1 Introduction
The scriptural production of Indian MahÄyÄna Buddhism was enormous.1 In the period of vitality from roughly the beginning of the common era through about the seventh or eighth century CE, a great many sÅ«tras were composed, some originally in Middle Indic, later transformed into Sanskrit, while others were composed from the beginning in Sanskrit.2 To date, however, we have access to few of these texts in an Indic language.3 Thus, one impediment to our appreciation of Indian MahÄyÄna Buddhism is that we are compelled for the most part to approach sÅ«tras through their translations in Chinese and Tibetan. However, there is another problem as well: while we on the whole have a good idea of which texts, preserved in translation, constitute the extant corpus of Indian Buddhist MahÄyÄna scriptural literature, we have little idea how most of this literature was considered within its Indian context, howâand indeed whetherâit was used, and how it might have been understood.4 There are, it is true, a few Indian commentaries on MahÄyÄna sÅ«tras (but surprisingly few, a topic I hope to address in the near future), and these offer often valuable hints as to how scriptures were understood. Another angle of approach is to make surveys of citations, looking in particular at treatises (ÅÄstra) and taking note of the proof texts to which they take recourse, which then may again suggest the influence of certain texts. These are a good way to start exploring the question of influence, since when commentators or the authors of treatises refer to a scripture, we can infer that the scripture in question was, in one form or another, directly or indirectly, known to them.
But these are not the only sources, and alongside them we also possess a small corpus of anthologies, three of which will be taken up for consideration here.5 The approach to scriptures of these works is essentially different from that of the commentator who deals with a single text or the treatise author who occasionally makes reference to generally shorter passages from a variety of works, for here we encounter extensive collections of sometimes lengthy excerpts. We do not know whether these works discussed below were compiled by scholars with direct access to complete versions of the texts they cite, in a monastic library for instance (indeed, we are far from certain what a âcomplete versionâ might have meant), nor do we know the principles through which they selected passages for inclusion in their compendia, this question being obviously related to the question of whether they had access to texts more or less in the form in which we know them today. These remain questions for the future.
The three anthologies dealt with here, in chronological order of their composition, are the SÅ«trasamuccaya,6 attributed (dubiously) to NÄgÄrjuna, the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya of ÅÄntideva, and the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya7 of DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna (commonly but probably wrongly called AtiÅa/AtÄ«Åa, perhaps more correctly AdhÄ«Åa). The second of these works, available to modern scholars for more than a century in an edition of the only Sanskrit manuscript so far accessible, that preserved in Cambridge (MS Add. 1478),8 has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves as a fully-fledged work in its own right,9 not merely as a collection of quotations primarily of value for its preservation of Sanskrit sources otherwise either lost or at least inaccessible. Likewise, certainly the organization of both the SÅ«trasamuccaya and the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya present implicit positions, but these works might with some greater justification be seen more as resources than as independent works.10 However, the question has been raised of the use to which we might justifiably put these Tibetan translations, and whether they present evidence independent of that presented in the Tibetan translations of the sÅ«tras themselves for the state of a given sÅ«tra in India.11
Almost thirty years ago, I observed (Silk 1994: 649â651) that in some cases passages in the Tibetan translation of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya were not independent of the Tibetan translations of the quoted sÅ«tras as preserved in the Kanjur.12 It was, in fact, evident that the Tibetan translators of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya had in some cases simply borrowed preexisting translations, but at that time I offered this hypothesis on the basis of no more than some casual observations. If this is indeed what the translators did, I know of little evidence that there were indigenous reflections on this approach. In what is perhaps the only widely known discussion of something related to this issue, the late David Seyfort Ruegg (1973: 253â254) quoted an 18th century work, the Dag yig mkhas paâi byung gnas of Lcang skya Rol paâi rdo rje (Ye shes bstan paâi sgron me, 1717â1786), as saying: âIn the case of commentaries on the great basic texts, if the respective basic book has been previously translated the words also of the basic text [as quoted] in the commentary are to be made to follow the former; otherwise, the translation [of the commentary] is to be made after the basic book has been translated and fitted in the commentary.â This seems to constitute a suggestion that preexisting translations of base texts should be reused, without consideration of the actual accuracy of the translation in question, or its relation to the commentary work. Further, as tempting as it may be to apply this stricture to the case under discussion here, in fact the context of this work of Rol paâi rdo rje is that of the translation from Tibetan into Mongolian of the Tanjur, and thus it is not self-evident that the same recommended procedure might have informed the work of those who translated into Tibetan the anthologies now under consideration so many centuries before. But in fact, there is a good and effective empirical way to study this issue, namely to carefully study the actual passages quoted in the anthologies, and to compare the Tibetan renderings found there with what we find in their sÅ«tra sources in the Kanjur.
Several years ago, Paul Harrison (2018) took up for reconsideration my old comment, and examined a single chapter of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, the eighth. With all due reservations about the textual bases for his comparisons, Harrison offered three categories through which to evaluate the relationship between the Tibetan found in the Tibetan translation of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya and that of the sÅ«tra being cited. He called these categories A, B and C, and defined the first as that in which the wording of the two sources was âidentical, with no differences at all or only a few variations of minor significance.â Category B has âsome variation in wording here and there, but overall both texts are too close to be deemed entirely independent translations. Correspondence is verbatim in places, but not all the way through.â Category C, then, is that in which the two âare apparently different translations, with substantial variations in lexical choice and in syntactic structure.â As Harrison himself clearly acknowledges, there is a subjective element here, and I should note that now, in hindsight, I suspect that in producing my classifications, offered below, I tended to consider as belonging to Category A some materials which perhaps should have belonged to Harrisonâs Category B.
To illustrate at least something of the nature (and complications) of the first and third categories, it might be helpful to cite brief examples. From the first of the texts noted below, the TathÄgataguhyaka (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 3), we may cite the following, as an example of an entirely different rendering, and thus as belonging to Category C:
|
SÅ«tra D dkon brtsegs, ka, 102b5 |
SÅ«trasamuccaya 24.6â8 = DÂ 155b6 |
|
dam paâi chos yongs su âdzin paâi tshogs ni dkon mchog gsum gyi rigs rgyun mi gcod par âgyur ro â |
byang chub sems dpaâ rnam kyi byang chub kyi sems kyi tshogs ni | dkon mchog gsum gyi rigs mi âchad par âgyur ro â |
A passage from the PitÄputrasamÄgama (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 16) can illustrate how, when an anthology selectively quotes, its translators, while recognizing and honoring the abbreviations, nevertheless rely for their renderings of the relevant portions on the precise wording of the Kanjur translation, thus belonging in this regard to Category A. The omitted portions of the sÅ«tra are printed in small italics:
|
SÅ«tra D dkon brtsegs, nga, 30a3âb5 |
SÅ«trasamuccaya 124.12â125.10 = DÂ 188a7âb4. |
In addition to such examples, complex enough in themselves, there are also even more complicated cases, the nature of which remains to be adequately worked out. An example is provided by the so-called UpÄyakauÅalyajñÄnottarabodhisattvapariprÌ¥cchÄ (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 38). Here the Kanjurs preserve two translations of the sÅ«tra. The relation between these two Tibetan translations is very complicated, but they are surely related. As Channa Li (2016: 221, 223) says, âGenerally speaking, [the] two recensions of the Tibetan UpÄyakauÅalyasÅ«tra resemble each other, and in some places even track each other word for word. ⦠it is almost impossible that these two translations were performed independently.â13 In the table below, the portions in small italics are skipped by the SÅ«trasamuccaya, which plainly relies in large part on SÅ«tra (1), but also, as indicated by the underline, for a portion corresponds in some way with SÅ«tra (2), but the rest of the passage is rather difficult to identify with either. It is thus a question whether, in light of the similarity in vocabularies, one should classify this passage in Category B, or rather think that the similarities are only what one would expect of any two renderings of a similar source, but the differences are considerable, and thus place it in Category C:
