventh, early twelfth'; century.

lABS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FORM

:;i!~~Sj\ME_---(F-a-m-ily-n-am-e-o-r-s-u-rn-a-m-e)-(-:fi-r-st-n-a-m-e-)-(-M-i-d-d-le-n-a-m-e-)------~~t~{' •. ;(~;iADDRESS---------------------{-:f~~>' ;;,,,,;:t:<:J;;'

~yf,~

;~~~i:::'~----------------------------:--~t;i~~E:MBERSHIP TYPE (circle one) Full, Student, Life, Institutional Subscriber ~~:?;;:) ~l~rear(s) for which application is being made ... ______________ _ :i"";'~/' ,

,;rrO' Please check this box if you do not want your name and address included ')\ in our mailing list when it is given out.

:',",:), :,\ ~'

:".i,:{Payments may be made in either US Dollars or J apanese Yen. lABS members ;?~:";'~nd subscribers who wish to pay in US dollars (no Yen to this address please!) i:";Cshould send their payments to:

'::!;£ewis Lancaster, Treasurer, '7f,,~,' :; ~L'IABS FULL MEMBER :',;!'<!!oDept. of Oriental Languages STUDENT MEMBER :";}':;fheUniversity of California INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIBER ~;'):;Berkeley, CA 94720 USA LIFE MEMBER ~UJ;1~/"

$25.00 $15.00 $50.00

$500.00

)if', lABS members and subscribers who wish to pay in Japanese Yen (no Dollars (l;;~to this address please!) should send their payments to the lABS account ;.:;;;~>supervised by Dr. Akira Yuyama, Regional Secretary for Asia:

i:1f:;No.041-4502280

;~:;:KokusaiBukkyo Gakkai :i~~:~. (Ordinary Account) \.Toranomon Branch of the .!.{" Mitsubishi Bank

~t~okyo :/)jAPAN

FULL MEMBER STUDENT MEMBER INSTITUTIONAL

SUBSCRIBER LIFE MEMBER

¥ 5,500 ¥ 3,300

¥ 11,000 ¥ 100,000

;,M).'~: '

;:'::Back issues are available to individual members for $17 per issue (¥ 3,740) :;"qr $25 per volume (¥ 5,500). Life members may purchase back issues at a i>~~discounted rate of$12.75 per issue (¥ 2,805) or $18.75 per volume (¥ 4,125).

,:',-Prospective individual members from economically developing countries may

i~,(~~ntact the Treasurer for p~ssible subsidized rates.

:;'i;;~OTE: Journal issues are sent in September and December of each year, via :';,1,~ special fourth-class rate. If members and subscribers do not notify the lABS f;r~.~ecretariat in Berkeley of address changes sufficiently in advance, we can not "Jibe responsible for lost issues. ~'r~' '\'

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Editors

Bowman L Clarke; Frank: R. Harrison III, The University of Georgia, USA

The organ of no single institution or sectarian school philosophical or religious, the International Journal fo~ Philosophy of Religion provides a medium for the exposition development, and criticism of important philosophical in~ sights and theories relevant to religion in any of its varied forms. It also provides a forum for critical, constructive, and interpretative consideration of religion from an objective philosophical point of view. Articles, symposia, discussions, reviews, notes, and news in this journal are intended to serve the interests of a wide range of thoughtful readers, especially teachers and students of philosophy, philosophical theology and religious thought.

Subscription Information ISSN 0020-7047 1987, Volume 21-22 (6 issues) Institutional rate: Ofl. 222.00/US$92.00 inc!. postage/handling Private rate: Ofl. 85.00/US$35.50 inc!. postage/handling

Private subscriptions should be sent direct to the publishers

Back Volume(s) Available Volumes 1-20 (1971-1986)

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Price per Volume excl. postage Of!. 95.00/US$38.00 (Vols.1-14) Ofl.75.00/US$28.00 (Vols. 15-18) Ofl. 80.00/US$27.50 (Vols. 19-20)

II. REVIEWS

The Genesis of an Orienta list: Thomas William Rhys Davids and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, by Ananda Wickremeratne. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985.

Like most of the great Orientalists, Rhys Davids has scarcely received his biographical due. He has been aptly described as the most influential Pali scholar of modern times. He founded the Pali Text Society, and set in train its vast output of editions and translations. Several of these were from his own hand, besides the ones he produced under other auspices. The general works in which he popularised Buddhism stand unsurpassed, in authority, eloquence and prestige. His interpretations of Buddhist ideas, designed to conform to the scientistic and rationalist ideas of his time, have had an enduring influence, in the West and also in Sri Lanka and elsewhere in Asia. Yet, there have been only two brief sketches of his life, those contributed by Chalmers to the Dictionary of National Biography and the Proceedings of the British Academy.

For the present pioneering work Wickremeratne has used a variety of sources, chiefly Rhys Davids's own publications, and unpublished records of the Sri Lankan government, the Colonial Office, and the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain. But these sources are not likely, by themselves, to throw much direct light on Rhys Davids's private life and innermost thoughts. Unfortunately Rhys Davids's dalJghter, Miss Vivian Rhys Davids, appears to have refused to allow Wickremeratne to read such of her father's papers as were in her possession. Her aim, Wickremeratne suggests, was to discourage him from investigating the premature end of her father's career as a civil servant in Sri Lanka.

Despite this considerable obstacle, Wickremeratne casts much valuable light on Rhys Davids. Somewhat more than half this book is devoted to a detailed examination of Rhys Davids's period of ten years in Sri Lanka. Wickremeratne surveys his activities as a well-informed administrator, his archaeological researches, his close acquaintance with Buddhist monks, his study of Pali with the learned and captivatingly unaffected Yatramulle Unnanse, and his earliest ventures in scholarly publication.

Wickremeratne then turns to the circumstances in which Rhys Davids left Sri Lanka. Various exculpatory hints as to these

161

162 JIABS VOL. 10 NO.2.

have been put about by friends and admirers in order to protect his reputation from those who might have been expected to assail it, the same pious motive which seems to have prompted Miss -Rhys Davids's attitude to Wickremeratne's researches. But, as so often in cases such as this, the facts assumed to be safely embalmed in suppressed private papers were easily established from official records, and appear, at any rate in a latter-day perspective, to be far less discreditable than might have been feared. As Wickremeratne soon discovered, Rhys Davids was in fact dismissed the Civil Service.

The charges were (a) that he improperly imposed fines on his subordinates for minor lapses, and on the owners of cattle caught trespassing; and (b) that he misappropriated some of the monies. Rhys Davids could and did cite statutory and common law as well as administrative precedents in support of his actions. He may have exceeded his powers in some instances, with harsh consequences for the Sinhalese villagers involved. Nevertheless he emerges from Wickremeratne's pages .not as a tyrant or a peculator but rather as the victim of a fateful train of circumstances. He had fallen foul of his immediate superior, Twynam, who seems to have been a pettifogging martinet, by a somewhat cavalier attitude towards administrative detail. By his tactlessness on one or two occasions he also lost the opportunity of winning the golden opinion of no less a person than Gregory, the governor, who shared his enthusiasm for Sinhalese archaeology. On receiving Twynam's report on the matter of the fines Gregory hurried forward the official inquiries. Besides some earlier displeasure with Rhys Davids, he was anxious to leave no room for suspisions in Sri Lanka that a white official's irregularities were being covered up.

When Gregory recommended Rhys Davids's dismissal the officials at the Colonial Office gave conflicting advice to Lord Kimberley, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He in turn finally decided, with considerable misgivings, to follow that of his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Knatchbull Hugg)'sen. The latter's arguments were that Gregory, as the man on the spot, should be supported in his decision, and that it was of overriding importance to safeguard the reputation for fairness and probity of British officials in Sri Lanka. Wickremeratne's examination of this episode, an historian's rather than a judge'S or counsel's is probably the best part of his book.

Wickremeratne next deals with the years during which, having returned to England, Rhys Davids established himself as an

REVIEWS 163

Orientalist. This part of the book covers the publication not only of his general surveys of Buddhism but also of his scholarly articles, the establishment of the Pali Text Society, his period as the Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society, and his role in the early moves to establish an institution for Oriental Studies in London.

Rhys Davids's ideas on Buddhism take up the final part of the . book. They were shaped by his personal background and experi

ence. His father, with whom he was intimate, was a Welsh Nonconformist Minister with a scholarly interest in English ecclesiastical history. This background could have helped, Wickremeratne suggests, to form Rhys Davids's preference for Buddhism as against Hinduism. Some passages in Davids's writings might also suggest that it shaped his sympathy for Theravada as against Mahayana and for Early Buddhism as against the Buddhism practised in the Asian societies of his day.

Wickremeratne points out that in order to prepare for entry to the Indian Civil Service, Rhys Davids went to Germany, where a university education was cheaper than in Britain, and where it was also possible to earn something as a private tutor. He joined the University of Breslau where his Sanskrit studies under Stanzle laid the foundations of his career as an Orientalist. Unfortunately there were no sources available to Wickremeratne for a closer look either at Rhys Davids's boyhood or at his German years, during which latter he must have encountered some of the influences which formed him: not only the methods of Biblical criticism but also the theological rationalism and antimetaphyscial ideas then gaining ground in Germany.

A similar difficulty has also limited Wickremeratne with regard to Rhys Davids's reactions to Sri Lankan Buddhism. For even the diaries, quotations from which occupy a whole chapter of this book, are not private documents in which Rhys Davids might have set down his personal reactions. They were official records of his day-to-day activities which he was required to submit to his superiors. There is also little reference in this book to the influence upon Rhys Davids's approach to Buddhism of the scientific and anthropological thought of his time. He refers approvingly in his writings to ideas of Huxley and Comte. He also writes, with marked effusiveness, of Tylor's Primitive Cultures, which emphasised the underlying affinities of all cultures and religions whether classical or primitive.

In some shrewd glimpses Wickremeratne shows that Rhys Davids's response to Buddhism was deeply personal as well as


that of a scholar glad of the chance to break new ground. "Was Rhys Davids a Buddhist?i" asks Wickremeratne. Rhys Davids himself, as Wickremeratne records, sidestepped the question. Wherein he was shrewd. For nowhere in the ancient texts are good equivalents of the terms 'Buddhist' or 'Buddhism' to be found any more than of 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism', these being the coinage of modern missionaries, who misread South Asian religious traditions in the light of Christian ideas.

In the concluding part of his work Wickremeratne shows how Rhys Davids's admiration for Buddhism and his interpreta_ tion of Buddhist ideas accorded well with the apologetical needs of English-educated Buddhist in Sri Lanka. Three generations of Protestant missionaries had criticised Buddhism. On the other hand there were Colonel Olcott and the Theosophists. The Sinhala Buddhists welcomed them as allies in Buddhist work, but were greatly concerned over their 'esoteric' approach to Buddhism. For this.consisted in ignoring the texts and giving entirely new meanings to Buddhist terms so as to reconcile them with the bizarre mish-mash ofTheosopy. Then there was the ineffable Annie Besant, with her espousal of revivalist Hindu orthodoxy and her claims, which had something to do with the factional disputes among the Theosophists, that Buddhism was a not very distinctive part of Hinduism.

With the ideas and attitudes of these various critics and perverters of Buddhism, as they might have appeared in Sri Lankan eyes, Rhys Davids's own approach was markedly at variance. In his general works his emphases were quite other than those which the missionaries had made in order to ridicule Buddhism. He rejected Theosophy, plainly regarded Buddhism as the most significant tradition in South Asian religion, and wished to keep it in the forefront of European scholarly attention.

As a Sri Lankan, and an historian familiar with the records and archives, Wickremeratne has been well-placed to explore this and the other themes in Rhys Davids's life upon which he has concentrated. He seems to have worked under difficulties, but he has made ~ substantial contribution to the study of Rhys Davids.

A.P. Kannangara

REVIEWS 165

'The Legend of King ASoka,' A Study and Translation of the "ASokavadana," by John S. Strong, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Appendix. Glossary. Bibliography. Index. 336 pages.

Since this book has been reviewed a number of times already, the present review will focus upon various of its features which have not, to my knowledge, received attention elsew;here. However, for those who are unfamiliar with this volume, a summary of its contents may be useful.

The book consists basically of two parts, as the sub-title indicates, roughly 160 pages of discussion about Asoka and the legends which gradually grew up around him, followed by the author's translation of the ASokavadana itself. As John Strong makes clear, this text is a product of the various Hlnayana, though non-Theravada, circles in Northwest India probably around the second century A.D~ and quite possibly of Sarvastivadin origin. The text is part of the voluminous Sanskrit anthology of Buddhist legends called the Divyavadana, though it may also be found separately, e.g., in two Chinese translations. While the text reflects the world of the second century A.D., it also represents legends which are much older and essentially was intended to help Buddhists seek solutions to the problems of maintaining .the ideals of the Buddhist tradition in a pluralistic age and in the absence of the historical Buddha. As Strong develops at considerable length in later chapters, this is the dharmalogical task of relating the tradition to everyday life and activity. Specifically, as he indicates in his Preface, the central questions were: "What is the nature of Buddhist kingship? What is the relationship between the state and the Buddhist monastic community? What role does the king play in this? What is the religious nature of practices such as merit making? What role does devotion play in Buddhism?"

Among the many interesting points made by Strong is his statement that the legends about Asoka influenced the reading of the famed Asoka Edicts, which were not finally translated authoritatively until 1837, as well as the fact that many interpreters did not "take seriously into account the literary form and religious intent of the legends qua legends." He makes it clear that it was, in fact, by means of these embellished Asoka legends that second century Buddhists preached the Dharma, proselytized for converts, stressed the merits of dana (of giving to the Buddhist community), and further articulated the role of kingship and its


relationship to the Buddhist religion. One of the book's central points is that in the Asokavadana

we are presented with a complex portrayal of Asoka, as great king and as simple layman, as "an impetuous monarch to be feared or maligned" and as "the mythical ideal of the cakravartin." It is this very ambiguity which makes the ima,ge more believable, especially in relationship to a clearly imperfect world. This reviewer has no quarrels with that interpretation. When a sharp contrast is drawn between this text and the Sinhalese chronicles (Mahiiva11JSa), some questions do arise. For instance, an avadiina is rightly seen as "a narrative of the religious deeds of an individual and is primarily intended to illustrate the workings of karma and the values of faith and devotion." In contrast, in Strong's words, a va11JSa "is a lineage or chronicle ... primarily concerned with giving the sacred pedigree of a country (such as Sri Lanka), or of a particular Buddhist sect, or of a holy object." While often true of chronicles, the Mahiiva11JSa is more complex than this and it would not be difficult to show that many of the greatest kings in Sri Lanka history are portrayed in strongly ambiguous terms. One finds an important instance of this in the treatment of Dutthagami1).i, but the portrayal of Parakramabahti I (1153-1186) in this sense is both more extended and, humanly speaking, more convincing. Indeed, it is this portrayal which is more parallel to what one finds of Asoka in the Asokiivadiina than perhaps any other one might cite. Also, while the treatment is not extensive, one can note in these chronicles a slightly more complex depiction of Asoka than this book suggests, but Strong is correct in saying that once Asoka has undergone his "conversion" he is perceived in basically ideal terms. The same is also true of how many Sinhalese monarchs are portrayed, but elsewhere one finds strongly realistic accounts of kings who are otherwise considered great. Inother words, because they are a complex work, compiled over centuries, one would expect the chronicles to be somewhat varied in treatment, despite the obvious fact that they were generated by monks from within the Mahavihara tradition and thus had their own forms of partiality:

However many parallels exist between an avadiina and a va11JSa or chronicle, Strong is right to draw a sharp line between them. In the Asokiivadiina, for instance, there is a basic integrity to the text which has taken various legends about the central figure and woven them into an entire picture to be used by the Buddhist community as it sought to relate ideals of kingship, of the Buddhist sangha, of the emerging portrayals of the Buddha

REVIEWS 167

. himself, and of enriched practices for the laity to the ambiguous world of real kings, monks, and laymen. While chronicles clearly have threads of interpretation, they lack the same kind of aesthetic and interpretive capacity. one finds in a text like the A§okiivadiina, which does not have to be as concerned about the facts of history but which seeks to relate the classic Buddhist ideals to new historical contexts. The presence of the Buddha in this world, the nature and meaning of a cakravartin king, and the increasing practice of merit-making were central to the questions this text addressed. Strong's analysis is extremely useful in a discussion of the larger dharmalogical issues which were alive in the second century A.D. And, as he reminds us, the primary concerns implicit in the text were "the attraction of new converts, the reinforcement of the faith of established followers, and the encouragement of both devotion and donation. And all of this was best accomplished by the telling of popular, appealing stories about the religious exploits of others," especially in this case about Asoka. As such, this text is a vital one to historians of religion and, as Strong concludes, "belongs to the whole of Buddhism."

Bardwell L. Smith

Niigiirjuna. The Philosophy of the Middle Way, translated with an introduction by David J. Kalupahana. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies, 1986. xv 412 pages.

The blurb on the back of this book credits it with showing that Nagarjuna's ideas are not original, not an advancement from the early Buddhist period, and that he was not a Mahayanist. As Professor Kalupahana rightly notes in his preface to this new translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakiirikii (MK), his position is controversial. He argues that since "sophisticated Mahayana sutras" such as the Saddharmapuf).Q.arlka were unavailable to Nagarjuna, he used the early discourses in the Nikiiyas and the Agamas to criticize the sectarian views of "metaphysicians like the Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas" and the "more popular religious teachers like Asvaghosa, who overemphasized the function of 'faith' in the emerging belief in a transcendent Buddha" (pp.xiv-xv).

Kalupahana bases his argument on "a careful reading" of


Hajime Nakamura's Indian Buddhism (Osaka: 1980), but his reading of Nakaniura has not been careful enough. He cites p. 159 of Nakamura's book as his source for the statement that early versions of the VaJracchedika-pra}fiaparamita and the Kasyapaparivarta do not mention bodhisattvas (pp. 24, 95 n. 60). Nakamura's statement about the omission of bodhisa~tvas, however, refers only to the opening lines of the sutras, which repeat stock phrases from early Buddhist sutras, and not to the body of these works, in which bodhisattvas are mentioned. Kalupahana's claim that Nagarjuna had no access to the SaddharmapurJ,rJarzka or to biographies of a transcendent Buddha, like the Mahavastu, which "probably were not yet written" (pp. 23-24) is also not supported by Nakamura, who refers to a first century C.E. prototype ofthe SaddharmapurJ,rJarzka which Nagarjuna might have known (p. 186), suggests a second century B.C.E. date for the Mahavastu (p. 130), and notes that "the exalted figure of the Buddha" is the subject of Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita (p. 133), though his authorship of the Mahayanasraddhotpadasatra (is this the source of Kalupahana's claim that Asvaghosa overemphasizes faith?) (pp. 232-3) is doubtful. This is not to say that Nakamura's dates for these works are definitive or that Nagarjuna read any of them. The problem with Kalupahana's assertion that "N akamura's work shows it futile to attempt to discover a pure Mahayana text that Nagarjuna might have been able to depend upon" (p. xiv) rests with his unclear standards of purity, since Nakamura does support a pre-Nagarjuna dating for several Mahayanasutras, including the Kasyapaparivarta (KP) (p. 210).

Kalupahana himself admits that Nagarjuna was "probably aware" of the KP, although he wonders whether it was "Mahayanistic" originally (p. xiv). He describes its negative and positive descriptions of the middle path as "an abbreviation of the Kaccayanagotta-sutta" (p. 25). This description is misleading. The KP's lengthy discussion of the middle path (§52-63 of A. von Stael-Holstein's edition [Shanghai: 1926]) is not an abbreviation of the Kaccayanagotta-sutta and does not contain "two discourses" (the section numbers §61 and §62-not §60 and §61 as Kalupahana indicates in n. 17 of p. 94-are added by the editor and can be disregarded) which explain the middle path positively "in terms of the twelve factors of the human personality (dvadasariga)" and "in negative terms as 'non-ceasing, non-arising, etc.'" (p. 7). Both descriptions are part of a single discussion which defines the true analysis of the middle path as understanding that each of the twelve members and their cessation are

REVIEWS 169

non-dual (advaya, gnyis ma yin). Kalupahana, moreover, ignores KP §65, which closely parallels MK XIII.8 and has been cited as evidence of Nagarjuna's knowledge of Mahayana siitras.

Although the MK is the subject of Kalupahana's book, he accepts Nagarjuna's ,:uthorship of the Vigrahavyiivartanz (p. 92) and the Ratniivalz (RA) (p. 165). He seems unaware that in this latter work Nagarjuna defends the Mahayana (mentioned by name in RA III.l, IV.67-70, 78-84, 86, 89, 93, 98, V. 40) against the criticism of orthodox disciples (sriivaka) , and discusses the importance of faith, (RA I.~-5, IV.97-98), the transcendent character of the Buddha (RA IILl-12), and the career of the bodhisattva (RA III.16, 22; IV.67, 90-91, 93; V.I-99).

Kalupahana regards the MK as "a grand commentary" on the Kacciiyanagotta-sutta, in which the metaphysical views of the Sarvastivada and the Sautrantika schools are the extremes and dependent arising (pratztyasamutpiida) the middle position (pp. 20-21). His introduction to the MK divides its subject matter into four sections: causation and change, covering chapters In (pp. 31-7), the non-substantiality of phenomena (dharmanairiitmya), covering chapters III-XV (pp. 37-51), the non-substantiality of the human personality (pudgala-nairiitmya), covering chapters XVI-XXVI, (pp. 51-78), and the conclusion, namely, chapter XXVII (pp. 78-80). His point that Nagarjuna did not repudiate "dependently arisen phenomena or dependent arising" but instead demonstrated "the inconsistency in explaining causally conditioned phenomena in terms of self nature" (p. 50) bears repeating, though perhaps not quite as often as Kalupahana does throughout his introduction and in his comments on individual verses. Nagarjuna drew on many early canonical texts; including the Kacciiyanagotta-sutta, and Kalupahana rightly draws attention to the parallels between his ideas and early canonical literature. But it is an oversimplification to consider his philosophical system as built entirely on these early Buddhist sources. Nagarjuna's philosophy makes the rejection of the concept of svabhiiva its cornerstone. The early Buddhist siittas, with the exception of the Pa#sambhidiimagga (Ps 178), never mention the importance of seeing all phenomena as empty and without an independent nature (nihsvabhiiva), unlike early Mahayanasiitras.

My dissatisfaction with Kalupahana's translation of the MK begins with his translation of the dedication verses and extends to his translations of the last verses of chapter XXVII. Due to limited space, however, I must confine myself to pointing out just a few instances of disagreement. About the eight negations


in the dedication verses, he says "modern interpreters of Nagar_ juna, probably following Candrakirti ... have assumed that all these terms refer to one doctrine, namely, dependent arising (part'ityasamutpada) (sic);" the Svatrantika standpoint, on the other hand, interprets these eight negations as refutations of "the false views (mithya-dr:~~i), primarily the themes of substantial existence (astitva) and nihilistic non-existence (nastiva)" and dependent arising as the middle position, "the right view" (samyag-dn~i), which results in "the appeasement of obsessions" (prapancopasama) and "the auspicious" (siva) (pp. 101-3). Unfortunately, Kalupahana provides no supporting textual evidence, and neither Bhavaviveka's Prajnaprad'ipa nor Ch'ing Mu's Chung Lun interprets the dedication verses in this way.'

Kalupahana's interpretation of MK XVII also is at odds with these commentaries. His text of MK XVII.l reads Atma-(sic, read· Atma) san:tyamakan:t cetah paranugrahakan:t ca yat, maitram sa dharmah (sic, read dharmas) tad bijan:t phalsya (sic, readphalasya) pretya ceha ca, which he translates as "self-restraint as well as benefitting others-this is the friendly way and it constitutes the seed that bears fruit here as well as in the next life." Kalupahana considers maitram part of the correlative clause rather than the relative clause. This interpretation, which assumes that sa does not mark the beginning of the correlative clause, receives no support from the Tibetan translation of the verse (cited in the Prasannapada red. L. de La Vallee Poussin, St. Petersberg: 1903-13], p. 303 n. 1) or the commentaries of Candrakirti (Prasannapada [PP], pp. 303-4) and Bhavaviveka (Prajnaprad'ipa, Tibetan Tripitaka Peking edition, V. 95, f. 212a). This verse identifies dharma with a mind that is self-restrained, benevolent towards others, and amicable; dharma, in the sense of moral practice (which Kalupahana recognizes in his translations of VIII.5 and XXIV.6, 33-35), is the topic of this verse, not a "friendly way." Kumarajlva's translation of XVIIa-c, which differs considerably from the Sanskrit text, should be used with caution in interpreting Nagarjuna's thinking. It reads (TaishO v. 30, p. 21b)jen neng chiangfu hsin, Ii i yii ch'ung sheng, shih ge wei tz'u shana, which says "a person who can control his mind, and benefit all beings, this is called compassionate virtue." Since Ch'ing mu glosses tz'u shan bas fu tee "good virtue/merit" (21c), "friendly way" does not quite fit the Chinese verse either.

Kalupahana disregards commentators' views also when he associates verses 13-20 with Nagarjuna's presentation of the right view of karma and its result (p. 249, 254). Candrakirti,

REVIEWS 171

Bhavaviveka, and Ch'ing mu regard vv. 13-19 as the views of Nagarjuna's Buddhist opponents; according to Candrak'irti and Bhavaviveka, Nagarjuna's response begins with v. 21 (PP, p. 324, prajnaprad'ipa, f. 21Sa) and with v. 20, according to Ch'ing mu (p. 22c). ,. ... .

Kalu pahana s mIsunderstandmg of the term pancadha also leads him astray. His text of MK XXII.S reads tattvar;yatvena yo niisti m'(gyamar}as ca pancadha, upadanena sa katharl} prajnapyate tathiigatah, which says "how can the Tathagata, who is not identical or different when he is examined in five ways [with regard to the five appropriating aggregates (pancopadanaskandha)] be defined in relation to appropriation?" but which he translates as "he who, sought for in the fivefold manner, does not exist in the form of a different identity, how can that Tathagata be made known through grasping?" Kalupahana comments that the substantialist explanation implies that the Tathiigata has become "a different entity, that is, a tathagata having his own-nature (svabhava) with no relation to the person in bondage. However, examining the fivefold aggregates, no such entity can be discovered." (p. 306) This interpretation ignores the fact that tattvanyatvena is a dvandva compound inflected in the neuter singular as a collective of two abstracts, "identity and difference," and should not be rendered as '''different indeniy' (sic) since it occurs in the singular." The fivefold examination (exemplified in XXII. 1), moreover, is not -concerned with the aggregates per se. This method examines and rejects the various relations that might exist between a self/person/tathagata/appropriator (x) and the five appropriating aggregates/appropriation (Y), namely, x is identical to y, x is different from y, x contains y, y contains x, x possesses y.

This misunderstanding also affects Kalupahana's translations of MK XXVII.4-S. For example, his text of XXVII.S reads Evarl} niinya upadaniin na copadanam eva sah, atma niisty anupiidiinah (sic, read anupadano) napi nasty e~a niScayah, which Kalupahana renders as "thus, he is neither different from grasping nor identical with it. A self does not exist. Yet, it is not the case that a person who does not grasp does not exist. This much is certain." He argues that this verse should be interpreted in a positive manner because in XXVII.7 "Nagarjuna was clearly asserting an empirically known (=f5(hyeta) anupadiinah (that is, a person freed from grasping), while at the same time rejecting an atman different from both grasping and non-grasping" and because Kumarajiva renders the verse in that way (p. 3S1). But in


XXVII.7, (5l:h)leta is used in a conditional sense and Nagarjuna makes a hypothetical statement rather than a clear assertion, namely that a self without appropriation would be perceived (gr:hetya) if it were different from that appropriation. Though Kalupahana interprets anupiidiina as "a person freed from grasp_ ing," neither Nagarjuna nor Ch'ing mu uses,anupiidiina in this sense. Kumarajiva's translation of XXVII.8a~ closely renders the Sanskrit text and has a series of negative statements, chin wo bu li shou, i bu chi shih shou,Jei wu shou fei wud , which says, "now the self is not different from the appropriation nor is it [identical with] that appropriation. It is not the case that it has no appropriation [and] it is not the case that it does not exist." I'm unable to see how his translation can support Kalupahana's positive reading of the Sanskrit verse.

Kalupahana also claims that Nagaruna rejects the self as a substantial entity "based on empirical evidence, namely, the perception of an individuality consisting of the five aggregates", but that he did not necessarily reject an "empirical personality." He cites S 1.135, in which the five aggregates are called a person, (eva11} khandhesu santesu hoti satto ti sammuti), and compares this concept of a person to William James' explanation of an empirical self (p. 381). Yet the ordinary person's experience of the five aggregates as a "perceived individuality" or a person remains a conventional OpInIOn (sammuti); and according to the Abhidharma's analysis of the impermanent mental and physcial phenomena that comprise the five aggregates, "in reality no person is perceived" (puggala na upalabbhati saccikaahaparamatthena . ti, Kv 1.1). Kalupahana describes this Kathiivatthu passage as a rejection of the Sautrantikas' conception of a person (p. 24); Buddhaghosa's commentary, however, identifies the Puggalavadins as Vajjiputtakas and Sammitiyas and takes satto, puggalo j'ivo and attii as synonyms (Kv-A, 8). Kalupahana may mean that Nagarjuna conventionally (samvr:tyii) accepts the existence of a self/person/perceived individuality in the context educating ordinary people about moral behavior, which Candrakirti's comments on MK XVIII.6 support (PP, p. 356-57).

Many modern interpreters of Nagarjuna's philosophy compare his views with those of Western philosophers. Kalupahana, who interprets Nagarjuna in the light of James' pragmatism, is no exception. He comments that MK XVIII. 9 indicates empirical methods by which one arrives at a conception of truth rather than a description of characteristics of truth. He argues convincingly that the Kacciiyanagottasutta's statement that the knowledge of

REVIEWS 173

~omeone who has the right view does not depend upon another perso~ (aparapaccaya iia'fJam eviissa ettha hoti, S. 2.! 7) i~ behin:I NagarJuna's use of the term aparapratyaya. But hIS eVIdence IS less convincing for other terms; the fact that this sutta "has no reference to any conceptual proliferation" surely indicates that Nagarjuna drew on other sources. Moreover, by his reluctance to associate calm (santi) with meditative experience, Kalupahana ignores the importance of meditation as a method of knowing truth. He concludes his commentary on this verse with the observation that the Buddha's statement, "truth is one; there is no second," refers to the "pragmatic criterion of truth based on the notion of dependent arising, not an absolute truth that transcends all forms of duality and plurality." (pp. 271-72) But this At~hakavagga verse occurs in the context of a repudiation of all divisive speculative views (the text never mentions dependent arising), and both the Mahi'iniddesa (Nd I, p. 292) and Buddhaghosa's Paramatthajo~ika (Pj II, vo. 2, p. 555) note that the one truth refers to nibbana. James' pragmatic criterion of truth as what "works" or has "cash value" seems inadequate when applied to nirva'fJa.