|
SÅ«tra (1) D dkon brtsegs, cha, 32b5â7 (Tatz§â¯12, p. 26) |
SÅ«trasamuccaya 25.21â26.2 = DÂ 156a6â7 |
SÅ«tra (2) TÅh. 261 mdo sde, za, 284b7â285a2 |
|
rigs kyi bu gzhan yang byang chub sems dpaâ sems dpaâ chen poâi thabs la mkhas pa ni gal te brgya la brgya lam na dbul por gyur na yang des tha na gzhan gyi las kyang byas te â kha zas nal ze gang tsam yang blangs nas zhum pa med paâi sems kyis dge âdun nam | gang zag la âbul bar yang byed do â phul nas kyang de âdi ltar so sor rtog par byed de â bcom ldan âdas kyis sems rgya chen pos byin na sbyin pa yang rgya chen por âgyur ro zhes gsungs pas na âdi ltar bdag gi sbyin par bya baâi chos âdi ni chung mod kyi | thams cad mkhyen pa nyid kyi sems kyis byin pas dpag tu med par âgyur ro snyam du so sor rtog par byed do â |
byang chub sems dpaâ thabs la mkhas pa gal te brgya la dbul por gyur na | de tha na kha zas gzar bu gang zhig sbyin na yang âdi ltar slob ste | bcom ldan âdas kyis kyang sems ni rgya cheâi sbyin pa ni mi cheâo zhes gsungs pas na bdag ni sbyin par bya baâi chos yongs su btang ba chung mod kyi | thams cad mkhyen paâi sems kyis tshad med par âgyur ro snyam du sems so â |
rigs kyi bu gzhan yang byang chub sems dpaâ thabs mkhas pa ni nam zhig gal te brgya la dbul por gyur na | deâi tshe na de chung ngu na gzhan gyi las kyang byas nas zas gzar bu gang thogs te sems ma zhum pas dge âdun nam gang zag la sbyin par byed do â byin nas kyang âdi ltar slob ste | bcom ldan âdas kyis sems che baâi phyir sbyin pa che bar âgyur ro zhes gsungs kyis bdag gi sbyin ba chung ngu zin kyang thams cad mkhyen pa nyid kyi sems ni dpag tu med paâo snyam nas |
Given the complications already noted, one may be forgiven for feeling that the materials we find in our anthologies complicate attempts to present a simple philological account of any given text or passage. However, the challenges facing our investigations may be even more serious. First, the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya in Sanskrit is known from Bendallâs edition, but this is based on a single manuscript, and while this manuscript is excellent, in the sense of but rarely containing very questionable readings, we have little way of knowing at present how other, independent Sanskrit manuscripts might have differed.14 Second, we know that the versions we have of Tibetan Kanjur texts date almost without exception to periods centuries later than the translation of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, and so far we have reliable editions which sample a variety of witnesses for only very few sÅ«tras.15 We know, moreover, that some sÅ«tras circulated in multiple versions, as we just saw. Other challenges might also be considered, not least of which is that lacking a large-scale corpus-based study of the variations of Tibetan manuscript traditions, it is often hard to know what to consider ânormal variation.â
In an effort to take Harrisonâs work forward, I chose here to look at the ways in which citations from all sÅ«tras belonging to the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a collection (Tibetan Dkon brtsegs) are treated. The sÅ«tras are listed, in the following, in order of their occurrence in the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a collection in the Derge edition, and numbered as such.16 Moreover, in an effort to add another dimension to the question, I have widened the scope of the inquiry by including not only the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, to which Harrison limited himself, but also the SÅ«trasamuccaya and the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya. This leads to a consideration of citations from some 21 sÅ«tras, some of which are cited only once, others a great number of times. It is of further interest, and a topic for future investigation, that there is minimal overlap between the citations among the anthologies.17 It is particularly interesting that, despite his obvious debt to the SÅ«trasamuccaya, which he knew and made use of,18 there are very few cases in the corpus examined here of ÅÄntideva taking over quotations from the SÅ«trasamuccaya, although as discussed in part 3 below, there is one remarkable set of passages which demands attention. This is especially interesting since, overall, regarding the relation between ÅÄntideva and the SÅ«trasamuccaya, Harrison stated (2009: 89), âÅÄntidevaâs indebtedness to the SÅ«trasamuccaya amounts in places to what we would nowadays call plagiarism, with entire sequences of sÅ«tra citations lifted from the earlier commentary â¦.â On the other hand, some centuries later DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna (c. 980?â1054) compiled another lengthy anthology, and one might wonder whether the methods of translation of the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya differed from those deployed for the Tibetan renderings of the two earlier anthologies.19 To anticipate our answer, they do not.
Although the textual basis, then, is slightly enlarged, my procedure was the same as Harrisonâs: I looked at each citation, and compared the translation of a given passage in the anthology with that in the sÅ«tra as we now find it in the Derge Kanjur. (The only exception is that, when sÅ«tras have been edited, I use the published edition rather than the Derge edition.) For the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya I used the text in the Derge Tanjur, for the SÅ«trasamuccaya the edition of PÄsÄdika (1989) and for the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya that of Mochizuki (2004).20 For the last named, I was greatly assisted by the identifications already offered by Mochizuki (2002).21
For the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, the first set of numbers refers to page and line in Bendall (1897â1902), the second to the folio, side and line in the Derge Tanjur, TÅhoku 3940, this then equated with the source in the Derge Kanjurâs Dkon brtsegs section. For the SÅ«trasamuccaya, the first number is to page and line in PÄsÄdika (1989), the second the place of this in the Derge Tanjur, TÅhoku 3934, followed again by the sÅ«tra, and finally for the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, the first number is the section established in Mochizuki (2002, 2004), then the location of the passage in the Derge Tanjur, TÅhoku 3961, and finally the corresponding sÅ«tra passage. I make no representation about the correct title of a given text, and cite Sanskrit titles in a conventional manner only for convenience.
2 The Comparisons
3. TathÄgatÄcintyaguhyanirdeÅa, TÅh. 47.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
9.16â10.6 = DÂ 151a2â5 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 175b5â176a1.22 Category B.10.7â9 = DÂ 151a5âb4 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 120b2. Category A. See Åiká¹£. 316.5â12.24.6â8 = DÂ 155b6 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 102b5. Category C.24.10â17 = DÂ 155b6â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 202b6 [first verse], 130b6 [second verse]. Category A.138.17â24 = DÂ 193a3â4 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 130b7â131a1. Category A.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
7.20â8.4 = D 6b4â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 192b1â3. With some variations in vocabulary, Category B.126.5â8 = D 72b1â3 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 112a4â5, b4, 6â7, with omissions. Category A.158.16â159.6 = D 89a5âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 106a7âb3. As in Harrison, Category B.159.7â17 = D 89b1â6 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 109a3âb1. As in Harrison, Category B.242.7â9 = D 133b1â2 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 161b1â2, only small vocabulary differences. Category A.274.3â11 = D 151a3â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 190b5â191a3. Category A. However, Skt. has an additional sentence (274.10â11) not in Tib. Åiká¹£., nor in the sÅ«tra, but perhaps reflected in the older Chinese translation, T. 310 (3) (XI) 76a18â21; less clear is T. 312 (XI) 745c15â17. These Chinese versions require further consideration.316.5â12 = D 170a7âb4 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 120b1â5. The final sentence in Tib. copies the sÅ«tra but is not quoted in Skt. Category A. See SÅ«trasamuccaya 10.7â9.357.1â11 = D 191b5â192a3 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 178a6â7, 178b2â4, 179a4â7, 179b2, with considerable omissions, the longest marked with la sogs pa. Category A.357.13â14 = D 192a3â4 = D dkon brtsegs, ka, 202a1â2. Category A.23
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
9. DaÅadharmaka, TÅh. 53.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
5.8â11 = D 5a1â2 = D dkon brtsegs, kha, 166a2â3. Åiká¹£. Skt., and following it Tib., skip the second of the three verses found here in the sÅ«tra source, and the translation is almost entirely different.24 Category C.8.8â15 = D 7a1â5 = D dkon brtsegs, kha, 168a1â7, with unmarked abridgements of the sÅ«tra text. Category B.116.16â17 =D 67a4â5 = D dkon brtsegs, kha, 166a7âb1. Category C.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
12. Bodhisattvapiá¹aka, TÅh. 56.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
3.10â11 = D 149a2â3 = Unidentified.2512.17â13.24 = D 152a3âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, kha, very abbreviated summary of selected sentences from 283b7â284b1, 285a2â4, 285b4â5, 286b3.26 Category C.28.6â15 = D 157a3â4 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 51a7âb2, with vocatives removed, otherwise very close. Category B.28.16â17 = D 157a4â5: bdag gi âkhrul pa la so sor rtog cing | gzhan gyi âkhrul pa la snying rje baâo = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 106b6: bdag gis byas pa la so sor brtag par byaâi â gzhan gyis byas pa la ma yin pa dang â sems can gzhan la snying rje baâi âdu shes bskyed par bya ba dang â. Category C.140.23â144.6 = D 193b6â194b7 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, (140.23â141.14 =) 161b1â5; (141.15â144.6 =) 162a2âb7. Category A.
Note also these misattributed passages, which belong instead to what we now have as different texts (thus they are not classified here into any category):
107.13â20 = D 182b3â5 = TÅh. 101, mdo sde, nga, 225b2â4, KuÅalamÅ«lasaá¹parigrahasÅ«tra. Identified by Matsuda Kazunobu in Braarvig and Pagel 2006: 21n10, and see Harrison 2023, note 69.107.21â108.7 = D 182b5â7. This and the passage immediately above (107.13â20) are both found in Chinese, that above T. 657 (XVI) 207a26â29, and this latter passage (107.21â108.7) at b11â15, but apparently not in Tibetan, according to Braarvig and Pagel 2006: 21n10.135.2â136.5 = D 191b7â192a5 = TÅh. 101, mdo sde, nga, 134a1âb3. Identified by Matsuda Kazunobu in Braarvig and Pagel 2006: 21n10.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
311.13â16 and 17â312.2 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 167b4â5 and 167b5â7. These are the same as two of the misattributed quotations in the SÅ«trasamuccaya, thus see above under SÅ«trasamuccaya 107.13â20, 107.21â108.7.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:27
§â¯2.1 = D 7b6â9a2 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 121a6â122b1. Category B, largely the same but with more than a few variations.§â¯5.7 = D 32b6â34a7 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 109b4â111a6. Category A.§â¯11.12 = D 73a3â7 = 93b1â6 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 83a7âb3. Category B, edging toward C.§â¯37.6 = D 195b2â197a3 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 57b3â59a7. Category A.
15. MañjuÅrÄ«buddhaká¹£etraguá¹avyÅ«ha, TÅh. 59.28
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
13.18â14.12 = D 10b3â11a1 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 279a7âb5, with one verse skipped by Åiká¹£. at 279b4. Otherwise Category A.53.14â16 = D 35a7âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 267a4â6, with two omissions, only the first of which is marked with de bzhin du sbyar te = peyÄlam. Category B.175.17â176.2 = D 99a1â2 = Unidentified. The Sanskrit appears to be an anuá¹£á¹ubh stanza, but Tibetan translates as prose, as does the Chinese of the Åiká¹£., Dasheng jipusaxue lun 大ä¹éè©è©å¸è« T. 1636 (XXXII) 110a21â24. The closest I find in the sÅ«tra is at D dkon brtsegs, ga, 288b5â¯ff., but while it does contain the relevant names, this is not what we find in the Sanskrit. The second part also does not correspond, but see D dkon brtsegs, ga, 290b3â4, also in prose.29
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
§â¯37.8 = D 197b3â5 = D dkon brtsegs, ga, 267b3â4. Category B.
16. PitÄputrasamÄgama, TÅh. 60.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
23.13â24.3 = D 155b2â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga 29b4â30a2. Category C.124.12â125.10 = D 188a7âb4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 30a3âb5. Massive omissions, but the text of the sÅ«tra which remains is quoted exactly, thus Category A.125.11â14 = D 188b5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 33a1â2. Category B.144.9â146.13 = D 195a1âb4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 129a2âb4, Category B, with two interesting points. First, the passage at 146.1â2, rlung gis gtor baâi tshe yang lhag ma cung zad kyang mi mngon par âgyur te, appears to be a gloss, absent in the sÅ«tra as we have it (129b2), and second, the entire end of the passage, 146.9â13, seems to be a brief summary of what is in the sÅ«tra an extended treatment.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:30
181.12â182.16 = D 102a1âb5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 79b5â80b3. At 182.1 = 102a5 the pe[yÄlam] is duly translated with de bzhin du sbyar te, but the translators did not skip anything from the source sÅ«tra. Category A.244.11â256.3 = D 134a5â142b3 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 127b3â128a2, abbreviated (in Åiká¹£. 134b3) until sÅ«tra 128a4. At 134b4 de bzhin du sbyar skips 128a5â6, and again in the same line of Åiká¹£., la sogs pa skips from 128a7 to 128b2. Then
|
134b4â136a4 |
= 128b2â129b7, after which Åiká¹£. has de bzhin du sbyar, skipping until 130a2. |
|
136b7 |
skip from 130b4 to 130b5 with omission of number sequence, and then repeatedly quotes a few words, only to skip a whole line or more, and repeats this until 131a3, again then skipping two sentences at 131a3â4. |
|
137a3 |
zhes bya ba snga ma bzhin no indicates a skip of only a single clause (131a7). |
|
137a5 |
la sogs paâo indicates a skip of one line 131b2â3. |
|
137b7 |
la sogs paâo indicates only the omission of a single sentence (131b5). This usage, along with la sogs pa snga ma bzhin no, continues throughout the passage, with typical skips of one to one and a half lines. |
|
139b1 |
with de bzhin du sbyar te Åiká¹£. skips from 134a5 to 134a7, offering what may be intended as a summary of the skipped material: chos thams cad ni rlom sems dang bral baâo. |
|
139b3 |
la sogs pa skips a single sentence at 134b3, and the same again soon thereafter. |
|
139b7 |
there is a similar skip of two lines 135a2 to the very end of a3 with only bzhin no. |
|
141a4 |
with bzhin no there is a skip from 136b1 to 137a1. |
|
141b2 |
la sogs pa snga ma bzhin no indicates a skip from 137a5 to b6. |
|
141b6â7 |
in the sÅ«tra 138a4. Åiká¹£. follows la sogs pa snga ma bzhin no with what seems to be a summary, de bzhin du dri la sogs pa la yang rnam pa gsum gsum du rig par byaâo, after which de bzhin du sbyar te points to a skip to 151b1. One sentence (de la âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po grags pa mthaâ yas kyi gtam rgyud las mtho ris nas lhung ste | deâi tshe rgyal po chen po dang grong khyer pas bskor ba las âdi skad âbyung ste) at 142a3 apparently represents, without any other indication, all material from 151b3 to 155a6, where the exact quotation resumes. |
|
142b1 |
= 155b3, there is an unmarked jump to 155b5. |
|
142b2 |
again unmarked, a jump from 155b5 to 165b7. |
|
142b3 |
the passage ends with zhes bya ba la sogs paâo = 166a1. |
Throughout the passage there are a number of spots at which the Tibetan translation of Åiká¹£ contains a sentence or two not found in the Sanskrit as we have it (see the notes in Goodman 2016: 403â407). The passages cited are, however, Category A.