Because they neglect the rich and extensive commentarial literature both on the Nikayas and on Nagarjuna's works, Kalupahana's arguments lack force. Even though the traditional commentators are not infallible, if given a choice between Candrakirti's interpretation and Kalupahana's, my inclination is to trust tradition. Moreover, Kalupahana's judgement that Candrakirti "moved towards a Vedantic interpretation'; of the MK (p. xv) reflects more the absolutist interpretation of this material by T.R.V. Murti and others, which Kalupahanajustly criticizes, than the material itself.Certainly, the extensive Prasangikaliterature produced by Tsong kha pa and his followers does not support such an interpretation, and modern Western interpreters also hold quite diverse opinions on this matter.

The book takes almost no account of the recent spate of articles and books published on Madhyamaka; there is just one reference to a publication later than 1980, a 1984 article of Nakamura's.· Kalupahana's unfamilarity with the works of contemporary scholars on Madhyamaka weakens the book. For example, he reports that A.K. Warder first raised the question of whether Nagarjuna was a Mahayanist in Indian Buddhism (p. 7) but is unaware both of Warder's more detailed treatment of this thesis in "Is N agarjuna a Mahayanist?" in The Problem of the Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedanta (Dordrecht: 1973) and the


criticism of it by Jacques May, "Chiigan" in Hobogirin V, (Tokyo: 1979), D. Seyfort Ruegg in The Literature of the Madhyamaka School in India (Wiesbaden: 1981) and Chr. Lindtner in Nagarjuniana (Copenhagen: 1982). '

This edition of the MK also could have been improved if Kalupahana had consulted ].W. de Jong's;edition of the MK (Niigiirjuna, Mulamadhyamakakiirikiih" Madras: 1977). The numer_ ous misprints and missing diacritics, moreover, make the Sanskrit text of little value, and plague the indices as well.

Professor Kalupahana has raised the right question when he asks which sources Nagarjuna relied upon in the formation of his philosophy of the middle way. He provides considerable evidence of the Kacciiyanagottasutta's influence on Nagarjuna, although his arguments against the influence of early Mahayana sutras remain unconvincing, at least to this reader. I cannot recommend his work as a philologically sound translation of the MK but his provocative and original commentary should interest some readers.

Karen Christina Lang

Chinese Terms

NOTES

1. On the views of these commentators and others see Mushashi Tachikawa " 'Pratityasamutpada' in the Dedication of the Mulamadhyamakakarika," in Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja Felicitation Volume (Adyar: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1984), pp. 639-53.

REVIEWS 175

Tibet-Bon Religion: A Death Ritual of the Tibetan Bonpos, by Per J{vaerne. State Univ. Groningen, Inst. Religious Iconography, Iconography of Religions, XII. 13. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. xii + 34 pp., plates i-xlvii. ISBN 90 04 07083 4. No price.

It may well be wondered why this little book should receive notice in ajournal devoted to Buddhist studies, since it describes the death ritual of a religion which vehemently asserts itself to be non-Buddhist and at times even anti-Buddhist. Anyone familiar with the developoment of Bonpo studies in recent years, however, particularly as these have been pursued with great profit by Per Kvaerne, will know that this religion is so completely suffused with Buddhist doctrine that it can be regarded simply as another, somewhat eccentric, form of Tibetan Buddhism. The Bon religion claims historical priority over the teachings of Sakyamuni for reasons that have yet to be properly revealed. It must surely have had something to do with the fact that in the competitive spiritual climate of Tibet in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, to assume the appearance of being utterly different in origin from the emerging Buddhist schools immediately placed the Bonpos on a level at once above and beyond their rivals, all of whom looked to the same foreign source for their legitimacy. True, the source of the Bon religion was also asserted to be foreign, but it was said to have been implanted in Tibet and become naturalized there long before Sakyamuni's teachings were introduced. The tendency among scholars now is to discount the face value of these claims while admitting that the Bonpos do maintain a stratum of genuine pre-Buddhist beliefs and practices deeper than that preserved by their rivals, but one that has been wholly turned toa "Buddhist" purpose. For their part the Buddhists admit only with some reluctance to their continuing observance of some pre-Buddhist practices.

K vaerne's descriptive analysis of a death ritual of the Bonpos as it took place at their main refugee centre in India in 1981 does not alter this picture in any way, but instead adds some fine detail. He analyses the structure and purpose of the second, most interesting of three independent rites which together make up the whole business of helping the dead find salvation beyond the round of existence: (1) 'Pho-ba, the "transference (of consciousness)," (2) byang-chog, the "ritual of the byang-bu (a 'tablet' containing a drawing of the deceased)," and (3) cremation, followed by the klong-rgyas ("extended vastness") ritual. In the byangchog the officiating lama uses the byang-bu, which holds the con-


sciousness of the deceased, to lead him step by step to final liberation. Firstly a "ransom" (glud) is offered to the malignant spirits to persuade them not to disturb the ritual. The conscious_ ness of the deceased is then summoned to enter the byang-bu, to which a set of offerings are made. A series of initiations or consecrations are then bestowed on the byang-bu; at the end of which it is conducted through the thirteen spiritual stages of "an unchanging spiritual hero" (g.yung-drung sems-dpa', approximating to byang-chub-sems-dpa', bodhisattva). Finally the lama, in a state of meditation, transfers the consciousness to the final state of liberation, and the byang-bu is then dismantled and the drawing is burnt. (It is not clear to me how this second act of 'pho-ba relates to the one that has already taken place before the byang-chog.)

The complex details of the whole process are very ably summarized by Kvaerne with the help of numerous illustrations. He takes pains to point out those features which are genuinely variant or ancient. In this way, some aspects of the ritual fall into the category of adaptations from standard Buddhist practice, while others are traced back to pre-Buddhist observances. This latter group includes the ransom offering, the use of tsag-li ("ritual cards") for the presentation of offerings and other purposes, and the choice of a yak, horse and sheep to show the consciousness the way to liberation. But it seems only the role of these animals really separates the Bonpos from their Buddhist counterparts: the ransom and the use of tsag-li (etymology ?) are well known to Buddhist tradition, too. .

Well known, too, is the offering of "the smell of singed objects" (gsur) , which Kvaerne seems to have missed. The term appears in the untranslated title he supplies (p. xii) for the second of the three texts used in this version of the byang-chog, all composed by the abbot of sMan-ri, Shes-rab dGongs-rgyal (b. 1784): Tshe-'das-kyi gsur-bsngo snang-ba'i 'dod-dgu gter mdzod, "The Treasury of All Desires in which There Appears the Dedication of Merit [Associated with] the gSur of the Deceased" (my translation). Panglung Rinpoche has recently affirmed that "the gsur forms an essential part in the funeral ritual of the Bon-pos today" and that the first appearance of the term is found in a pre-Buddhist funeral liturgy preserved in a Tun-huang text studied by R.A. Stein: see Jampa L. Panglung, "On the Origin of the Tshagsur Ceremony," in Barbara Nimri Aziz and Matthew Kapstein, Soundings in Tibetan Civilization: Proceedings oj the 1982 Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Held at Columbia University (New Delhi: 1985), pp. 268-71, at p. 271. The Buddhist

REVIEWS 177

"use of gsur was the subject of an interesting controversy summarized by Panglung. It is a pity that his study appeared too late to encourage Kvaerne to notice and explore the Bonpo use of gsur in their death ritual.

The book is otherwise typical of K vaerne's solid and stimulating approach to Bonpo history, doctrine and ritual. The first three chapters, which provide a brief historical background to the byang-chog ritual and its setting, will be useful to students wanting a basic introduction to this religion. The book also stands witness to the extraordinary cultural resilience of the Bonpos in exile, best exemplified in the life and work of their abbot, Sangye Tendzin, who acted as the officiating lama in this performance. of the ritual. It is difficult to see how Bonpo studies in the West could have developed so much in recent years without the encouragement and co-operation provided by this fine scholar-administrator, and also by the monastery's head teacher, Tendzin Namdak. (It was the abbot Sangye Tendzin, incidentally, who kindly lent his copy of the book to your reviewer, who had managed to lose the copy sent to him by this journal.)

Michael Aris

180

Prof. Allan A. Andrews Dept. of Religion University of Vermont 481 Main St. Burlington, VT 05405

Dr. Michael Aris Indian Institute of Advanced

Study Simla, U.P. India

Prof. Michael Broido Magdalen College Oxford OXI 4AU England

Prof. Malcolm David Eckel Center for the Study of

World Religions Harvard University 42 Francis Ave. Cambridge, MA 02138

Mr. Brian Galloway P.O Box 83 Berkeley, CA 94701

Dr. Bruce Cameron Hall 1343 Via Zurita Claremont, CA 91711

Prof. John C. Huntington Dept. of History of Art The Ohio State University 100 Hayes Hall 108 North Oval Mall Columbus, OH 43210-1318

JIABS VOL. 10 NO.2

CONTRIB UTORS

Dr. A.P. Kannangara 44 Eton Rise Eton College Road London N.W.3 England

Prof. Karen Christina Lang Dept. of Religious Studies Cocke Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22905

Prof. Gregory Schopen Dept. of Religious Studies 230 Sycamore Hall Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405

Prof. Bardwell Smith Dept. of Religion Carleton College Northfield, MN 55057

Mr. Gareth Sparham Dept. of Asian Studies Asian Center University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. Canada

An Index to Volumes 1-10 The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies:

By Bruce Cameron Hall

The first ten volumes of The journal if the International Associaf<,"iibn of Buddhist Studies contain articles, book reviews, obituaries, ~:\presidential addresses, r:port~ of conference~, an.d oth.er items :~jJFthe "News and Notes sectIOn. The followmg IS an mdex to fi)these items, primarily by titles, secondarily by personal names. ~;::1'itles and names are given as they appear on the actual piece, ?ipotin the table of contents of each number of the journal, in [c:~ses where the two disagree. Entries are alphabetized by letter, f not word, and initial articles (a, an, the, Ie, la, les) are printed ,irt parentheses and ignored in alphabetizing. i;. The main entries are title entries for all items printed in the j()'urnal, volumes 1-10, except for a very few extremely ephemeral items printed in the "News and Notes" section with no

;/attribution of authorship. Each main entry gives the full title of !',the ,article or the book reviewed, the name of the author or F~uthors-and editors, translators, and reviewers, if applicable- . ~iasgiven with the particular piece, and the location in the journal ~bfvolume, number, year and pages. Cross-references are given ~Whereappropriate: as, for example, with rejoinders and sur·rejoinders to book reviews. '. The index also includes four block entries-Conference Re'ports, Conferences, Obituaries, and Presidential Addresses.with sub-entries listed chronologically. These sub-entries are riot repeated as title entries, except those which have a distinct 'title, such as presidential addresses with a title other than "Presidential Address .... " Items, other than conference reports, printed in the "News and Notes" section are identified by an asterisk before the title. Titles of books reviewed are italicized £0 distinguish them from titles of articles, etc. Personal names Rfauthors, etc., are given in large and small capital letters.

.•.••.. Name entries, which will always direct the reader to the lIlain title entry, list the names of authors (and translators and ~ditors) of articles, reviews, books reviewed, obituaries, etc., and the names of subjects of obituaries. They give cross-references, ~lphabetically, to the title entries, by a short form of the title

181

182 jIABSVOL.10NO.2

(omitting subtitles a~d i~itial articles). N arne e~tries begin with;S~ the person's name m tne fullest form occurnng anywhere .;:~ the Journal, followed, in bra.ckets, by ~ny variant fo:-ms Whi~~J; occur. Cross-reference are gIven where the alphabetIc positio'~l of a name is not obvious. Dates in par~nthes~s after a person:~r~, name mean that the person has been the subject of an obituary.il in the Journal,~~:j

I have tried to make this index accurate, clear, and easYt6'j~ use. I would welcome additions or corrections.<;

INDEX TO JIABS 1-10.

ABE, Masao see: Zen and Western Thought.

(The) Abhidharmika Notion of Vijiiiina and its Soteriological Significanc~.i Braj M. SINHA. 311 (1980) 54-67.'

AIKINS, Carroll see: Buddhist Wisdom.

Alex Wayman Replies to Geshe Sopa. Alex WAYMAN. 311 (1980) 93-97.

Alone with Others: An Existential Approach to Buddhism. Stephen BATCHELOR.!;, Review by Roger JACKSON. 7/2 (1984) 208-216.1'

AMORE, C. see: Lustful Maidens and Ascetic Kings.

ANACKER, Stefan see: Seven Works of Vasubandhu.

ANAND KRISHNA. See KRISHNA, Anand.

ANDREWS, Allan A. see: Pure Land Buddhist Hermeneutics.

(An) Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs, A Study of the Caryiig'iti. Per KVAERNE,,'\ Review by Satya Ranjan BANERJEE. 111 (1978) 77-79. .

(An) Approach to Dagen's Dialectical Thinking and Method of Instantiatio.r" (A Comparative Study of ShO-bO-gen-zo-ku-ge). Shohei ICHIMURA.9/2 .. (1986) 65-99. .

ARAKI, James T. see: Roof Tile of Tempyo.

Archaeological Excavations at Piprahwa and Ganwaria and the Identificati?~\ of Kapilavastu. KM. SRIVASTAVA. 311 (1980) 103-110.

INDEX 183

1$, Michael . s:e:' .•.•.. · .• Tibet-Bon Rehg1.On.

"ONSON, Harvey B. see.' . ; Love and Sympathy in Theraviida Buddhism.

'f;iJ!A.scent and De~cent: Two-Directional Activity in Buddhist Thought. Presiden'\.tial Address for the Sixth Conference of the lABS. Gadjin M. NAGAO.

·····7/1 (1984) 176-183. .

dka and Buddhism-A Re-examination: Presidential Address Given on the i'.,,:} Occasion of the Fourth Conference of the lABS, Madison, Wisconsin, ;1~t~0August, 1980. A.L. BASHAM. 5/1 (1982) 131-143.

;!,;t[he)Autobiography of a 20th Century Rnying-ma-pa Lama. Alexander W. :,q:\MACDONALD. 4/2 (1981) 63-75.

)~J~;r~kground Material for the First Seventy Topics in Maitreyanatha's :',;.Abhisamayiilamkiira. Gareth SPARHAM. 1012 (1987) 139-158.

~"f1JLEY H. W. see: ;~, i VaJrayana in Gostana-dda.

NERJEE, Satya Ranjan see: ~~:0~;1)'Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs.

;f{[~;u,AT, P.V. see:

~r0·Gul).aprabha's Vinaya-sutra and his Own Commentary on the Same. (:.).~:~.Obituary: Professor Dr. P.L. Vaidya [1891-1978J.

;J~AREAU, Andre see: :~;:;' Royaumes de l'Himalaya, histoire et civilisation.

~::'~ASHAM, A.L. see: if?i; Asoka and Buddhism-A Re-examination. to' Sarpbodhi in Asoka's 8th Rock Edict.

r?~ASTIAN, Edward W. see: ?;~ Obituary: Edward Conze [1904--1979]. ;/:> Prajiiiipiiramitii Literature.

(31ATCHELOR, Stephen :.;y Alone with Others.

see:

J3ECHERT, Heinz see:

'>'c'u,

Obituary: Ernest Waldschmidt (1897-1985). Obituary: Etienne Lamotte (1903-1983). World of Buddhism.

.~~efore the Prajiia Schools: The Earliest Chinese Commentary on the A~tasiihas' .. riM. Whalen LA!. 611 (1983) 91-108.

,BEMENT, Michael B. see: Comparative Ethics in Hindu and Buddhist Traditions.

)~ERLING, Judith A. see: • '. Syncretic Religion of Lin Chao-en.

:j.'", t: "/",


BERNBAUM, Edwin see: Way to Shambhala.

BHAGWAN DASH, Vaidya see: Tibetan Medicine.

BHATTACHARYA, Kamaleswar see: Nagarjuna's Arguments against Motion.

BICKNER, Robert J. see: Buddhism and Society in Southeast Asia. Three Worlds According to King Ruang.

BLOSS, Lowell W. see: Female Renunciants of Sri Lanka.

Bodhi and Arahattaphala. From early Buddhism to early Mahayana. Kar~( WERNER. 4/1 (1981) 70-84.1'

Bodhicaryiivatiira 9: 2 As A Focus For Tibetan Interpretations of the Two TruthS" in the Prasangika Madhyamika. Michael J. SWEET. 2/2 (1979) 79-89:!iZ

(The) Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism. Leslie S. KAWAMURA, editor. Revie~~; by L.M. JOSHI. 6/1 (1983) 148-151. ...... ..

>:-;;"

(The) Bodhisattva Ideal of Theravada. Shanta RATNAYAKA. 8/2 (1985); 85-110.';/

(The) Bodymind Experience in japanese Buddhism. A Phenomenological StudY~f~ Kukai and Dagen. David SHANER. Review by William WALDRON. 9/2; (1986) 155-156. ..

BOND, George D. [BOND, George] see: Buddhism in Life. Theraviida Meditation. Two Ways of Perfection. Word of the Buddha.

BONGARD-LEVIN, G.M. see: New Buddhist Sanskrit Texts from Central Asia.

(The) Books of Kiu-Te or the Tibetan Buddhist Tantras. David REIGLE. by Roger JACKSON. 8/1 (1985) 113-115.

BRAARVIG, Jens see: Dhiirarpf and Pratibhana.

Brief lectures on the Origins and Development of Chinese Buddhology. S~~i Zhongguo foxue yuanliu luejiang.

BROmO, Michael see: Padma dKar-po on the Two Satyas. Sa-skya Pandita, the White Panacea and the Hva-shang Doctrine.

BROUGH, John (1917-1984).

INDEX

~~lr{t;CK Harry M. see: ;~?'~"'. Dhamma: Western Academic and Sinhalese Buddhist Interpretations. ~~!~;i!;. Spiritual Discipline in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the West.

;.·~!.\;lJ··CKNELL Rod see: V!~B '

185

ilh~r.B uddhist Path to Liberation.

c~i:i~)Buddha. Michael CARRITHERS. Review by Paul GRIFFITHS. 7/2 (1984) ~{!~\ 216-218. . f·N·>,;:>·~··· . . ;;;/~u~dha-Mazda" fron: Kara-tepe in Old Termez (Uzbekistan): A Preliminary Com-')}~r;!,. Illunication. Bons J. ST A VISKY. 3/2 (1980) 89-94.

l:l~iidJha'S Lions-The Li1!es if the Eighty-Four Siddhas. James B. R 0 BINSO N. Review :i;'A;' by Jose CABEZON. 411 (1981) 111-113. "!~.!

~tB~ism: A select bibliography. SATYAPRAKASH, editor. Review by Roger [:;}./ JACKSON. 2/2 (1979) 112.

h1BuddhisIll and Belief in Atma. Y. KRISHAN. 7/2 (1984) 117-135. ~;, ;. '.

(!!\!~Buddhism and Music. 411 (1981) 127. ·r, .• · ~(lBuddhisIll and Political Power in Korean History. S. KEEL 111 (1978) 9-24.

h

!~iB~ism and Society in Southeast Asia. Donald K. SWEARER. Review by Robert ~~I J. BICKNER. 511 (1982) 126-127 .

. ,tBuddhisIll and the Caste System. Y. KRISHAN. 911 (1986) 71-83.

~;;'uddhism, Imperialism and War: Burma and Thailand in Modern History. Trevor ';\:: LING. Review by Somchintana THONGTHEW-RATARASARN. 3/2 :.:f (1980) 109-111.

::!0;Juddhism in Life: The Anthropological Study of Religion and the Sinhalese Practice of it., Buddhism. Martin SOUTHWOLD. Review by George D. BOND. 8/2 (1985) f( 133-135.

~iBuddhist and Freudian Psychology. Padmasiri DE SILVA. Review by Gary W. {<! HOUSTON. 411 (1981) 114-115. if !i,~uddhist and Western Philosophy. Nathan KATZ; editor. Review by Keith E. YAN-

DELL. 6/2 (1983) 141-144.

<Buddhist and Western Psychology. Nathan KATZ, editor. Review by Paul GRIFFITHS. 7/2 (1984) 219-223.

,'Buddhist Architecture of Western India. (c. 250 BC-AD 300). S. NAGARAJU. Review by Phil WAGONER. 4/2 (1981) 109-111.

'Buddhist-Christian Empathy. Joseph]. SPAE. Review by Roger Tashi CORLESS. , 411 (1981) 115-118.

{Buddhist Hybrid English: Some Notes on Philology and Hermeneutics for Buddhologists. Paul]. GRIFFITHS. 4/2 (1981) 17-32.

I Buddhist Images of Human Perfection. Nathan KATZ. Review by Winston KING.

711 (1984) 169-173.


(The) Buddhist Path to Liberation: An Analysis of the Listing of Stages. BUCKNELL. 7/2 (1984) 7-40.

(The) Buddhist "Prodigal Son": A Story of Mis.perceptions. Whalen LAL (1981) 91-98.

(A) Buddhist Sp~ctrum. Marco PALLIS. Review'by D. Seyfort RUEGG. (1984) 159-162.

Buddhist Studies. J.W. DE JONG, edited by Gregory SCHOPEN. Review Frank E. REYNOLDS. 4/2 (1981) 106-107.

Buddhist Wisdom: The Mystiry of the Self. George GRIMM, translated German) by Carroll AIKINS. Review by Roger JACKSON. 2/2 (1979) 111.

BURRILL, Bruce see: Bruce Burrill Replies [to Jeffrey HOPKINS]. Tantric Distinction.

CABEZON, Jose Ignacio Uose I.; Jose] see: Buddha's Lions. Concepts of Truth and Meaning in the Buddhist Scriptures. Histoire du Cycle de la Naissance et de la Mort. Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems. Lamp for the Path and Commentary. Love and Sympathy in Theravada Buddhism. Pratltyasamutpadastutisubhiis.itahr:dayam. Santideva: Mystique bouddhiste des VIle et VlIIe siecles.

Can Meditational Practice be Measured? A Report on a Quantitative Jacques MAQUET. 211 (1979) 84-90.

CARRITHERS, Michael see: Buddha.

CARTER, John Ross see: Dhamma: Western Academic and Sinhalese Buddhist Interpretations. Threefold Refuge in the Theravada Buddhist Tradition.

(A) Catalogue of the sTog Palace Kanjur. Tadeusz SKORUPSKI. Review by Cameron HALL. 9/2 (1986) 156-16l.

Chandi Borobudur: A Monument of Mankind. Dr. SOEKMONO. Review Douglas J. RASMUSSEN. 211 (1979) 108-109.

Changing the Female Body: Wise Women and the Bodhisattva Some Mahiiratnaku(asutras. Nancy SCHUSTER. 411 (1981) 24-69.

CHAPPLE, Christopher see: Dharma and Gospel.

CHAU (CMu), Thfch Thien see: Literature of the Pudgalavadins. Reponses des Pudgalavadin aux Critiques des Ecoles Bouddhiques.

INDEX 187

tNG, Lu see: l~~~)i,Zhongguo foxue yuanliu liiejiang.

;i)%;l:i:~seBuddhism: Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation. W. PACHOW. Re~ew by Whalen W. LAI. 5/1 (1982) 124-126.

e Religio";s in Western Languages: A Comprehensive and Classified Bibliography 'of Publications in English, French and German through 1980. Laurence G. 'tHOMPSON. Review by Yves HERVOUET. 911 (1986) 121-122.

f!t <::";;~;' --,':,! lit§iM6Yung vs. Chang Jung (on Sunyata); The Pen-mo Yu-wu Controversy in 1~{1iFifth-Century China. Whalen LA!. 1/2 (1978) 23-44. :f{j~';:;;;?i~',::-;-: ~(;Kilkanto Yuishiki (Madhyamika and Vijnaptimatrata). Gadjin NAGAO. Review ~r3y\by John KEENAN. 3/2 (1980) 105-107.

Ir~iftaprakr:ti and AyoniSomanaskiira in the Ratnagotravibhiiga: A Precedent for 1/;' . the Hsin-Nien Distinction of The Awakening of Faith. William GROSNICK. . . 6/2 (1983) 35-47.

,;~::t,:,:;,:!,;::::-:

~C8\US, Peter see: ~;~XReligious Festivals in South India and Sri Lanka. it~<.;; ~> i.'" 7CLEARY, Thomas see: ;~' ShObagenza: Zen Essays by Dagen. ;;:(, '

~6tIl<FORD, Terry see: ~iF" . Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry.

;t(A)Clue to the Authorship of the Awakening of Faith: "Sik~ananda's" Redaction t'. of the Word" Nien". Whalen W. LA!. 311 (1980) 34-53. ~':<:':-, ~ 'fC()LLlNS, Steven see: ;~.:;:; Selfless Persons.

!~Mmments on Zen. M. KIYOT A. [Review of Zen Comments on the Mumonk(m, ,'i' byZenkei SHIBAYAMA, translated by Sumiko KUDO.] 112 (1978) 57-62. ,-,':;

;'Cornparative Ethics in Hindu and Buddhist Traditions. Roderick HINDERY. Rer'~' view by MichaelB. BEMENT. 211 (1979) 103-106. ;t'

,~Gomputing and Buddhist Studies. Robert J. MILLER. 5/2 (1982) 136. :t'-S,,-,',

'('the) Concept of a "Creator God" in Tantric Buddhism. Eva K. ;'; DARGYAY. 811 (1985) 31-47. <,;

,(The) Concepts of Truth and Meaning in the Buddhist Scriptures. Jose I. .... CABEZON.411 (1981) 7-23.

;i:~;'-'

'CONFERENCE REPORTS [Chronological]:

Report on the Proceedings of the First Conference of the LA.B.S., Columbia University, New York, September 15-17, 1978. 1/2 (1978) 85-91.


A Report on the 2nd Conference of the lABS Held at Nava Nal~:)\J Mahavihara, Nalanda, Bihar, India: January 17-19, 1980anda' (1980) 127-129. . 3/r

".',\'

A Report on the 3rd Conference of the lABS. 4/1 (1981) 123-127.'}

Report on the 4th Conference of the l-ABS, University of Wisco .~:, . n~

MadIson, WI, U.S.A. August 7-9, 1981. Rena HAGGERTY.·5il~ (1982) 144-152. "I il

Report on the 5th Conference of the lABS, Hertford College, Univers{;i of Oxford, Oxford, England, August 16-21, 1982. Rena HAg-i!" GERTY. 611 (1983) 167-169. ,,'

Report on the Sixth Conference of the lABS, Held in Conjunction wi~:: the 31st CISHAAN, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, August 31. Ren HAGGERTY.7!l (1984) 184-195. ' a.

J"f, 7th Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies [An-'

nouncementJ. 7/2 (1984) 230-231. "," "

8th Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies [An:;; nouncement].911 (1986) 144.

CONFERENCES of the lABS [Chronological]: 1st. New York, New York, USA. 15-17 September 1978. 2nd. Nalanda, Bihar, India. 17-19 January 1980. 3rd. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 18-22 August 1980. 4th. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 7-9 August 1981. 5th. Oxford, England. 16-21 August 1982. 6th. Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan. 31 August-7 September 1983. 7th. Bologna, Italy. 8-13 July 1985. 8th. Berkeley, California, USA. 8-10 August 1987.

*Constitution and By-Laws of the International Association of Buddhist;. Studies. 511 (1982) 153-159.

Contemporary Lay Buddhist Movements in Japan, with Special Reference t() the Lotus Sutra. Tsugunari KUBO. 6/1 (1983) 76-90.

Contributo alto Studio Biografico dei Primi Gter-Ston. Ramon PRA TZ. Review by Leonard W.J. VAN DER KUIJP. 6/1 (1983) 151-154. ' ,

CONZE, Edward (1904-1979) see: Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic. Prajnaparamita Literature.

COOK, Francis H. see: Enlightenment in Dagen'S Zen.

*Copy of Report Elaborated For Union Academique Intemationale Bruxelles:A: Critical Pili Dictionary. K.R. NORMAN. 311 (1980) 130-131.

CORLESS, Roger Tashi see: Buddhist-Christian Empathy.

INDEX 189

,~~;;~~:,:.,'"

~{1'RJBB, Joe see: . :,l.~ .. ". Kani~ka's Buddha Coms. \~\~<: ~"(/'" ·c· urrents in Early Buddhism. S.N. DUBE. Review by N.H. SAMTANI. 411 :Wross ;,;~::!(l981) 108-110.

jj(tl!e) Cycle o/Day an~ Night. Namkhai NORBU, translated by John M. C~!.t;(.REYNOLDS. ReVIew by A.W. HANSON-BARBER. 9/1 (1986)122-123. ~f';j;:;<

~lB.ARGYAY, Eva K. see: *;~. Concept of a "Creator God" in Tantric Buddhism. :}'I,(', :;}"ARGYAY, Lobsang see: "p Tsong kha pa's Understanding of Prasangika Thought.

~bASH. See BHAGWAN DASH, Vaidya. :bE JONG, ].W. see: ~~:" Buddhist Studies. )6 ].W. de Jong Replies [to Diana Y. PAUL]. .~>:: Meditation on Emptiness. ':t Philosophy of Mind in Sixth Century China. '>:

i~EMIEVILLE, Paul (1894-1979) see: ~\: Repertoire du Canon Bouddhique Sino-japonais. ,1'/

'bE SILVA, Lily see: ;ilParitta.

i6isILVA, Padmasiri see: ;'" " Buddhist and Freudian Psychology. i:; Tangles and Webs.

liThe) Development of Language in Bhutan. Lopon NADO. 5/2 (1982) 95-100.

'b~amma: Western Academic and Sinhalese Buddhist Interpretations: A Study of a · Religious Concept. John Ross CARTER. Review by Harry M. BUCK. 8/2 • (1985) 135-137.

~hiiraTJr and Pratihhiin{l: Memory and Eloquence of the Bodhisattvas. Jens '>;;" BRAARVIG. 8/1 (1985) 17.:...29.

bh~rma and Gospel: Two Ways of Seeing. G.W. HOUSTON (editor). Review by . Christopher CHAPPLE. 911 (1986) 123-124.

Dharmasrl on the Sixteen Degrees of Comprehension. Leon HURVITZ. 2/2 (1979) 7-30.

9iana Paul Replies [to ].W. DE JONG]. Diana Y. Paul. 911 (1986) 133-135.

Direct Perception in dGe-Iugs-pa Interpretations of Sautrfmtika. Anne C. KLEIN. 811 (1985) 49-81.

(The) Doctrine of the Buddha-Nature in the Mahayana MahiiparinirviiTJa-Sutra. · Ming-Wood LIU. 5/2 (1982) 63-94.

Dagen Casts off "What": An Analysis of ShinJin Datsuraku. Steven HEINE. · 9/1 (1986) 53-70.