256.4â8 = D 142b3â7 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 60b3â61a1. A number of terms omitted in Skt. without indication are quoted from the sÅ«tra, which is overall quoted verbatim. Category B.256.9â18 = D 142b7â143a2 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 61b5â7. Category A.257.1â8 = D 143a2â6 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 63b2â64a5. At 143a4 = 63b3â4 there is a slight unmarked abbreviation, and at 143a5â6 there appears to be be no more than a summary of 63b3â64a4, then a small skip until the final sentence. Category A.257.9â14 = D 143a7âb4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 66b4â68b7, with skip at 143b1 from 66b5 to 67a1, another skip 67a2â3; at 143b3 skip from 67a3 to 68b6. What is quoted is Category A.257.19â259.8 = D = 143b5â144a6 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 73a4â74a1, after the first verse Åiká¹£. skips two verses, quotes a further two, then skips two, quotes 3 and skips two and a half, then continuing until the end. Occasional lines are translated differently, but almost all are verbatim. As an example of a difference, Skt. 258.10 reads vimrÌ¥Åatu yathÄ yaá¹£á¹i te âá¹ ga ÅÅ«nyÄs tathÄ tvaya dr̥ṣá¹a mahará¹£i sarvadharmÄḥ, which Åiká¹£. 144a1â2 has as âjaâ âdrar yan lag de dag stong pa nyid â drang srong che khyod de bzhin chos kun gzigs â, while the sÅ«tra 73b3â4 has nam mkhaâi âjaâ bzhin khyod gyis yan lag stong â drang srong chen pos de bzhin chos kun gzigs â. Category B.259.9â261.4 = D 144a7âb5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 81a4â82b4. At 144b3 = 81a7 Åiká¹£. skips to 81b2 (end), agreeing with Skt. 260.7â8. After one verse, a skip to 82b3, then two more verses. Category A.261.4â9 = D 144b5â145a2 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 86a3â87b2. 144b5â7 = 86a3â4; 144b7â145a2 = 87a6â87b2. Category A.261.11â14 = D 145a2â3 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 110b3 (first verse), then a skip of 11 feet (thus oddly not three verses in total!), then second verse at 110b5. What is cited is Category A.261.15â262.11 = D 145a4â145b1 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 50a7â51b3. Although Bendall considers the initial portion of the passage prose, both the Tibetan of the Åiká¹£. and the sÅ«tra source consider it verse.31 I have not been able to identify a metre in Sanskrit. From 145a4â5 = 50a7âb1, identical. The first half of the next verse is rendered differently.32 After one further verse, the source jumps to 50b7, quotes one verse, then jumps to 51b1, continuing to 51b3. There are a number of instances of entirely different metrical feet. Category B.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
18. RÄá¹£á¹rapÄlapariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 62.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
54.17â55.2 = DÂ 36a3â4 = Finot 20.5â8 = Ensink 79.9â16. Category A.153.2â5 = DÂ 86b1â2 = Finot 35.19â20 = Ensink 95.33â36. Category C.196.1â6 = DÂ 109b2â3 = Finot 13.4â9 = Ensink 72.3â14. Although with small variations, basically Category A.203.9â10 = DÂ 114a7âb1 = Finot 18.15â16 = Ensink 77.17â20. Category A.318.5â322.4 = DÂ 171b4â173a4 = Finot 50.9â53.18 = Ensink 113.1â116.32. Category A.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
§â¯3.3 = D 12b6â13a1 = Finot 17.3â7 = Ensink 75.25â33. Category B.§â¯8.9 = D 59a1â5 = Finot 31.1â12 = Ensink 91.5â28. Category A.§â¯11.4 = D 71a3âb4 = Finot 35.11â36.14 = Ensink 95.17â96.28. Category A.§â¯13.2 = D 78a4âb1 = Finot 17.8â17 = Ensink 76.1â20. Category A.§â¯15.1 = D 83a7â84a3 = Finot 31.13â33.6 = Ensink 91.29â93.24. Category A.§â¯32.2 = D 162b6â7 = Unidentified.
19. UgrapariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 63.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:33
51.11â52.3 = DÂ 165a3â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 260a7âb2 (Nattier 5A). See Åiká¹£. 267.12â13, 144.5â6. Category A.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
19.1â7 = D 14a1â6 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 264b7â265a4 (Nattier 10AâB). At Skt. 19.2 = 14a2 two expressions found in the Kanjur at 264b7 do not appear. At 19.6 two expressions found in Skt. are missing in Åiká¹£. Tib. and in the sÅ«tra. Otherwise, Category A.19.8â17 = D 14a6âb5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 269a3âb2 (Nattier 14AâC).34 At the end of Skt. 19.13 the text, without indication, skips what is in Nattier 14B, but the Tib. trans. follows the sÅ«tra in quoting without skipping anything. Otherwise Category A.19.17â20.9 = D 14b5â15a4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 269b4â270a3 (Nattier 14Eâ15B). Category A.37.7â12 = D 26b1â4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 283b2â5 (Nattier 26C). Åiká¹£. in the Derge edition uses an archaic spelling tshogs stsogs pa (26b2), but Peking (32a8) has tshogs sogs pa. Åiká¹£. skips several clauses in the sÅ«tra, and especially at the end is an entirely different rendering. Category B and C.78.7â13 = D 49b3â6 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 261b6â262a2 (Nattier 7A). Almost all Category A, but with some variations, perhaps indicative of an attempt to reflect the Skt.78.14â16 = D 49b6â7 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 267a1â2 (Nattier 13B). With slight abbreviation of wording, Category B.78.17 = D =49b7â50a1 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 267b5â6 (Nattier 13M). Tibetan differs from Skt., but Åiká¹£. Tib. follows the sÅ«tra. (See Nattier 2003: 257â258n322.) Category A.78.17â18 = D 50a1 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 268a7âb1 (Nattier 13X). Category A.120.3â5 = D 69a2â3 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 262a3â4 (Nattier 7A). Category A.120.5â6 = 69a3â4 = dkon brtsegs, nga, 278b5 (Nattier 25B). This equivalence was evidently overlooked by Nattier (2003: 291n548). Category A.131.10â12 = D 75b2 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 277b7â278a1 (Nattier 24B). The Åiká¹£. Tib. trans., the sÅ«tra, and the Åiká¹£. Skt. all differ from each other. Category C.136.1â7 = D 77a1â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 277a6âb2 (Nattier 24A). Both Tib. versions contain a clause missing in Skt. With only slight editing, Category A.144.1â4 = D 81a2 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 260b5, 6 (Nattier 5B, C) shin tu brtags te las byed pa dang = susamÄ«ká¹£itakarmakÄritÄ; legs par bya baâi las byed pa = sukrÌ¥takarmakÄrita. Category A, but entirely extracted from the context. (Not previously identified.)144.5â6 = D 81a4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 260b1 (Nattier 5A). Category A.145.10 = D 82a1 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 260b6 (Nattier 5C). Category B.147.20 = D 83b4â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 275a5 (Nattier 20G). Category A. (Misidentified by Nattier 2003: 245n242 as belonging to 11G5.)180.1â6 = D 101a2â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 266a5âb1 (Nattier 12A). At 180.3 the Skt. has prahará¹£itavyÄm, which the sÅ«tra (266a6) has as dgaâ bar yang mi bya, but which Åiká¹£. Tib. (Derge 101a3, Peking 118a8) omits. There are several other variations as well. Category B.180.14 = D 101a6â7 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 260b5 (Nattier 5B). Category B.196.7â8 = D 109b5â6 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 279a5â6 (Nattier 25E). Category A.198.1â6 = D 110b2â3 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 298b3â5 (Nattier 25A). Category A.198.6â19 = D 110b4â111a5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 279b1â280a4 (Nattier 25F). Category A.198.19â21 = D 111a5â6 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 280b2 (Nattier 25H). Category A.198.21â199.2 = D 111a6âb2 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 280b2â5 (Nattier 25H). Category A. Although Åiká¹£. Tib. has de bzhin du sbyar te between this and the previous section, and Åiká¹£. Skt. has no equivalent for what is almost a line in Tibetan, Åiká¹£. Tib., while meant to be a trans. of Åiká¹£. Skt., actually contains all text found in the sÅ«tra in the Kanjur. That is, Åiká¹£. Tib., while blindly copying the indication of an omission, in fact omits nothing.199.2â3 = D 111b2â3 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 280b6â7 (Nattier 25I). Category A.199.3â12 = D 111b3â112a4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 280b7â281b2 (Nattier 25J). Although Åiká¹£. has de bzhin du sbyar te between this and the previous section, it does not omit any text from the sÅ«tra, although Åiká¹£. Skt. itself indeed omits what is almost a line in Tibetan. Tib. adds three lines from the sÅ«tra which are not in Skt. as we have it. It seems that the translators rendered pe[yÄla], but then did not apply the abbreviation when they took over the Kanjur text. Category A.199.12â15 = D 112a4â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 282b7â283a1 (Nattier 25M). Category A.199.15â200.6 = D 112a5âb3= D dkon brtsegs, nga, 283a2â6 (Nattier 26AâB). Category A.200.7â11 = D 112b3â5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 278b1â3 (Nattier 24E). Category A.267.12â13 = D 147b7â148a1 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 260a7 (Nattier 5A). Category A.271.9â11 = D 149b6â7 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 262a5â6 (Nattier 7A). Category A.315.14â15 = D 159a4 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 270b2 (Nattier 16B). Category C.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:35
§â¯0.2 = D 2b7â3a1 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 274b4 (Nattier 20E). Category B.§â¯1.10 = D 5b4â7 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 273b7â274a3 (Nattier 20A). Category C.§â¯16.3 = D 89b3â92a3 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 271a7â273b7 (Nattier 18Bâ19U). Category A, with only a small number of differences.§â¯17.8 = D 94b1â95a7 = 320a5 = D dkon brtsegs, nga, 276a5â277a5 (Nattier). Category A.