DRAGONETTI, Carmen see: Misce!lcmea Buddhica. Niigiirjuna's Filosofiske Vaerker. Nagarjuniana. Yukt4~(ikiikiirikii of Najarjuna. .~

(The) Dragon Girl and the Abbess of Mo-Shan: Gender and Status Ch'an Buddhist Tradition. Miriam L. LEVERING. 511 (1982)

DUBE, S.N. see: Cross Currents in Early Buddhism.

DURT, Hubert see: Repertoire du Canon Bouddhique Sino-Japonais.

Dynamic Liberation in Yogacara Buddhism.Alan SPONBERG. 211 (1979)

Dzog Chen and Zen. Namkhai NORBU, edited by Kennard LIPMAN. by Roger JACKSON. 811 (1985) 113-115.

EARHART, H. Byron see: Gedatsukai: Its Theory and Practice.

Early Buddhism and Christianity: A Comparative Study of the the Community, and the Discipline. Chai-Shin YU.Review by RAJAPAKSE. 9/2 (1986) 162-165

Early Buddhism and the Urban Revolution. Balkrishna Govind 5/2 (1982) 7-22.

Early Chinese Buddhist Understanding of the Psyche: Chen Hui's ~V"UUl.~ll-..

tary on the Yin Chih Ju Ching. Whalen LAI. 9/1 (1986) 85-103.

ECKEL, Malcolm David see: Indian Commentaries on the Heart Sutra.

ELLINGSON, Ter see: Paritta.

Enlightenment in Dagen's Zen. Francis H. COOK. 6/1 (1983) 7-30.

Essays in Gupta Culture. Edited by Bardwell L. SMITH. Review by Holly Baker REYNOLDS. 10/1 (1987) 157-161. ....

EUSDEN, John Dykstra see: Zen & Christian.

(An) Exceptional Group of Painted Buddha Figures at Ajanta. Anand. KRISHNA. 411 (1981) 96-100.

(An) Excursus on the Subtle Body in Tantric Buddhism (Notes Contextualizing the Kalacakra). Geshe Lhundup SOPA. 6/2 (1983) 48-66. .

Fausboll and the Pali Jatakas. Elisabeth STRANDBERG. 3/2 (1980) 95-101.

(The) Female Renunciants of Sri Lanka: The Dasasilmattawa. Lowell W. BLOSS. lOll (1987) 7-31.

INDEX 191

~ER, E. Todd [F~NNER, ~o.ddJ see: 'Fundamentals of Tlbetan Medlcme.

:On Knowing Reality.

''Tantra in Tibe~. . . . :Tibetan BuddhlSt Medlcme and Psychzatry. -tibetan Medicine. Yoga of Tibet.

'NER, Peter G. see: Reconstruction of the Madhyamakavatara's Analysis of the Person.

j~fdc10n Buddhism: A Guide to Audio-Visual Resources for Teaching Religion. Robert ;~;};:A. MCDERMOTT, editor. Review by Roger JACKSON. 5/2 (1982) 121-

~~~\~t124. ~rrJie) Freudian Unconscious and Bhavariga. O. H. de A. WIJESEKERA. 1/2 1~,~,.·(1978) 63-66. . , 'K"'~Y

~Fifu:DMAN, David (1903-1984). ~:'AV

~,'FromMadhyamika to Yogacara: An Analysis of MMK, XXIVI18 and MV, !~~t;:.;.I/1-2. Gadjin M. NAGAO. 2/1 (1979) 29-43.

%:FRYE, Stanley see: l'h Sutra of the Wise and Foolish.

~f~~~damentals of Tibetan Medicine. T. J. TSARONG et al. Review by E. Todd ~:'!~;<. FENNER. 5/2 (1982) 124-126.

#~0SSMAN, Gerard see: ;;,:,):.Symbolisms of the Buddhist Stupa.

':~lLLOWAY, Brian see: .{:\: Notes on Nagarjuna and Zeno on Motion. 0;; . Yogacara Analysis of the Mind.

~qARD, Richard A. [GARD, R.A.J see: ,,' *On Buddhist Research Information. ) *On Buddhist Text Information.

'Gedatsukai: Its Theory and Practice (A Study of a Shinto-Buddhist Syncretic School . in Contemporary Japan). Minoru KIYOT A. Review by H. Byron

EARHART. 6/1 (1983) 154-157.

(CELBLUM, Tuvia see: Obituary: David Friedman (1903-1984).

Generalization of an Old Yogic Attainment in Medieval Mahayana Sutra Literature: Some Notes on Jatismara. Gregory SCHOPEN. 6/1 (1983) 109-147.

Genesis of an Orientalist: Thomas William Rhys Davids and Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Ananda WICKREMERA TNE. Review by A.P. KANNANGARA. 10/2 (1987) 161-164.


Geshe Sopa Replies to Alex Wayman. GesheSOPA. 311 (1980) 98-100.

GIMELLO, Robert M. see: Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen.

Giuseppe Tucci (1894--1984). Luciano PETECH. 7/2 (1984) 137-142. as article, not obituary.]

GOKHALE, Balkrishna Govind [GOKHALE, B.G.] see: Early Buddhism and the Urban Revolution. Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri Lanka. Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos and Burma. Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia.

GOMBRICH, Richard see: Temporary Ordination in Sri Lanka. World of Buddhism.

GREGORY, Peter N. see: Place of the Sudden Teaching within the Hua-yen Tradition. Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen.

GRIFFITHS, Paul J. [GRIFFITHS, Paul] see: Buddha. Buddhist and Western Psychology. Buddhist Hybrid English. Heart of Buddhism. Zen and Western Thought.

GRIMM, George see: Buddhist Wisdom.

GROSNICK, William see: Cittaprakr:ti and Ayonisomanaskara in the Ratnagotravibhaga. Nonorigination and Nirvarpa in the Early Tathagatagarbha Literature.

GUDMUNSEN, Chris see: Wittgenstein and Buddhism.

GUENTHER, Herbert V. see: Matrix of Mystery. Tasks Ahead. Tibetan Buddhism in Western Perspective.

GUDaprabha's Vinaya-sutra and his Own Commentary on the Same. P.V., BAPAT. 1/2 (1978) 47-51.

GYATSO,Janet see: Signs, Memory and History. Tsong Khapa's Speech of Gold in the Essence of True Eloquence.

HAGGERTY, Rena see: *International Buddhist Directory. *(A) Report on the 4th Conference of the lABS.

INDEX 193

~(A) Report on the 5th Conference of the lABS. *(A) Report on the Sixth Conference of the lABS. *Tibetan Blockprints in the Department of Rare Book;; and Special Collections.

~'iIAKAMAYA, No~iaki see:. .._ . :'~;t;l/Realm of EnlIghtenment III V1.Jnapttmiitratii.

~:~ALL, Bruce Cameron see: {::' "." Catalogue of the sTog Palace Kanjur.

. Index to Volume 1-10, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist i :~;~"~:;, ,iV Studies. ;;:. Meaning of Vijiiapti in Vasubandhu's Concept of Mind.

+;.

{~AMILTON-MERRIT, Jane see: ~.\ Meditator's Diary.

'~.~ANSON-BARBER, A.W. see: . Cycle of Day and Night. ~>', Identification of dGa'rab rdo rje.

Matrix of Mystery. "No-Thought" in Pao-Tang Ch'an and Early Ati Yoga .

• ; Seven Works of Vasubandhu.

;;BARRlSON, Paul see: . Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle?

HARVEY, Peter see: "Signless" Meditations in Piili Buddhism.

" Symbolism of the Early Stupa.

HAYES, Richard P. see: Heart of Buddhist Philosophy.

"(The) Heart of Buddhism. Yoshinori TAKEUCHI. Review by Paul GRIFFITHS. . 711 (1984) 162-164.

(Ihe) Heart of Buddhist Philosophy: Diimiiga and Dharmakirti. Amar SINGH. Review by Richard P. HAYES. 9/2 (1986) 166-172.

HEINE, Steven see: Dagen Casts Off "What". Multiple Dimensions of Impermanence in Dagen's "Genjakaan". ShObagenza: Zen Essays by Dagen.

HERVOUET, Yves see: Chinese Religions in Western Languages.

HINDERY, Roderick see: Comparative Ethics in Hindu and Buddhist Traditions.

Histoire du Cycle de la Naissance et de la Mort. Yoshiro IMAEDA. Review by Jose 1. CABEZON. 5/1 (1982) 118-121.

HOLT,John C. see: Pilgrimage and the Structure of Sinhalese Buddhism.

/


HOPKINS, Jeffrey see: Jeffrey Hopkins Replies [to Bruce Burrill]. Meditation on Emptiness. Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism. '3 Reason as the Prime Principle in Tsong kha pa's Delineation of Deity Yo c~~

as the Demarcation Between Sutra and Tantra.ga, Tantra in Tibet. Tantric Distinction. Yoga of Tibet.

HORNER, Isaline Blew [HORNER, LB.] (1896-1981) see: Keci, "Some," in a Pali Commentary.

HOUSTON, Gary W. [HOUSTON, G.W.] see: Buddhist and Freudian Psychology. Dharma and Gospel Sources for a History of the bSam yas Debate. Tangles and Webs. Wings of the White Crane. Zen & Christian.

Hu-Jan Nien-Ch'i (Suddenly a Thought Rose): Chinese Understanding of Minci: and Consciousness. Whalen LA!. 3/2 (1980) 42-59.

HUNTINGTON, John C. see: Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Earliness of Tantra.

HURVITZ, Leon see: Dharmasrl on the Sixteen Degrees of Comprehension.

ICHIMURA, Shohei see: Approach to Dagen's Dialectical Thinking and Method ofInstantiation. New Approach to the Intra-Madhyamika Confrontation over the

Svatantrika and Prasangika Methods of Refutation. Study on the Madhyamika Method of Refutation and Its Influence on.

Buddhist Logic. ".

(The) Identification of dGa' rab rdo rje. A.W. HANSON-BARBER. 9/2 (1986). 55-63. '.

IMAEDA, Yoshiro see: Histoire du Cycle de la Naissance et de la Mort. Mission Paul Pelliot.

Index to Volumes 1-1 0 ,Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies .. Bruce Cameron Hall. 10/2 (1987) 181-216. .

Indian Commentaries on the Heart Sutra: The Politics of Interpretation. Malcolm David ECKEL. 10/2 (1987) 69-79.

Indrabhuti's "Confession of Errors in the Roots and Branches of the Vaj-. rayana": A Critical Edition, English Translation and Discussion. Nathan KATZ. 2/2 (1979) 31-44. .

INDEX 195

~~;~rrhe) Indravarman (~vaca) Caske~ Inscripti?r; Rec~ns!dered:. Further Evi'~!;:;;. dence for Canomcal Passages III BuddhIst InscnptlOns. Richard SALO:f~;t1C MON & Gregory SCHOPEN. 711 (l984) 107-123. i:iI!'~J',~\1

~~.1NOUE Yasushi see: ~~i;\:: Ro~fTile of Tempyo. ,?;,:~:r." ,C-,

i~iNTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUDDHIST STUDIES. See: ~:~); CONFERENCE REPORTS. /.,. CONFERENCES.

~~(,,: ;~s;~~~;I~~ :ri;;~;·SES. ;!'j~international Association of Buddhist Studies: General Membership, Sum-;/:C' mer 1979. 2/2 (1979) 117-132. . ;;:( [See also *List of Members of I.AB.S.] ,;'~,\ 1

'h';o!'lntemationaIBuddhistDirectory. Review by Rena HAGGERTY. 9/2 (1986) 190.

>Yntroduction it la connaissance des hlvri ba (f.t~o{}(j)o) de Thailande. Anatole-Roger (;:; PELTIER. Review by Pierre-Bernard LAFONT, translated (from . French) by Roger JACKSON. 3/2 (1980) 107-109".

~'\<;-:

}.(An) Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems. F.D. LESSING & A WAYMAN. :; Review by Jose CABEZON. 2/2 (1979) 104-106. fl" ~r:is the Buddhist Notion of "Cause Necessitates Effect" (Paticcasamuppiida) Sci-i,,? entific? AD.P. KALANSURIYA. 1/2 (1978) 7-22.

::Cfhe) Issue of the Buddha as Vedagfi with Reference to the Formation of the ;~ Dhamma and the Dialectic with the Brahmins. Katherine K. YOUNG. ;, 5/2 (1982) 110-120.

'J'e,."

:i(The) Inscription on the Ku~an Image of Amitabha and the Character of the i" Early Mahayana in India. Gregory SCHOPEN. 10/2 (1987) 99-134.

;'J.W.deJongReplies [to Diana Y. PAUL].J.W. DEJONG. 911 (1986) 135-136.

JACKSON, Roger see: Alone with Others. Books of Kiu-Te or the Tibetan Buddhist Tantras. Buddhism: A select bibliography. Buddhist Wisdom. Focus on Buddhism. Introduction it la connaissance des hlvri ba de Thailande. Literature of the Pudgalavadins. Living Buddhist Masters. Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic. Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. Rain of Wisdom. Religions of Tibet. Sa skya paI.ldita's Account of the bSam yas Debate. Songs of Spiritual Change.


Spiritual Discipline in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the West. *Terms bf Sanskrit and Pali Origin Acceptable as English Words. Tibetan Buddhism in Western Perspective. Wings of the White Crane. World of Buddhism.

JAGCHID, Sechin see: Mongol Khans and Chinese Buddhism and Taoism.

(The) Jaina Path of Perfection. Padmanabh S. JAIN!. Review by Frances SON. 3/2 (1980) 112-115.

JAIN!, Padmanabh S. see: Jaina Path of Pefection. Obituary: John Brough (1917-1984).

JOHANSSON, Rune E.A. see: Rune E.A. Johansson's Analysis of Citta.

JOSHI, Lal Mani GOSHI, L.M.] (1935-1984) see: *L.M. Joshi: a Brief Communication. Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism. Study of the Twenty-two Dialogues on Mahiiyana Buddhism.

KALANSURIYA, A.D.P. see: Is the Buddhist Notion of "Cause Necessitates Effect" Scientific?

KALUPAHANA, David]. see: Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Way of Siddhartha,

KALUPAHANA,Indrani see: Way of Siddhartha.

Kani~ka's Buddha Coins-The Official Iconography of Sakyamuni & Maitreya. Joe CRIBB. 3/2 (1980) 79-88.

KANNANGARA, A.P. see: Genesis of an Orienta list.

KASHYAP, Bhikkhu Jagdish see: Studies in Pali and Buddhism.

KATZ, Nathan see: Buddhist and Western Philosophy. Buddhist and Western Psychology. Buddhist Images of Human Perfection. Indrabhuti's "Confession of Errors in the Roots and Branches of the

Vajrayana" . Word of the Buddha.

KATZ, Steven T. see: Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis.

INDEX

'WAMURA, Leslie S. see: ( Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism.

'i,"Some," in a Pali Commentary. LB. HORNER. 1/2 (1978) 52-56.

,.,,"'iII\.DJ"'~' S. see: uU'.uuu ... and Political Power in Korean History.

,:,'

see:

Minoru [KIYOTA, M.] see: Comments on Zen. Gedatsukai: Its Theory and Practice. Mahayana Buddhist Meditation. Modern Japanese Buddhology. Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice. Shingon Mikkyo's Twofold Ma7!4ala. Sutra of Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life. Tantric Concept of Bodhicitta.

see.: Direct Perception in dGe-lugs-pa Interpretations of Sautrantika. Tantric Distinction.

197

'Kokan Shiren and Muso Soseki: "Chineseness" vs. "Japaneseness" in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century Japan. David POLLACK. 7/2 (1984) 143-168.

KORNFIELD, Jack see: Living Buddhist Masters.

KOSEKI, Aaron K. see: "Later Madhyamika" in China. Prajiiaparamita and the Buddahood of the Non-Sentient World. Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice.

KRISHAN, Y. see: Buddhism and Belief in Atma. Buddhism and the Caste System.


KRISHNA, Anand see: Exceptional Group of Painted Buddha Figures at Ajan~a.

KRUEGER, John R. see: Sutra of the Wise and Foolish.

KUBO, Tsugunari see: Contemporary Lay Buddhist Movements in Japan.

KV AERNE, Per see: Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs. Tibet-Bon Religion.

*L.M. Joshi: a Brief Communication. Robert A.F. THURMAN. 7/2 232. [See also obituary by N.H. SAMTANI & Robert Alexander THURMAN, 811 (1985) 135-137.]

LAFONT, Pierre-Bernard see: Introduction it la connaissance des hlvri ba de Thailande.

LAI, Whalen W. [LAI, Whalen] see: Beforethe Prajna Schools. Buddhist "Prodigal Son". Chinese Buddhism: Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation. Chou Yung vs. Chang Jung (on Sunyatii). Clue to the Authorship of the Awakening of Faith. Early Chinese Buddhist Understanding of the Psyche. Hu-Jan Nien-Ch'i (Suddenly a Thought Rose). Nonduality of the Two Truths in Sinitic Madhyamika. Wonhyo (Yuan Hsiao) on the NirvaI).a School.

LAMOTTE, Etienne (1903-1983).

(A) Lamp for the Path and Commentary, by AtISa. Richard SHERB URNE. Review by Jose I. CABEZON. 7/2 (1984) 224-226.

LANCASTER, Lewis R. see: Repertoire du Canon Bouddhique Sino-Japonais.

LANG, Karen Christina see: Niigiirjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way.

"Later Madhyamika" in China: Some Current Perspectives on the History of Chinese Prajftiipiiramitii Thought. Aaron K. KOSEK!. 5/2 (1982) 53-62.

(The) Legend of King Asoka: A Study and Translation of the "Asokiivadiina". John S. STRONG. Review by Bardwell SMITH. 10/2 (1987) 165-167.

LESSING, F.D. see: Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems.

LEVERING, Miriam L. see: Dragon Girl and the Abbess of Mo-Shan.

(The) Life and Times of Para martha (449-569.). Diana Y. PAUL. 511 (1982) 37-69.

INDEX 199

Nl)TNER, Chr. ~ee: Miscellanea Buddhzca .

. Niigiirjuna's FilosoJzske Vaerker. Nagarjuniana.

Trevor see: Buddhism, Imperialism and War.

Kennard see: Dzog Chen and Zen.

of Members of the I.A.B.S. 112 (1979) 92-103. [See also *International f\.~,~Ul.l"L.LVU of Buddhist Studies: General Membership.]

Literature of the Pudgalavadins. Thich Thien CHAU, translated (from French) by Roger JACKSON. 711 (1984) 7-16.

Ming-Wood see: Doctrine of the Buddha-Nature in the Mahayana Mahiiparinirvii1Ja-Sutra .

. Problem of the Icchantika in the Mahayana Mahiiparinirvii1Ja-Sutra.

Buddhist Masters. Jack KORNFIELD. Review by Roger JACKSON. 2/2 (1979) 112.

Donald S., Jr. see: Report on Religious Activity in Central Tibet, October 1985.

Sympathy in Theravada Buddhism. Harvey B. ARONSON. Review by Jose Ignacio CABEZON. 3/2 (1980) 103-105.

See CHENG, Lli.

Maidens and Ascetic Kings (Buddhist and Hindu Stories 'of Life). C. AMORE Larry D. SHINN. Review by Beth SIMON. 4/2 (1981) 99,-101.

Alexander W. see: Autobiography of a 20th Century Rnying-ma-pa Lama. Mission Paul Pelliot. Royaumes de l'Himalaya, histoire et civilisation. World Conqueror and World Renouncer.

;'MACDONALD, Ariane see: Mission Paul Pelliot.

·)Madhyamika and Vijnaptimatrata. See Chukan to Yuishiki.

Mahamaudgalyayana's Sermon on the Letting-in And Not Letting-in (of Sen-. sitive Influences). E. WALDSCHMIDT. 111 (1978) 25-33.

(The) Mahasarp.ghika and the Tathagatagarbha (Buddhist Doctrinal History, Study 1). A. WAYMAN. III (1978) 35-50 .

. Mahayana Buddhist Meditation: Theory and Practice. Minoru KIYOT A, editor. - Review by Joseph M. KITAGAWA. 211 (1979) 106-108.

-Marginalia to Sa-Skya PalJdita's Oeuvre. Leonard W.J. VAN DER KUIJP. 7/1 (1984) 37-55.


Matrix of Mystery: Scientific and Humanistic Aspects of rDzogs-chen Thought. V. GUENTHER. Review by A.W. HANSON-BARBER. 8/2 138-140.

MAQUET, Jacques see: Can Meditational Practice Be Measured?

MCDERMOTT, Robert A. see: Focus on Buddhism.

MCMULLIN, Neil see: Sanmon-Jimon Schism in the Tendai School of Buddhism.

(The) Meaning of Vijiiapti in Vasubandhu's Concept of Mind. Bruce Cameron HALL. 9/1 (1986) 7-23.

Meditation on Emptiness. Jeffrey HOPKINS. Review by ].W. DE JONG. (1986) 124--128.

(A) Meditator's Diary. Jane HAMILTON-MERRITT. Review by Vijitha RAJAPAKSE. 6/2 (1983) 144--146.

MEMBERSHIP OF lABS. See: *List of Members of I.A.B.S. *International Association of Buddhist Studies: General Membership.

(The) Memoirs of a Modern Gnostic. Edward CONZE. Review by Roger JACKSON. 4/2 (1981) 102-106. """'

MetapsychologyoftheAbhidharma. ShantaRATNAYAKA. 4/2 (1981) 76-88.

MILLER, Beatrice D. see: Women in Buddhism.

MILLER, Robert]. see: *Computing and Buddhist Studies.

MILLER, Roy Andrew see: Obituary:Turrell V. Wylie (1927-1984).

Miscellanea Buddhica. See: Nagarjuna's Filosofiske Vaerker and Miscellanea Buddhica.

Mission Paul Pelliot: Choi.-y; de Documents tibetains conserves Ii la Bibliotheque Nationale, complete par quelques manuscrits de l'India Office et du British Museum. Ariane MACDONALD & Yoshiro IMAEDA. Review by Alexander W. MACDONALD. 1/2 (1978) 76-77.

Modern Japanese Buddhology: Its History and Problematics. Minoru KIYOT A. 7/1 (1984) 17-36.

(The) Mongol Khans and Chinese Buddhism and Taoism. SechinJAGCHID. 2/1 (1979) 7-28.

Morality in the Visuddhimagga. Damien KEOWN. 6/1 (1983) 61-75.

MULLIN, Glenn H. see: Songs of Spiritual Change.

INDEX 201

;jjt~:<'L ~i;;>kple Dimensions of Impermanence in Dogen's "Genjokoan." Steven ;~~f~ lHEINE. 4/2 (1981) 44-62.

fif!;!icisrn and Philosophical Analysis. Steven T. KATZ, editor. Review by Roger

!\Y~r.JACKSON. 2/2 (1979) 112.

~~ADO, Lopon see: ' . t5i'{' Development of Language m Bhutan.

tWAGAO, Gadjin M. [NAGAO, GadjinJ see: Cc'}' Ascent and Descent. ,,!,' Chukan to Yuishiki. :tr ,From Madhyamika to Yogacara. ;I;\~" Presidential Address [1 st lABS Conference J.

\~ACARAJU, S. see: (;Buddhist Architecture of Western India.

;'~iigiirjUna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. David]. KALUPAHANA. Review i',by Karen Christina LANG. 10/2 (1987) 167-174.

(~;i.garjuna's Arguments against Motion. Kamaleswar BHATTACHARYA. 811 &< (1985) 7-15.

rf!~giirjuna'S FilosoflSke Vaerker and Miscellanea Buddhica. Chr. LINDTNER. Re}\"view by Fernando TOLA & Carmen DRAGONETTI. lOll (1987) 161-ij;', 163.