21. BhadramÄyÄkÄravyÄkaraá¹a, TÅh. 65.
SÅ«trasamuccya:
154.13â20 = D 198a5â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 30b4â5 = Régamey 1938: 44 (§â¯105). Category C.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
No quotations.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
23. MaitreyamahÄsiá¹hanÄda, TÅh. 67.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
35.22â36.12 = D 159b4â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 86b6â87a6. Category C.112.6â14 = D 184a5â7 = constructed out of separate portions, D dkon brtsegs, ca, 103b1: sangs rgyas su âdu shes pa la ni sangs rgyas mthong ba yang med na mchod paâi las lta smos kyang ci dgos te de ni gnas med do â gzhan yang de bzhin gshegs pa mchod par âdod pas ni bdag nyid mchod par byaâo â; 103b6: de ltar na de bzhin gshegs pa mchod par âgyur ro â gang âdu shes dang | mtshan ma skyed par mi byed pa de ni de bzhin gshegs pa mchod pa yin no â; 104a2: gang la sems med pa dang | sems las byung baâi chos rnams med pa dang |; 104a5â6: gang sangs rgyas su âdu shes mi âjug pa dang | chos su ma yin | dge âdun du ma yin | gang zag tu ma yin | bdag tu ma yin | gzhan du ma yin pa de ni de bzhin gshegs pa mchod pa yin no â. Otherwise, Category A.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
No quotations.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
§â¯1.2 = D 3a5â6 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 90a1â3. Category C.§â¯1.11 = D 5b7â6b2 =D dkon brtsegs, ca, 81a1âb3. Category A.§â¯2.5 = D 10a1â11a2 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 78a6â79a5. Mostly Category A/B, with some significant variations.§â¯3.4 = D 13a2â16a4 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 70b5â73b7. Category A.§â¯6.2 = D 34b4â35b2 =D dkon brtsegs, ca, 86b3â87b1. (See §â¯11.7, below). Category A.§â¯10.1 = D 67b4â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 73b2â6. Category A.§â¯11.7 = D 72a3â5 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 86b3â86b6 (see §â¯6.2, above). Category A.§â¯21.5 = D 112b6â113b3 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 90b3â91b1. Category A.§â¯21.6 = D 113b3â116a7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 96b1â97b1 (114a7, noted with zhes gsungs pa na), 103a2â105b6 (115b4), 107b5â108a4 (116a2), 108b2â109a1. Category A.§â¯21.7 = D 116b1â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 113b6â114a6. Category A.§â¯29.13 = D 156b1â5 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 84a7âb4. Category A.
24. VinayaviniÅcaya/UpÄlipariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 68.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
164,9â11 = D 92a1â2 = Python §â¯42 (49.11â18) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 126a2â3. Category B/C.164,12â14 = D 92a2â3 = Python §â¯42 (49.18â24) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 126a3â5. Category C.164.14â15 = D 92a3 = Python §â¯43 (50.9â15) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 126a7âb1. Category C.164.16â165.1 = D 92a5â6 = Python §â¯43 (50.16â51.6) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 126b2â3. Category C.168.15â16 = D 94b2 = Python §â¯21 (31.6â9) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 119b4. Category A (Harrison B).168.16â171.4 = D 94b2â96a3 = Python §â¯22â28 (31.21â37.16) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 119b7â121b3. Harrison 2018: 232 classifies this section as âCategory B for the most part ⦠with one substantial piece of Category A.â He seems to refer to the section in Python §â¯23. While some parts may indeed be B, I would classify much, though not all, of the rest somewhat closer to Category C.171.4â6 = D 96a4â5 = Python §â¯32 (39.16â21) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 122b3â5. Harrison categorized this passage as Category B, but I would classify it as Category C.178.9â16 = D 100a3âb2 = Python §â¯39 (44.15â45.21) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 124a7âb7. Category C.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
§â¯1.14 = D 7a5âb3 = Python §â¯20 (30.16â31.3) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 119a4âb1. Category A.§â¯35.1 = D 170a6âb4 = Python§â¯20 (30.16â31.3) = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 119a4âb1. Category A.
25. AdhyÄÅayasaá¹codana, TÅh. 69.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
95.3â9 = D 178b3â4 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 144b7â145a3, with very substantial abbreviations. Category B.95.13â96.16 = D 178b5â179a3 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 150a4âb5, with significant omissions. Category B.98.24â99.15 = D 179b7â180a3 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 142a6â142b7? There are very substantial omissions and I am not certain where the passage is meant to end. Category B. See Åiká¹£. 105.3â106.10 and MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya §â¯11.3.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
15.13â22 = DÂ 11b5â12a2, = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 139a7âb2, 139b3â7. Category B.97.19â99.2 = DÂ 59b7â60b1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 133b1â134b4. Two sentences skipped with de bzhin du sbyar te at 60a6â7. Although some small differences from Skt., Category A.104.9â16 = DÂ 62b3â5 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 135a1â5. Category A, with an abbreviation at 62b5 of zhes bya ba snga ma bzhin no.104.17â105.3 = DÂ 62b6â63a1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 141b3â6. Category A. Despite de bzhin du sbyar te at 62b6, in fact no text is skipped.105.3â106.10 = DÂ 63a1âb7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 142a5â143a7. Category A, with only a few variations, and one clause omitted by Åiká¹£.106.11â108.4 = DÂ 63b7â64a5 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 143b6â144b2. Category A, but skipping a verse at Åiká¹£. Skt. 107.10 = 64a4 = 144a3, then after a single verse, skipping six verses at 144a4âb1.108.6â111.4 = DÂ 64a6â65a1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 145a7â146a4. Category B, with some variants and skipping a verse at 64b4 = 145b6, two verses skipped with de bzhin du sbyar te at 64b6.111.6â112.11 = DÂ 65a1â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 146b7â147b6. Category B, with omission of two verses at 65a3 = 147a6âb1, and one with de bzhin du sbyar te at 65a6 = 147b4.112.13â113.14 = DÂ 64b7â65b4 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 149a4âb6. Category A, with omission of two verses with de bzhin du sbyar te at 65b3 = 149a6âb1, then the last six verses at 65b4 = 149b2â6.113.15â114.12 = DÂ 65b4â66a7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 149b6â150b6. Category B and C. Omissions with de bzhin du sbyar te of five sentences at 66a4 = 150a5âb2, and two at 66a5 = 150b3â4.114.14â115.22 = DÂ 66a7âb5 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 151b6â152a7. Category B/C, with a verse omitted with de bzhin du sbyar te at 66b7 = 151b6â7, three at 66b4 = 152a4â6.116.1â5 = DÂ 66b5â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 135a5âb1. Category A.351.1â8 = DÂ 189a5âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 135b1â7. Category B, some grammatical changes and other variations.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:36
§â¯2.4 = D 9a5â10a1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 132b4â133a7. Category A.§â¯7.3 = D 48a2âb6 =D dkon brtsegs, ca, 149b6â150b3. Category A.§â¯11.3 = D 70a2â71a3 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 142a3â143a7. Category A. Substantially overlaps with Åiká¹£. 105.3â106.10 and see SÅ«trasamuccaya 98.24â99.15§â¯25.4 = D 114b1â3 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 135a3â5. Category A. Substantially overlaps with Åiká¹£. 104.14â16.
28. VÄ«radattagrÌ¥hapatipariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 72
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
28.20â29.9 = DÂ 157a5âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 195b7â196a4, which is, with considerable flexibility, the text until 29.6, after which the SÅ«trasamuccaya paraphrases continuing text. Category B.71.17â72.12 = DÂ 171a7âb4 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 197b4â198a1, Category A with a few vocabulary differences.72.15â73.6 = DÂ 171b4â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 198a7âb2 Category A.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
34.16â17 = DÂ 25a2 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 198a6â7. Category C.230.10â232.5 = DÂ 129a2âb6 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 197a2â6, then at 129a6 with de bzhin du sbyar te skip one line (but a line is skipped earlier without any indication), and the same is repeated several times, until yang gsungs pa at 129b2 signals a jump from 197b3 to 198a7, in Sanskrit 231.8, the beginning of the verse portion, continuing to 129b4 = 198b2, after which without indication the text jumps to 198b7, skipping again, in the middle of a sentence, to 199a2â3, without indication. Immediately thereafter with de bzhin du sbyar te the text skips to 199b1, then abbreviating the text for the next few lines, following this with (129b6) zhes te rgya cher ni de nyid las shes par byaâo, which closes the citation at 199b3. Category B.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
§â¯29.14 = D 156b5â7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 202b3â5. Category A.§â¯30.2 = D 157b5â6 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 202b5â6.37 Category A.
29. UdayanavatsarÄjapariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 73.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
54.15â55.22 = DÂ 166a2âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 207b7â208b4. A drastic abbreviation, virtually a summary. Category C.56.1â23 = DÂ 166b1â6 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 210a1â7. Again, a drastic abbreviation, virtually a summary. Category C.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
80.13â82.14 = D 50b5â51a7 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 212a6â215a7. Category C. The relation between Åiká¹£. and the sÅ«tra as we have it is far from clear here. The sÅ«tra has 75 verses in full, while the Åiká¹£. quotes something like 15 in this section, continuing in the next section (83.1â19). The two translations appear to be based on considerably different Vorlagen.82.15â21 = D 51a7âb3 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 211b6â212a4. Category B.83.1â19 = D 51b3â52a1 = D dkon brtsegs, ca, 215a2â7. My provisional estimate of the identification of the verses sees the second section begin with what I number as verse 69. Category C.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
37. Siá¹hapariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 81.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:38
5.16â17 = D 5a4 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 28b5â6. Verse 33. The fourth line is different. Category B.5.18â19 = D 5a4â5 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 28b6. Category A.53.6â7 = D 35a5 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 28a2â3. Verse 16. Category A.53.9â10 = D 35a6 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 28b7â29a1. Verse 37. Category A.53.12â13 = D 35a6â7 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 29a1. Verse 38. Category A.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
38. UpÄyakauÅalyajñÄnottarabodhisattvapariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 82.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
25.21â26.2 = D 156a6â7 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 32b5â7 (Tatz §â¯12, p. 26); cf. TÅh. 261 mdo sde, za, 284b7â285a2. Category B.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
66.9â14 = D 43a2â5 = (Tatz §â¯22, p. 30) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 34b6â35a2. Category B/C. Either it is a different rendering which happens to appear similar, or a considerably different version of the same translation. In any event, rather different.165.5â9 = D 92a7âb2 = (Tatz §â¯45, pp. 37â38) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 39b2â6. Category C. Although there is some relation between the versions, they are very different.167.3â7 = D 93b2â3 = (Tatz §â¯33, p. 34) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 37b3â5. Category C.167.7â10 = D 93b3â5 = (Tatz §â¯35, pp. 34â35) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 37b7â38a1. Category C.167.11â13 = D 93b5â6 = (Tatz §â¯30, p. 33) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 37a1â3. Category C.167.14â20 = D 93b6â94a3 = (Tatz §â¯20, p, 29) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 34a7âb5. Category C.168.4â10 = D 94a5â7 = (Tatz §â¯57, pp. 44â45) = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 43a2â4, 6â7. Category C.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
43. *KÄÅyapaparivarta, TÅh. 87.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
22.19â23.3 = D 155a6âb1 = Staël-Holstein §â¯90.39 Category A/B.23.3â10 = D 155b-2 = Staël-Holstein §â¯88 (including a sentence not in the extant Sanskrit). Category A.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
52.12â15 = D 34b7â35a1 = Staël-Holstein §â¯3. Category A, with some slight variations.52.16â53.4 = D 35a1â4 = Staël-Holstein §â¯4. Category A, but with inversion of one clause.53.18 = D = 35b1 = Staël-Holstein §â¯24, 25. The quotation includes one clause from §â¯24, and then jumps to the last word of §â¯25. Category A.54.11â15 = D 36a1â3 = Staël-Holstein §â¯11. Slight rewording which brings the Tibetan more closely into line with the Sanskrit of Åiká¹£. Category A.55.3â5 = D 36a5â6 = Staël-Holstein §â¯6. The sÅ«tra Tib. trans. agrees more closely with the Skt. in Åiká¹£. than that in the single manuscript used for Staël-Holsteinâs edition. The Åiká¹£ Tib. is close to but not entirely identical with the sÅ«tra. Nevertheless, very close to Category A.146.4â5 = D 82a7âb1 = Staël-Holstein §â¯15. While the quotation is abbreviated, it is Category A.148.8â12 = D 84a1â2 = Staël-Holstein §â¯5. Category A.196.11â14 = D 109b6â110a1 = Staël-Holstein §â¯128. Category A.233.15â234.18 = D 130b4â131b2 = Staël-Holstein §â¯97â102. At 130b7 Åiká¹£. reflects Skt. pe[yÄlam], noticing the omission of one item, with de bzhin du sbyar te, but in fact skips no text. However, at the next instance at 131a2, the same correctly reflects the omission of several items. At 131a5 a phrase is skipped without note, and in fact while the whole section §â¯100 is rather different in Åiká¹£., this difference is not reflected in the Tib. trans. which closely follows the sÅ«tra translation. There are other instances demonstrating this reliance on the sÅ«tra without adjustment to conform to Åiká¹£., at least as far as we can tell from the single available Skt. manuscript of that text. Category B.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:40
§â¯11.10 = D 72b1â7 = Staël-Holstein §â¯111â114. Category A. Note that in contrast to the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, here the verses of the sÅ«tra are also quoted.§â¯14.1 = D 78b5â79b7 = Staël-Holstein §â¯121â125. Category A.§â¯29.11 = D 155b7â156a4 = Staël-Holstein §â¯84, 88. Category A. The citations of the two sections are separated by zhes gsungs pa na. Here the verse in §â¯88 is not included.§â¯31.4 = D 161b2â5 = Staël-Holstein §â¯3. Category A, with only the addition of mkhan po before slob dpon.
44. RatnarÄÅi, TÅh. 88.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations (but see part 3, below).
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
55.8â57.10 = D 36a7â37b3 = Silk §â¯IV.2â17 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 163a4â168b5). Åiká¹£. omits some vocatives found in the sÅ«tra. In a number of places, although Åiká¹£. Skt. omits material, if Skt. does not have pe[yÄlam], Åiká¹£. Tib. does not have de bzhin du sbyar te, and simply continues the quotation from the sÅ«tra. In quite a number of other cases, however, the trans. is adjusted to reflect the text found in the Skt., sometimes whole sentences being different. Category B.128.3â129.15 = D 73b2â74b1 = Silk §â¯V.11â15 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 167b3â168b3). There is one skipped sentence duly noted with de bzhin du sbyar te, and several places where the text has been adjusted slightly to conform to the Skt., otherwise Category A.129.16â130.15 = D 74b1â75a2 = Silk §â¯VI.2â5 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 170a2âb4). Two omissions duly marked with de bzhin du sbyar te. Category A.130.15â131.9 = D 75a2âb2 = Silk §â¯VI.9â12 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 1717a3âb3). One omission duly marked with de bzhin du sbyar te. Category A.136.10â14 = D 77a5â7 = Silk §â¯I.9 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 155a1â3). One difference, ekajvÄlÄ«bhÅ«ta rendered me lce gcig tu gyur rather than the sÅ«traâs mer gyur, otherwise Category A. Note that this and the following reference appear in the sÅ«tra itself in reverse order.136.9â10 = D 77a5 = Silk §â¯I.8 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 154b7â155a1). Category A.137.17â138.211 = D 77b7â78a6 = Silk §â¯I.14â16 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 155b7â156b1). In §â¯I.14 Åiká¹£. Tib. has de nas âkhor de nyid nas agreeing with atha tasyÄm eva pará¹£adi, in contrast to the sÅ«traâs bstan pa âdi bshad pa na. There is also an added bcom ldan âdas agreeing with Skt. bhagavan, not found in the sÅ«tra, and elsewhere similar small omissions of vocatives âod srungs and dge slong dag. Otherwise Category A.200.12â201.11 = D 112b5â113a5 = Silk §â¯V.17â21 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 168b4â169b3). Several omissions are duly marked with de bzhin du sbyar te, but one sentence at the end of §â¯V.19, before the marked omission of all of §â¯V.20, is included in the Tib. of Åiká¹£., even though omitted in Skt. On the other hand, most of §â¯V.21 is missing in the Tib. of Åiká¹£., even though it is found in Skt. Where the text is found, however, it belongs to Category A.201.12â19 = D 113a5â7 = Silk §â¯V.5â6 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 166b1â6). Category A.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:41
§â¯3.6 = D 16b3â17b1 = Silk §â¯II.19â24 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 158a1âb5). In §â¯II.19, there are only small differences, but with §â¯II.20â24 we get an entirely different translation. Category C.§â¯7.2 = D 45a2â48a2 = Silk §â¯IV.1â21, the entire chapter (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 163a2â166a1), with a small number of trivial differences. Category A.§â¯9.2 = D 65b5â66b1 = Silk §â¯III.1â5 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 158b5â159b1). Category A.§â¯9.4 = D 67a2âb4 = Silk §â¯III.11â12 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 160a5âb7). Category A.§â¯15.2 = D 84a3â85a5 = Silk §â¯VII.17â25 (D dkon brtsegs, cha, 174b5â175b7). Category A.