Nagaryunzana: Studies in the. Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. Chr. 1< LlNDTNER. Review by Fernando TOLA & Carmen DRAGONETTI.

811 (1985) 115-117. "-'r'">

NALANDA TRANSLATION COMMITTEE: Rain of Wisdom.

NAMDOL, Gyaltsen see: PratftyasamutPadastutisubh~itah'(dayam.

NARAIN, A.K. see: "Our Buddha" in an Asokan Inscription. Studies in Pali and Buddhism.

Nature in Dogen's Philosophy and Poetry. Miranda SHAW. 8/2 (1985) 111-132.

(M New Approach to the Intra-Madhyamika Confrontation over the Svatantrika and Prasailgika Methods of Refutation. Shohei ICHIMURA. 5/2 (1982) 41-52.

New Areas of Research For Archaeologists and Buddhologists. G. TUCCI. 111 (1978) 71-74.

New Buddhist Sanskrit Texts from Central Asia: An Unknown fragment of the Mahayana MahiiparinirviiTJasutra. G.M. BONGARD-LEVIN. 4/2 (1981) 7-16.

Nirvana and Metaphysical Experience. Ismael QUILES, S.]. 211 (1979) 91-98.


Nonduality of the Two Truths in Sinitic Madhyamika: Origin of the Truth'. Whalen W. LA!. 2/2 (1979) 45-65.

Nonorigination and Nirva'{fa in the Early Tathqgatagarbha Literature. GROSNICK. 4/2 (1981) 33-43.

NORBU, Namkhai see: Cycle of Day and Night. Dzog Chen and Zen.

NORMAN, K.R. see: *Copy of Report Elaborated For Union Academique .LHLCI-l"!?_~"dIP;',i

Bruxelles. Obituary: !saline Blew Horner (1896-1981).

Note on a Chinese Text Demonstrating the Earliness of Tantra. HUNTINGTON. 10/2 (1987) 88-98.

Notes on Nagarjuna and Zeno on Motion. Brian GALLOWAY. 10/2 80-87.

Notes on the Buddha's Threats in the Dfgha Nikiiya. A. SYRKIN. 7/1 147-158.

Notes on the Ratnaku(a Collection. K. Priscilla PEDERSEN. 3/2 (1980)

Notes on the Textcritical Editing of the Bodhisattvavadanakalpalata. WILSON. 3/1 (1980) 111-114.

"No-Thought" in Pao-Tang Ch'an and Early Ati Yoga. A.W. BARBER. 8/2 (1985) 61-73.

OBITUARIES (Chronological):

Professor Dr. P.L. Vaidya [1891-1978]. P.V. BAPAT. 111 (1978) 91-92.

Yamaguchi Susumu [1895-1976]. 112 (1978) 104-107.

Paul Demieville [1894-1979].2/1 (1979) 110-113.

Edward Conze [1904-1979]. Edward W. BASTIAN. 2/2 (1979) 116.

lsaline Blew Horner (1896-1981). K.R. NORMAN. 5/2 (1982)

Giuseppe Tucci (1894-1984). Luciano PETECH. 7/2 (1984) [Printed as article, not obituary.]

John Brough (1917-1984). Padmanabh S. JAIN!. 7/2 (1984) Z30-Z3i~,

Lal ManiJoshi (1935-1984). N.H. SAMTANI & Robert Alexander Farrar , THURMAN. 811 (1985) 135-137. [See also *L.M. Joshi: a Brid Communication. Robert A.F. THURMAN. 7/2 (1984) 232.]

Daivd Friedman (1903-1984). TuviaGELBLUM. 8/2 (1985) 149-150. '

Etienne Lamotte (1903-1983). Heinz BECHERT. 8/2 (1985) 151-156.

Ernst Waldschmidt (1897-1985). Heinz BECHERT. 9/1 (1986) 147-149.

Turrell V. Wylie (1927-1984). Roy Andrew MILLER. 911 (1986) 150-, 155.

INDEX 203

ETTI, V. see: . . ..... .... Practice and Theory of Tzbetan BuddhISm.

Buddhist Research Infor~~tion (B.R.I.) of the Institu.te for Advanced Studies of World RehglOns (IASWR), New York. Richard A. GARD. 2/2(1979) 113-115.

':Buddhist Text Information (B.T.I.) of the Institute for Advanced Studies r of World Religions (IASWR), New York. R.A. GARD. 111 (1978) 87-90.

nowing Reality: The Tattvartha Chapter of Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi. Janice Dean WILLIS. ReviewbyE. Todd FENNER. 311 (1980) 117-119.

n the Sources for Sa skya PaI;l<;lita's Notes on the Bsam yas Debate. Leonard ''; W.]. VAN DER KUIJP. 9/2 (1986) 147-153.

rlginalPurity and the Focus of Early Yogacara.John P. KEENAN. 511 (1982) 'ii> 7-18.

llr Buddha" in an Asokan Inscription. A.K. NARAIN. III (1978) 57-64.

\:;HOW, w. see: Chinese Buddhism: Aspects of Interaction and Reinterpretation. Study of the Twenty-two Dialogues on Mahayana Buddhism. Thousand Buddhas.

~Ii'\:~iPa(lma dKar-po on the Two Satyas. Michael BROmO. 8/2 (1985) 7-59.

A Historical and Religious Study of the Buddhist Ceremony for Peace and Prosperity in Sri Lanka. Lily DE SILVA. Review by Ter ELLINGSON. 711 (1984) 164-168.

see: Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sutrasamuccaya.

Diana Y. see: Diana Paul Replies [to ].W. DE JONG]. Life and Times of Paramartha. Philosophy of Mind in Sixth Century China. Women in Buddhism.

K. Priscilla

Anatole-Roger see: HH'ruaUCE:Wn it la connaissance des hlvri ba de Thailande.

Luciano see: Guiseppe Tucci (1894-1984). [Printed as article].


PEZZALI, Amalia see: ~Repott on th~ Internatio.nal Seminar: Aspec~~ of Indian Thought. Santideva: Mystzque bouddhzste des. VIle et VlIIe szecles. .

Philosophy of Mind in Sixth Century China: Paramlirtha's 'Evolution Diana Y. PAUL. Review by j.W. D:J;: JONG. 9/1 (1986) 129-133 Diana Paul Replies (133-135), and: ].W. de Jong Replies .

Pilgrimage and the Structure of Sinhalese Buddhism. John C. HOLT (1982) 23-40. .

(The) Place of the Sudden Teaching within the Hua-yen Tradition: An tigation of the Process of Doctrinal Change. Peter N. GREGORY. (1983) 31-60.

POLLACK, David see: Kokan Shiren and Muso Soseki.

Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism. Geshe Lhundup SOPA & Jeffrey KINS'. Review by V. OLIVETTI. 1/2 (1978) 69-72.

PRADHAN, P. see: Presidential Address at the 2nd lABS .Conference.

Prajnaparamita and the Buddahood of the Non-Sentient World: The Assimilation of Buddha-Nature and Middle Path Doctrine. Aaron KOSEKI. 311 (1980) 16-33.

(The) Prajiiaparamita Literature. Edward CONZE. Review by Edward W. TIAN. 2/2 (1979) 99-102.

PratityasamutPadastutisubhii~itah'(dayam of Acarya Tsong kha pa. Gyaltsen DOL & Ngawang SAMTEN. Review by Jose Ignacio CABEZON. (1982) 127-128.

PRA TZ, Ramon see: Contributo aUo Studio Biografico dei Primi Gter-Ston.

Pre~Buddhist Elements in Himalayan Buddhism: The Institution of Ramesh Chandra TEWARI. 1011 (1987) 135-155.

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES (Chronological):

Gadjin M. NAGAO. Presidential Address, 1st lABS Conference, York, 1978. 112 (1978) 79-85.

P. PRADHAN. Presidential Address, 2nd lABS Conference, Nalanda, 1980.411 (1981) 128-142. . ..

Herbert V. GUENTHER. Presidential Address, 3rd lABS ConferenceH Winnipeg, 1980.412 (1981) 115-123. ["Tasks Ahead."]

A.L. BASHAM. Presidential Address, 4th lABS Conference, Madison" 1980.511 (1982) 131-143. ["Asoka and Buddhism-A Reexa~i: nation."]

INDEX 205

Walpola RAHULA. Presidential Address, 5th lABS Conference, Oxford, '. . 1982.6/1 (1983) 162-166.

Gadjin M. NAGAO. Presidential Address, 6th lABS Conference, Toyko & Kyoto, 1983.711 (1984) 176-183. ["Ascent and Descent: Two Directional Activity in Buddhist Thought."]

0:'.;~.·.'.f~h:'·) Problem. of the Icchantika in the Mahayana Mahiiparinirvana SIdra. Ming-~~\~ e . . '~;t, . Wood LIU 7/1 (1984) 57-8l. ,~,;',~:;;,!,~~,:.'"

F.:'i;;;;blegomena to an English Translation of the Sutrasamuccaya. Bhikkhu (~~;!tfi.pAsADIKA. 5/2 (1982) 101-lO9.

~l~i~~;~~posal for an Index of Publications in Buddhist Studies. 5/2 (1982) 137.

~:!JN~re Land Buddhist Hermeneutics: Honen's Interpretaion of Nembutsu. ""ji/, Allan A. ANDREWS. 10/2 (1987) 7-25.

,ii:~;'~UILES, Ismael, S.]. see: . ~\)¥":< Nirvana and Metaphysical Experience. ~'{~V;t:'-:'\ :S;MGiA.HULA, Telwatte see: iff,":. Rasavahinz and Sahassavatthu. I~:~: )~:~,~.,,' :tvRAHULA, Walpola see: :((f.:> Presidential Address ... Fifth Conference ....

;i;~;(rhe) Rain of Wisdom. Translated by the NALANDA TRANSLATION COMo;jj~.3;: MITTEE, underthe directionofChogyam TRUNGPA. Review by Roger l;,'Z: . JACKSON; 6/2 (1983) 149-156.

~*'fiiJAPAKSE, Vijitha see: 0;"'" Early Buddhism and Christianity. ;~i!.i· Meditator's Diary. f. Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism. :~,"" Selfless Persons.

if; Wittgenstein and Buddhism.

:,;'(The) Rasavahinz and the Sahassavatthu: A comparison. Telwatte RAHULA. ". 7/2 (1984) 169-184.

9USMUSSEN, Douglas]. see:

:~~ Chandi Borobudur.

RATNAYAKA, Shanta see: Bodhisattva Ideal of Theravada. Metapsychology of the Abhidharma. Two Ways of Perfection.

(The) Realm of Enlightenment in Vijiiaptimatrata: The Formulation of the "Four Kinds of Pure Dharmas." Noriaki HAKAMAYA, translated (from Japanese) by John KEENAN. 3/2 (1980) 21-4l.

Reason as the Prime Principle in Tsong kha pa's Delineation of Deity Yoga as the Demarcation Between Sutra and Tantra. Jeffrey HOPKINS. 7/2 (1984) 95-115.

206 JIABSVOL.IONO.2

(A) Reconstruction of the Madhyamakiivatiira's Analysis of the Person G. FENNER. 6/2 (1983) 7-34. .

REIGLE, David see: Books of Kiu-Te or the Tibetan Buddhist Tantras.

Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri ianka. Bardwell L. SMITH, Review by B.G. GOKHALE. 2/2 (1979) 107-108:

Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos and Burma. Bardwell SMITH, editor. Review by B.G. GOKHALE. 2/2 (1979) 107-108 ..

Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia. Bardwell L. SMITH, Review by B.G. GOKHALE. 2/2 (1979) 107-108.

(The) Religions of Tibet. Guiseppe TUCCI, translated (from German and by Geoffrey SAMUEL. Review by Roger JACKSON. 411 (1981) 1

Religious Festivals in South India and Sri Lanka. Guy R. WELBON & YOCUM, editors. Review by Peter CLAUS. 7/2 (1984) 226-229.

Repertoire du Canon Bouddhique Sino-Japonais. Edition de TaisM. Fascicule "n.rl.'>";J;

du Hobogirin. Edition Revisee et Augmentee. Paul DEMIEVILLE, DURT & Anna SEIDEL. Review by Lewis R. LANCASTER. 5/2 128-131.

Reply to Professor MacDonald. S.J. TAMBIAH. 211 (1979) 102-103.

(Les) Reponses des Pudgalavadin aux Critiques des Ecoles ~V~~L"UU Thich Thien CHAU (Chau). 1011 (1987) 33-53.

*Report on an Educational Television/Film Series on Tibetan Buddhism. (1982) 138-140.

(A) Report on Buddhism in the People's Republic of China. Alan 511 (1982) 109-117.

Report on Religious Activity in Central Tibet, October 1985. Donald S. Jr. & Cyrus R. STEARNS. 9/2 (1986) 101-107.

*(A) Report on the International Seminar: Aspects of Indian Thought. PEZZALI. 6/2 (1983) 157.

REPORTS ON CONFERENCES. See CONFERENCE REPORTS.

REYNOLDS, Frank E. see: Buddhist Studies. Three Worlds According to King Ruang.

REYNOLDS, Holly Baker see: Essays in Gupta Culture.

REYNOLDS, John M. see: Cycle of Day and Night.

REYNOLDS, Mani B. see: Three Worlds According to King Ruang.

)3INSON, James B. !' Buddha's Lzons.

see:

INDEX 207

;'j!?oofTile ofTempyo. Yasushi INOUE, translated (from Japanese) by James ~~T. ARAKI. Review by John P. KEENAN. 6/2 (1983) 146-147.

''jRoyaumesde l'Himalaya, histoire et civilisation: Ie Ladakh, Ie Bhoutan, ie Sikkim, r leNepal. AlexanderW. MACDONALD. Review by Andre BAREAU. 6/2 , (19S3) 147-149. .

:;;'~UEGG D. Seyfort see: ::(~~,:z: '.' Buddhist spectrum. ~i~~f~{ :ij~~une E.A. johansson's Analysis of Citta: A Criticism. Arvind SHARMA. 411 f,'!.;\'>.{19S1) 101-107. ~t~,~':-i:' ':',' ,:~1RYVKOKU UNIVERSITY TRANSLATION CENTER: ~~~i:~i' Sutra of Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life. !"~> ~;C;,j,,~ ": , i:~SALQMON, Richard see: 'i'j;,,::. Indravarman (Avaca) Casket Inscription Reconsidered.

[::;j;l~bodhi in Asoka's 8th Rock Edict. A.L. BASHAM. 211 (1979) 81-83.

;~:~i;,fTANI, N.H. see: P~;~,'l: .Cross Currents in Early Buddhism. ;1;'i?J, Obituary: Lal ManiJoshi (1935-1984). 7/">,;""

~:~XMTEN, Ngawang see: ~ili.·· Pratityasamutpadastutisubhi4itahr:dayam.

~~AMUEL, Geoffrey see: .tic · Religions of Tibet.

~;.J(the) Sanmon-Jimon Schism in the Tendai School of Buddhism: A Prelimi~';:: nary Analysis. Neil MCMULLIN. 711 (1984) 83-105. ,~1'; i'

;i,San/idem: Mystique bouddhiste des VIle et VIlle siicles. Amalia PEZZALI. Review ,; by Jose CABEZON. 311 (1980) 115-117. lr\t'

~;.sANTUCCI, James A. see: ,", Transpersonal Psychological Observations in Theravada Buddhist

Meditative Practices. i'~"" ,

,"S~-skya P~I)<;lita, the White Panacea and the Hva-shang Doctrine. Michael f BROmO. 10/2 (1987). 27-68.

:,Sa skya Pal)<;l.ita's Account of the bSam yas Debate: History as Polemic. Roger " JACKSON. 511 (1982) 89-99.

SATYAPRAKASH see: Buddhism: A Select Bibliography.

:SCHOPEN, Gregory see: ..... Buddhist Studies.

Generalization of an Old Yogic Attainment in Medieval Mahayana Sutra Literature.


Indravarman (Avaca) Casket Inscription Reconsidered. Inscription on the Ku~an Image of Amitabha and the Character of

Early Mahayana in India. Text on the "DharaI.11 Stones from Abhayagiriya."

SCHUSTER, Nancy see: \, Changing the Female Body.

SEIDEL, Anna see: Repertoire du Canon Bouddhique Sino-Japonais.

Self and Non-Selfin Early Buddhism. Joaquin PEREZ-RAMON. Review RAJAPAKSE: 8/1 (1985) 122-126.

Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism. Steven Review by Vijitha RAJAPAKSE. 8/1 (1985) 117-122.

Seven Works ofVasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor. Stefan Review by AW. HANSON-BARBER. 911 (1986) 136-138.

SHANER, David see: Bodymind Experience in Japanese Buddhism.

SHARMA, Arvind see: Rune E.A Johansson's Analysis of Citta.

SHARMA, Jagdish P. see: Studies in Pali and Buddhism.

SHAW, Miranda see: Nature in Dagen's Philosophy and Poetry.

SHERBURNE, Richard see: Lamp for the Path and Commentary.

SHIBA YAMA, Zenkei see: Comments on Zen.

SHIH, Heng-chih see: Yung-ming's Syncretism of Pure Land and Ch'an.

Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice. Minoru KIYOT A Review by Aaron K. KOSEKI. 112 (1978) 72-76.

Shingon Mikkya's Twofold MarJrjala: Paradoxes and Integration. MinoTl}:: KIYOTA. 1011 (1987) 91-116.

SHINN, Larry D. see: Lustful Maidens and Ascetic Kings.

ShObOgenza: Zen Essays by Dagen. Thomas CLEARY. Review by Steven HEINE. 9/2 (1986) 173-176.

"Signless" Meditation in Pali Buddhism. Peter HARVEY. 911 (1986) 25-52.

Signs, Memory and History: A Tantric Buddhist Theory of Scriptural Trans:' mission. Janet GYATSO. 9/2 (1986) 7-35.

INDEX 209

See DE SILVA.

ON, Beth see:. . . <,!-ustjul Maidens and Ascetzc Kzngs.

~ltaneou~ Relation (Sahabhu-hetu): A Study in Buddhist Theory of Causa.. tion. Kenneth K. TANAKA. 811 (1985) 91-11l.

II, Amar see: .p.Seart of Buddhist Philosophy.

hA, Braj M. see: ,ccAbhidharmika Notion of Vi:jiiiina and its Soteriological Significance.

(:;(1(>", _:/ _ ~. ~ !~((fJie) Sixteen Aspects of the Four Noble. Truths and Their Opposites. Alex ~&'fJX~WAYMAN. 3/2 (1980) 67-76.

~:S~6RUPSKI, Tadeusz see: «~iJ(Catalogue of the sTog Palace Kanjur.

ITH, Bardwell L. see:

~ ·~i/i~?fi3~;: 'f P'WH in Sri WnM . . Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos and Burma. Religion and the Legitimation of Power in South Asia. Syncretic Religion of Lin Chao-en.

Aspects of Theravada Buddhism in Nepal. Ramesh Chandra TEWARI. 6/2 (1983) 67-93.

see:

Buddhist Poems in Tamil. G. VIJAYA VENUGOPAL. 2/2 (1979) 93-97.

Comments on Tsong kha pa's Lam rim chen mo and Professor Wayman's Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real. Geshe SOPA. 3/1 (1980) 68-92. [See: Alex Wayman Replies to Geshe Sopa (93-97), and: Geshe Sopa Replies to AlexWayman (98-100).]

of Spiritual Change. Glenn H. MULLIN. Review by Roger JACKSON. 6/2 (1983) 149-156.

Geshe Lhundup [SOPA, Geshe] see: Excursus on the Subtle Body in Tantric Buddhism. Geshe Sopa Replies to Alex Wayman. Practice and Theory of Tibetan Buddhism. Some Comments on Tsong kha pa's Lam rim chen mo and Professor

Wayman's Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real. Special Theory of Prat'ityasamutpiida. Tibetan "Wheel of Life."

a History of the bSam yas Debate. G.W. HOUSTON. Review by Robert A.F. THURMAN. 4/2 (1981) 107-109.

210 ]IABSVOL.10NO.2

SOUTHWOLD, Martin see: BuddhiSm in Life.

SPAE, Joseph J. see: Buddhist-Christian Empathy.

SP ARHAM, Gareth see: Background Material for the First Seventy Topics in Abhisamayalamkara. .

(The) Special Theory of Pratityasamutpada: The Cycle of Dependent tion.Geshe Lhundup SOPA 911 (1986) 105-119.

Spiritual Discipline in Hinduism, Buddhism, and the West. Harry M. BUCK. by Roger JACKSON. 5/2 (1982) 121-124.

SPONBERG, Alan see: Dynamic Liberation in Yogacara Buddhism. . Report on Buddhism in the People's Republic of China.

SRIVASTAVA, K.M. see: Archaeological Excavations at Piprahwa and Ganwaria and the ~~~UU1F;',J cation of Kapilavastu.

STAVISKY, Boris J. see: "Buddha-Mazda" from Kara-tepe in Old Termez (Uzbekistan).

STEIN, Aurel see: Thousand Buddhas.

STEARNS, Cyrus R. see: Report on Religious Activity in Central Tibet, October 1985.

(The) Story of Vyasa and Kaslsundarl. L. ZWILLING. 111 (1978) 65-70.

STRANDBERG, Elisabeth see: Fausboll and the Pali and Jatakas.

STRONG, John S. see: Legend of King Aloka.

Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen. Robert M. GIMELLO & Peter N. V"n.LVV'~ editors. Review by John JORGENSEN. 9/2 (1986) 177-180.

Studies in Pali and Buddhism (A homage volume in memory Kashyap). AK. NARAIN & L. ZWILLING, editors. Review by P. SHARMA 2/2 (1979) 109-111.

Studies in Traditional Indian Medicine in the Pali Canon: Jlvaka and Ayurveda. Kenneth G. ZYSK. 511 (1982) 70-86.

(A) Study of the Earliest Garbha Vidhi of the Shingon Sect. Dale Allen DARO. 9/2 (1986) 109-146.

(A) Study of the Madhyamika Method of Refutation, Especially of its to that of Kathavatthu. Shohei ICHIMURA. 3/1 (1980) 7-15.

INDEX 211

~?;!~X;~StudY of the Theories of Yavad-bhavikata and Yathavad-bhavikata in the ~"~~:i~:'Abhidharma-samuccaya. Ah-yueh YEH. 7/2 (1984) 185-107.

It;);~)StudY of the Twenty-two Dialogues on Mahayana Buddhism. W. PACHOW. 1§ii~> Review by L.M. JOSHI. 6/1 (1983) 157-159. 1/',<""'-'

~~~jStudY on the :r:-radhyam.ika Method of Refutation and Its Influence on ~ikBuddhist Logrc. Shohe! ICHIMURA. 4/1 (1981) 87-95.

~!ffrhe) "Suicide" Problem in the Pali Canon. Martin G. WILTSHIRE. 6/2 (1983) !C5 'i' .124-140.

~f~h~) Sutra of Contemplation of the Buddha of Immeasurable Life. RYUKOKU ~':.i.UNIVERSITY TRANSLATION CENTER. Review by Minoru i!~i KIYOTA. 8/2 (1985) 140-142.

W;(ih~) Sutra of the Wise and Foolish' (mdo bdzaris blun), or, The Ocean of Narratives i:;f. (uliger-iin dalai). Stanley FRYE. Review by John R. Krueger. 8/2 (1985) l:r 143-145. t~- ",

;¥~WEARER, Donald K. see: ;,T. . Buddhism and Society in Southeast Asia.

;'iSWEET, Michael]. see: 0',·· Bodhicaryavatara 9:2 As A Focus For Tibetan Interpretations of the Two ~~t,j,:J·'\i Truths In the Prasangika Madhyamika. ~:~/: :" :~(fhe) Symbolism of the Early Stupa. Peter HARVEY. 7/2 (1984) 67-93.

i~ymbolisms of the Buddhist Stupa. Gerard FUSSMAN. 9/2 (1986) 37-53.

~'(The) Syncretic Religion of Lin Chao-en. Judith A. BERLING. Review by Bardwell ." L. SMITH. 4/2 (1981) 101-102.

~SYRKIN, A see: ,lr> j> Notes on the Buddha's Threats in the D'igha Nikaya .

. TAKEUCHI, Yoshinori see: l;,,; Heart of Buddhism.

iTAMBIAH, S.]. see: . Reply to Professor MacDonald.

World Conqueror and World Renouncer.

TANAKA, Kenneth K. see: i Simultaneous Relation (SahabhU-hetu).

Tangles and Webs. Padmasiri DE SILVA. Review by Gary W. HOUSTON. 411 . (1981) 113-114. .

Tantra in Tibet, The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra. ] effrey HOPKINS. Review by Todd FENNER. 5/1 (1982) 127-130.

(The) Tantric Concept of Bodhicitta: A Buddhist Existential Philosophy. Minoru KIYOTA. Review by Dale TODARO. 1011 (1987) 164-168.

212 JIABS VOL. lO NO.2

(The) Tantric Distinction: An Introduction t? Tibetan Buddhism. Jeffrey HOPKn~\ edited by Anne C. KLEIN .. Review by Bruce BURRILL. 9/2 (l9SS'L 181-183. [See: Jeffrey Hopkins Rephes(184-187), and: Bruce B .~). Replies (187-188).] ..' umn,

Tasks Ahead: Presidential-Address Given on the Occasion of the Third C .>tt ference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Herber~V::, GUENTHER. 4/2 (1981) 115-123. .j.,;

Temporary Ordination in Sri Lanka. Richard GOMBRICH. 7/2 (1984) 41-65.;'1

*Terms of Sanskrit and Pali Origin Aheptable as English Words. RoT. JACKSON. 5/2 (1982) 141-142. get

(A) Text-Historical Note on Hevajratantra II:v: 1-2. Leonard W.J. VAN DER' KUIJP.811 (1985) 83-89. .:

(The) Text on the "Dharal).l Stones from Abhayagiriya": AMinor Contributioll : to the Study of Mahayana Literature in Ceylon. Gregory SCHOPEN./ 511 (1982) 100-108. . .

TEWARI, Ramesh Chandra see: Pre-Buddhist Elements in Himalayan Buddhism. Socio-Cultural Aspects of Theravada Buddhism in Nepal.

Theraviida Meditation: The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga. Winston KING. Re_." view by George D. BOND. 511 (1982) 121-124.

THOMPSON, Laurence G. see: Chinese Religions in Western Languages.

THONGTHEW-RATARASARN, Somchintana see: Buddhism, Imperialism and War.

(The) Thousand Buddhas: Ancient Buddhist Paintings from the Cave-Temples oj Tun-huang on the Western Frontier of China. Aurel STEIN. Review by W. PACHOW. 4/2 (1981) 112-114. .

Three Worlds According to King Ruang: Thai Buddhist Cosmology. Frank REYNOLDS & Mani B. REYNOLDS. Review by Robert]. BICKNER 5/2 (1982) 132-133. .

(The) Threefold Refuge in the Theraviida Buddhist Tradition. John Ross CARTER Review by Winston KING. 7/1 (1984) 169-173. .

*Tibetan Blockprints in the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections [Uni-; versity of Wisconsin, Madison]. Leonard ZWILLING. Review by Rena' HAGGERTY. 811 (1985) 134.

Tibetan Buddhism in Western Perspective. Herbert V. GUENTHER. Review by Roger JACKSON. 112"(1978) 67-69.

Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry: The Diamond Healing. Terry CLlF-t FORD. Review by Todd FENNER. 8/2 (1985) 145-147.

INDEX 213

Medicine: With Special ReJerence to Yogtisataka. Vaidya BHAGWAN DASH. Review by E. Todd FENNER. 111 (1978) 81-83.

;}.~"r;hp.t;tn Text Processing System. 9/2 (1986) 189.

Tibetan "Wheel of Life": Iconography and Doxography. Geshe SOP A. (1984) 125-145.

',..,.;ho1 __ VI!" Religion: A Death Ritual oj the Tibetan Bonpos. Per KV AERNE. Review by Michael ARIS. 10/2 (1987) 175-177.

Robert Alexander Farrar [THURMAN, Robert A.F.] see: *L.M. Joshi: a Brief Communication. Obituary: Lal Mani Joshi (1935-1984). Sources Jor a History oj the bSam yas Debate. Tsang Khapa's Speech oj Cold in the Essence oj True Eloquence. Way to Shambhala.

see: Study of the Earliest Carbha Vidhi of the Shingon Sect. Tantric Concept oj Bodhicitta.

Fernando see: Miscellanea Buddhica. Niigiirjuna's Filasofiske Vaerker. Nagarjuniana. Yukti~a~(ikiikiirikii of Nagarjuna.

Psychological Observations on Theravada Buddhist Meditative . Practice. James A. SANTUCCI. 2/2 (1979) 66-78.

see:

T.J. see: Fundamentals oj Tibetan Medicine.

Speech oj Cold in the Essence oJTrue Eloquence: Reason and Enlightenment in the Central Philosophy oj Tibet. Robert A.F. THURMAN. Review by Janet GYATSO. 9/1 (1986) 138-142.

Tsang kha pa's Understanding of Prasangika Thought. Lobsang DARGYA Y. .... 1011 (1987) 55-65.

TUCCI, Giuseppe [TUCCI, G.] (1894-1984) see: New Areas of Research For Archaeologists and Buddhologists. Religions oj Tibet .

.Two Ways oj Perfection: Buddhist and Christian. Shanta RATNAYAKA. Review . by George BOND. 2/2 (1979) 103-104

VAIDYA, P.L. (1891-1978)

Vajrayana in Gostana-dda. H.W. BAILEY. 111 (1978) 53-56.


VAN DER KUIJP, Leonard W.J. see: Contributo aUo Studio Biografic die Primi Gter-Ston. Marginalia to Sa-skya PalJdita's Oeuvre. On the Sources for Sa skya PaQ.dita's ,Notes on the Bsam yas Text-Historical Note on Hevajratantra II:v:I-2.

VIjAYAVENUGOPAL, G. see: Some Buddhist Poems in Tamil.

WAGONER, Phil see: Buddhist Architecture of Western India.

WALDRON, William see: Bodymind Experience in Japanese Buddhism.

WALDSCHMIDT, Ernest [WALDSCHMIDT, E.] (1897-1985) see: Mahamaudgalyayana's Sermon on the Letting-in And Not Letting-in Sensitive Influences.)

WAYMAN, Alex [WAYMAN, A.) see: Alex Wayman Replies to Geshe Sopa .. Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems. Mahasamghika and the Tathagatagarbha. Sixteen Aspects of the Four Noble Truths and Their Opposites. Yogacara and the Buddhist Logicians.

(The) Way of Siddhartha: A Life of the Buddha. David J. & KALUPAHANA. Review by Roger JACKSON. 7/2 (1984)

(The) Way to Shambhala. Edwin BERNBAUM. Review by Robert A.F. MAN. 5/2 (1982) 133-135.

WELBON, Guy R. see: Religious Festivals in South India and Sri Lanka.

WERNER, Karel see: Bodhi and Arahattaphala.

Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity Among Followers of the Early Mahayana. Paul HARRISON. 1011 (1987) 67-89.

WICKREMERA TNE, Ananda see: Genesis of an Orienta list.

WIJESEKERA, O.H. de A. see: Freudian Unconscious and Bhavanga.

WILLIAMS, Bruce see: Zhongguo foxue yuanliu lUejiang.

WILLIS, Janice Dean see: On Knowing Reality.

WILSON, Frances see: Jaina Path of Perfection. Notes on the Textcritical Editing of the Bodhisattviivadiinakalpalatii.

INDEX 215

!~¥~iisHIRE, Martin G. see: ;' .. ' . "suicide" Problem in the Pali Canon.

gs of the White Crane: Poem of Tshangs dbyangs rgya mtsho (1683-1706). G.W. HOUSTON. Review by Roger JACKSON. 6/2 (1983) 149-156.

. . genstein and Buddhism. Chris GUDMUNSEN. Review by Vijnitha

~;t~RAJAPAKSE. 311 (1980) 122-126. .

~ilW01nm in Buddhism: Images of the Feminine in Mahayiina Tradition. Diana K. ;i;\,i;i';.PAUL. Review by Beatrice D. MILLER. 3/1 (1980) 120-121. ~,ii}}y,;t<': >'

j!~pllhyo (Yiian Hsiao) on the NirvaI)a School: Summation Under the "One {;~;;,;i;;Mind" Doctrine. Whalen LA!. 8/2 (1985) 75-83. t/.!~V1r, >y:

::t':(fhe) Word of the Buddha: the r,ipitaka and its Interpretation in TheraviidaBuddhism. tl." George D. BOND. ReVIew by Nathan KATZ. 7/1 (1984) 173-175. j:<<,-::::') .. ,:>- .'

~;;~World Conqueror and World Renouncer, A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand i,~il against a Historical Background. S.J. T AMBIAH. Review by Alexander W.

MACDONALD. 211 (1979) 99-101. [See: Reply to Professor MacDonald '~"I;; (102-103).]

;~(fhe) World of Buddhism. Heinz BECHERT& Richard GOMBRICH (editors). !~>;j Review by Roger JACKSON. 8/1 (1985) 126-133.

~~2#XLIE, Turrell V. (1927-1984).

~~MJAGUCHI: Susumu (1895-1976).

[:!YANDELL, Keith E. see: ;.: Buddhist and Western Philosophy. ~~_1';;-:'

i:iYEH, Ah-yueh see: "i; Study of the Theories of Yiivad-bhiivikatii and Yiithavad-bhiivikatii in the

:{'#? Abhidharma-samuccaya.

;"·Y()CUM, Glenn E. see: £i; Religious Festivals in South India and Sri Lanka.

::t-\.) Yogacara Analysis of the Mind, Based on the Vijiiiina section of Vasuban->( dhu's PaiicaskandhaprakaraTJa with GUI)aprabha's Commentary. Brian / GALLOWAY. 3/2 (1980) 7-20.

~X~gacara and the Buddhist Logicians. Alex WAYMAN. 211 (1979) 65-78. J(The) Yoga of Tibet, The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra-2 and 3. Jeffrey

HOPKINS. Review by Todd FENNER. 511 (1982) 127-130.

Katherine K. see: Issue of the Buddha as Vedagii.

see: Early Buddhism and Christianity.

Yukt4~tikiikiirikii of Nagarjuna. Fernando TOLA & Carmen DRAGONETTI. 6/2 (1983) 94-123.


Yung-ming's Syncretism of Pure Land and Ch'an. Heng-chih SHIH I' (1987) 117-135. ··0/1

Zen & Christian: The Journey Between. ] ohn Dykstra EUSDEN. Review by G Vo} HOUSTON. 6/1 (1983) 159-161.- , ';~,

Zen and Western Thought. Masao ABE. Review by Paul]. GRIFFITHS. 10i;~ (1987) 168-171. ,L

Zen Comments on the Mumonkan. See Comments on Zen.

Zhongguo foxue yuanliu lUejian (Brief lectures on the origins and developm of Chinese Buddhology). Lii CHENG Review by Bruce WILLIAM~t 3/2 (1980) 111-112. .

ZWILLING, Leonard [ZWILLING, L.] see: Story of Vyasa and Kaslsundarl. Studies in Pali and Buddhism. *Tibetan Blockprints in the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections.'

ZYSK, Kenneth G. see: Studies in Traditional Indian Medicine in the Pali Canon.

GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS TO JIABS

~v.£.;.!\.!iu·c·lemanuscripts, including footnotes, should not exceed app~oximately ~,.,··~r

;f~:b';ti#ges in length; two clear copies shou~d be submitted. Book reviews should dinarilyexceed 1,000 words and Items for Notes and News should not

;. . d 500 words. Manuscripts should be typed, doublespaced, preferably on ~~~~J{1l bo~d. Footnotes should be ~lac~d at the e~d of the manuscript. Material rfbr~ublicatlon should follow the gmdelme~ provlde~ by the MLA Style Sheet ~ilfanyother stan~ard handbook .. Ma.tenal m any ~aJ.or Wes~ European ~an:~:~~ge will be consIdered for pubhcatlOn. Summanes m EnglIsh are reqmred ~~tl{etnanuscript is in a language other than English. ~~~ritalics: Italicize all foreign terms and linguistic citations, except proper names. ¥~fPareiltheses and Brackets: Use square brackets to enclose editorial or t:f~[llallatory material inserted .in a ~u~tation or tra~slat~on. . ~%.hPr()per names: Names of ASIan ongm should be glVen m standard transcnp'llib,H(see below) and in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, the sur¥~5irieshould precede the given name, except where modern writers or public ~~~fes have established known preferences for the ro~anizations of their ~o\l'J'l.~ames. For well-known place names, use the estabhshed forms. ~i'!i,~~anscription - Sanskrit, Pali and Other South Asian Languages: For iiS;rtjskrit and Pali use the standard system given in A.L. Basham, The Wonder :~tluinVas India, Appendix X; for other South Asian languages use any available ;¥ii1rldard transliteration system which is consistent and intelligible. >,j5,"Chinese, japanese, Korean: Chinese characters may be used in consultation \Wlththe Editors in the body of the text but always preceded by the appropriate :ft~~anization: for Chinese use the modified Wade-Giles system as found in l'~f./'List of Syllabic Headings" in the American edition of Mathews' Chineser~~~lish Dictionary; for Japanese use the system of Kenkyusha's New Japanese!,~~glish Dictionary, but with an apostrophe after syllable-final n before vowels; iJor,Korean use the system given in McCure-Reischauer, "The Romanization ~§Dthe Korean Language," Transactions of the Korean Branch, Royal Asiatic 'S?ciety, 29(1939), 1-55. ;i';;;Tibetan, Mongolian: For Tibetan use the transcription proposed by i,T;jVylie, "A Standard System of Tibetan Transcription," Harvard Journal of iWian Studies, 22 (1959), 261-7; for Mongolian use the appropriate system i(r§mAntoine Mostaert, Dictionnaire Ordos, 769-809. :i;""!he ]lABS encourages contributors to send their articles on computer disks, (~.Scompanied by one paper copy. Please clearly label the disk with format, ;p~~e(s) of relevant files, and the word-processor or program used to create i;tljHiles. In addition, please translate the article to ASCII code on the same i(pt~~if possible. For more information regarding electronic contributions, write itlie .. ·.e.d.itor. ,;v,~