For additional passages from the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, and for the SÅ«trasamuccaya, see the discussion below in section 3.
46. SaptaÅatikÄ nÄma prajñÄpÄramitÄ, TÅh. 90
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
156.20â157.13 = DÂ 199a3â6 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 185b3â6. Category B.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
No quotations.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
47. RatnacÅ«á¸apariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 91.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
120.7â10 = D 69a4â5 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 239b6â240a1. Category B. The quotation abbreviates the sÅ«tra, but with largely the same vocabulary.229.13â230.9 = D 128b5â129a2 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 224a5â225a1. At 129a1 = 224b1, skip until b7, without indication. Otherwise Category A.232.6â233.5 = D 129b7â130a7 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 225b4â226a5. Category A. Slight vocabulary differences, but nearly identical.235.1â8 = D 131b2â6 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 226b6â227a3. Category A.235.8â12 = D 131b6â132a1 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 227b3â4. Category A. At 235.9 Sanskrit prints pe[yÄlam], and as Bendall (235n5) points out the Tibetan trans. of Åiká¹£. and the source sÅ«tra have here two additional similes.236.13â237.2 = D 132a7âb3 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 228a6âb1. Generally Category A, with slight variations.237.3â4 = D 132b3. = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 230a7. Category A.272.9â273.4 = D 150a7âb7 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 219a4â222a1. At 150b1 = 219a5 with merely de bzhin du (Skt. tathÄ, 272.10) there is a jump to 220b2. At 150b2, sbyin pa ma tshang ba med pa nas thabs ma tshang ba med paâi bar is given in full at 220b3â4. At 150b4â5, de bzhin du sbyar te skips from 220b6 to 221a4. At 150b6 = 221a6 with rigs kyi bu âdi ni there is a jump to 221b7, without any indication. Category B. Although much of the citation is verbatim, there is much moving around. Likewise, there is material apparently added from the sÅ«tra not originally in the Åiká¹£. citation in Skt.317.13â17 = D 171a6âb2 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 234a2â4. One clause skipped at 234a3, otherwise Category A.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
48. ÅrÄ«mÄlÄdevÄ«siá¹hanÄda, TÅh. 92.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
131.7â11 = DÂ 190b2â3 = (first sentence) D dkon brtsegs, cha, 264a5 = 6â7 = 264b1, b3 (Tsukinowa 1940: 76).42 Category A; (second sentence) 268b7â269a1 (Tsukinowa 1940: 108). Category B.139.3â7 = DÂ 193a5 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 263a1â2 (Tsukinowa 1940: 64â66). Category A.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
42.12â14 = DÂ 30a3â4 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 258b3â4 (Tsukinowa 1940: 32). Category C.42.14â43.1 = DÂ 30a4â6 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 262a6âb1 (Tsukinowa 1940: 60). Category C.43.1â4 = DÂ 30a6âb1 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 262b2â4 (Tsukinowa 1940: 62). Category C.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
49. R̥ṣivyÄsapariprÌ¥cchÄ, TÅh. 93.
SÅ«trasamuccaya:
No quotations.
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:
No quotations.
MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya:
§â¯32.3 = D 162b7â163a1 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 281a7. Category C.§â¯35.6 = D 187a4â188a2 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 282a3â283a1. Category A.§â¯36.3 = D 190b7â192a7 = D dkon brtsegs, cha, 280b5â282a3. Category A.
Discussion
What can we conclude from the data above, and what questions does it lead us to ask? Perhaps first of all, with specific regard to the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, which he dealt with nearly exclusively, we notice that our samples fully confirm the conclusions of Harrison (2018: 236), namely that the translators of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya âtook a patchwork, ad hoc approach to their work, drawing liberally on the achievements of their predecessors.â The very same may be said likewise of the translators of the SÅ«trasamuccaya and MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya. However, so far lacking access to Sanskrit texts of these two works (with only a few exceptions for the former), it is harder to explore the question whether the respective translators (of course, we had better say âtranslation teamsâ) meant, here and there, to adjust their translations to conform to their Sanskrit Vorlagen. We have good reason to believe that an extensive, even if not complete, manuscript of the SÅ«trasamuccaya exists (thanks to indications in Wang et al. 2020: 60â61), although when it will become available remains unknown, but when the text is further published, the Sanskrit will certainly invite investigation of its relation to its Tibetan translation and the sÅ«tra sources.
It is more than interesting that we can discern no clear overall pattern in the way that even the individual translation teams dealt with their primary source text in the anthology and its relation to the further, ultimate sources of passages in the sÅ«tras. When one simply runs an eye over the categories suggested for each citation, it is obvious that no clear regularities appear. It might, of course, be possible that there is some pattern to be found, especially if instead of sampling, as done here, the entirety of each text would be examined. But this remains a task for the future, and most likely, for more than a single scholar. What is particularly puzzling is that the same anthology translation when quoting the same source scripture is in some places highly congruent with the version of the scripture transmitted in the canonical collections, and yet elsewhere is not. So far I cannot think of any hypothesis to account for this sometimes quite radical variation. Of course, in some cases we can imagine that the translators simply felt that the available translation did not accurately represent the meaning of the text as they understood it, butâagain, so farâI have not been able to detect any patterns or regularities in their treatments. As we so often say, more study is needed.
3 Misattributions in the SÅ«trasamuccaya and Elsewhere
Although I believe that the materials above are, in their own right, valuable and interesting, examination of the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a collection citations in the three anthologies brought up, here and there, unidentified quotations. The list above set aside the most interesting set of examples, and it is to these that we now turn.
A number of quotations attributed to the (or it might be better not to prejudge the case and to say a) RatnarÄÅi in the SÅ«trasamuccaya prove not to be found in the extant sÅ«tra, and two of these, identically attributed, occur also in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya.43 The latter fact is perhaps easy to explain, given the strong dependence of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya on the SÅ«trasamuccaya, though it does raise an interesting question. While it seems that none of the citations in the SÅ«trasamuccaya attributed to the RatnarÄÅi are now found there, alongside the two misattributed passages the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya also frequently correctly quotes the sÅ«tra. While it is hard to offer a compelling hypothesis to explain these facts, some possibilities do suggest themselves.
First, it is possible that the author of the SÅ«trasamuccaya simply made an error in attributing, perhaps from memory, the passages in question to the RatnarÄÅi, and they had instead another source, though I have so far failed to locate any material parallel to the misattributed passages. However, while this hypothesis might be defensible in the case of the SÅ«trasamuccaya alone, in which none of the passages cited as being from the RatnarÄÅi in fact belongs to the extant sÅ«tra, it would be harder to make this argument for the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, which does quote much material from the text we know as the RatnarÄÅiâunless we were to regard ÅÄntideva as having failed to take the basic step of confirming his source in materials otherwise apparently available to him. It appears, however, that this was precisely the case. I will return to this issue below.
A second possibility is that the RatnarÄÅi known to the author of the SÅ«trasamuccaya (and to ÅÄntideva?) contained the quoted passages, but later they either dropped out of the recension translated into Chinese and Tibetan, or were part of an entirely different recension (or entirely different text under the same title), which has not come down to us. As far as I know, as yet we lack a census of all such unlocatable passages. Be that as it may, at least as far as the present case is concerned, the character of the passages seems (impressionistically, to be sure) of a type rather foreign to the flavor of the known RatnarÄÅi, which makes the possibility that the compiler knew a version of âourâ RatnarÄÅi which in fact had the passage in question, in my opinion, not very likely. For Asano (1996: 143), the close similiarity of the series of quotations in SÅ«trasamuccaya chapter 8 and Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya chapter 17 suggests that since the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya also contains a number of passages in fact found in the present RatnarÄÅi, it drew both directly from that sÅ«tra itself, and from the SÅ«trasamuccaya for the passages not now found in the sÅ«tra, and this seems to be correct. However, going even further (p. 144), Asano suggests that the title RatnarÄÅi could refer to any collection of valuable teachings, and need not refer to a specific text, a conclusion he reaches in light of the similarity of terms such as ratnarÄÅi, ratnakÅ«á¹a, ratnÄkara and ratnamegha. This last idea seems to me a sort of cri de coeur. However, as long as the passages in question remain unlocated in any other sources, it seems difficult to move forward decisively, and no possibilities should be rejected.
I present below the text of the passages erroneously attributed to the RatnarÄÅi in the SÅ«trasamuccaya in Tibetan, and in the case of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya passages, Sanskrit.44
1) SÅ«trasamuccaya 22.1â16 (DÂ 155a3â6):45
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | kun dgaâ bo âdi ji snyam du sems | mi rkang lag bcad na âtsho âam | gsol pa bcom ldan âdas âtshoâo â bcom ldan âdas kyis bkaâ stsal pa | ji ltar snying phyung na âtsho âam | gsol pa bcom ldan âdas de ni mi âtshoâo â bcom ldan âdas kyis bkaâ stsal pa | kun dgaâ bo lag pa dang rkang pa lta bur ngaâi shÄ riâi bu dang | maud gal gyi bur ltaâo â snying lta bu ni byang chub sems dpaâ rnams ltaâo â kun dgaâ bo gal te byang chub sems dpaâ shing rtaâi nang du zhugs te | âdod paâi yon tan lngas rtse dgaâ zhing dgaâ dgur spyod la | deâi shing rta âdren pa gzhan med na | kun dgaâ bo byang chub sems dpaâ deâi shing rta ni de bzhin gshegs paâi dbu la yang bskur ro â gal te gnas brtan shÄ riâi bu dang maud gal gyi bu rnam par thar paâi sgo gsum la bskal pa âam bskal pa las lhag par gnas kyang | de la de bzhin gshegs pa rim gro dang g yog bya bar brtson par mi mdzad do zhes gsungs so â.
From the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: [The Buddha said:] âÄnanda, what do you think? If the legs and hands of a man are cut off, can he still live?â [Änanda] replied: âBlessed One, he can live.â The Blessed One said: âIf, for instance, one were to tear out his heart, could he live?â [Änanda] replied: âBlessed One, then, he would not live.â The Blessed One said: âÄnanda, my [disciples] ÅÄriputra and MaudgalyÄyana are like the hands and feet. The bodhisattvas are like the heart. Änanda, if a bodhisattva were to climb aboard a cart, and were to sport with the five objects of desire (*pañca-kÄmaguá¹a) and indulge in sensual pleasures, but if there were to be no other driver of that cart, Änanda, then the TathÄgata would take charge of that cart of the bodhisattva. Even if the Elders ÅÄriputra and MaudgalyÄyana dwell in the three gates of liberation for aeons or more, still the TathÄgata will not make efforts to take care of or serve them.â
2) SÅ«trasamuccaya 27.2â11 (DÂ 156b4â6):46
yang rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las | dgra bcom paâi âbras bu âdod paâi mi gang la la zhig gis | nor bu rin po che dag gis âjig rten gyi khams mthaâ yas pa bkang ste | sbyin pa byin pa bas | byang chub sems dpaâ gang gis byang chub sems dpaâ theg pa paâi gang zag mthong nas thams cad mkhyen pa nyid dang ldan paâi sems kyis rjes su yi rang na rjes su yi rang ba dang ldan paâi bsod nams âdi la snga maâi sbyin paâi bsod nams kyi phung po des | brgyaâi char yang nye bar mi âgro ba nas rgyuâi bar du yang mi bzod do zhes gsungs so â
Again, from the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: If there were a certain man who aspired for the fruit of arhatship, and he were to fill the limitless world-realms completely with great treasures and give them as a gift, and if a bodhisattva, seeing a person belonging to the bodhisattva vehicle, were to delight in his possession of an aspiration for omniscience, then the mass of merit of the former gift would not approach even a hundredth part of this merit of delighting [in aspiration for omniscience] ⦠it would not bear any comparison (*upaniá¹£ad) at all.
3) SÅ«trasamuccaya 96.18â97.1 (DÂ 179a4â5):47
yang chos sgrub pa ni | rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las âbyung ba | âod srungs âdi lta ste dper na | rgya mtsho chen por âjug par âdod paâi tshong pa ni rin po cheâi gling nas | bdag gi yul du bde bar phyin gyi bar du de gru la shin tu rtog par byed do â âod srungs de bzhin du byang chub sems dpaâ thams cad mkhyen paâi rgya mtsho la âjug par âdod pas | ji tsam byis pa so soâi skye bo dang | nyan thos dang rang sangs rgyas thams cad kyi sa las âdas te | bdag gi phaâi spyod yul du âjug paâi bar duâo â pha rol tu phyin pa drug gi gru shin tu rtog par byaâo â zhes gsungs so â
Again, regarding accomplishment of the Dharma, from the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: For instance, KÄÅyapa, as an example, a merchant desiring to go to sea (to seek priceless jewels) will keep a careful eye on his boat until he has travelled safely from the island of jewels back to his own country. Just so, KÄÅyapa, the bodhisattva desiring to go out to the sea of omniscience must keep a careful eye on the boat of the six perfections, until he passes over the stages [lands] of common people, disciples and lone buddhas and enters the realm of his father [Chinese: the state of Buddhahood].
4) SÅ«trasamuccaya 103.17â104.5 (DÂ 181a7âb3; for the underlining, see Sanskrit below):
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | âod srungs âdi lta ste | dper na rgya mtshoâi nang du gru zhig na | gang dag shing leb bam | gzhan ci yang rung ba zhig la brten pa de dag ni bde bar âgram du phyin par âgyur ro â âod srungs de bzhin du byang chub sems dpaâi theg pa pa thams cad mkhyen paâi sems kyi gru zhig ste | byang chub las rab tu nyams kyang | gang dge baâi bshes gnyen gyi shing leb la brten pa de dag ni | yang thams cad mkhyen paâi sems rab tu thob ste | chos thams cad kyi pha rol tu song nas chos kyi dbyings kyi gling du phyin to â de bas na âod srungs bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs paâi byang chub ni dge baâi bshes gnyen la brten to â zhes gsungs so â
大ä¹å¯¶è¦ç¾©è« T. 1635 (XXXII) 62b6â16:
å¦å¯¶ç©ç¶äº: ä½è¨: 迦è, å¦äººä¹è¹, å ¥å ¶å¤§æµ·, èæ¼ä¸æµè¹å¿½ç ´å£¤ãæ¯ä¸ææä¾ä¸çæ¨æé¤æ©¡æ¨, éå¾æä¾, å®é å°å²¸ã迦è, è©è©ä¹æ¼ä¸åæºå¿ä¹è¹äº¦å¾©å¦æ¯ã忽æ¼ä¸æµå£¤å¤±è©è©ä¹æ³ãè¥éåç¥è, è以ä¾æ¢, å½¼å³éå¾ä¸åæºå¿, ä¹è«¸æ³¢ç¾ èå¤æ³éè¼, èè¡å°æ³çæ´²ã迦è, ææé¿è¨å¤ç¾ ä¸èä¸è©ææ³, èæä¾æ¢åç¥èæ ã
From the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: For instance, KÄÅyapa, as an example, if a ship were to be wrecked in the midst of an ocean, with the help of a plank or of anything else whatsoever some people might easily reach the shore. In just this way, KÄÅyapa, the ship of the mind of omniscience, [which carries] the followers of the bodhisattva vehicle, might founder, and although [those followers of the bodhisattva vehicle] might lose their awakening, still some, with the help of a plank which is the good friend (*kalyÄá¹amitra), might recover the mind of omniscience. Going to the distant shore beyond all things, they arrive at the island of the essence of reality (*dharmadhÄtu). Therefore, KÄÅyapa, [the acquisition of] unexcelled perfect awakening depends on the help of the good friend.
A portion of this passage has been fortuitously preserved in a Sanskrit fragment from KhÄdalik in Central Asia, kept in London (IOL San 964 recto), which Karashima 2009: 266 identified and edited. The underlined portions above correspond to the extant Sanskrit (I cite the text as given by its editor).
1 /// [s]ÄmudrikÄyÄá¹ nÄvÄyÄá¹ bhinÄyÄá¹ ye phal[ak]. ///2 /// bodhisatvayÄnÄ«yÄá¹: pranaá¹£á¹habodhayo [y]e (ka)[l](yÄá¹amitra~) ///3 /// .[m]. tarhi kÄÅyapa kalyÄá¹amitra s[a] + + + + + ///
5) Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya 138a2â4 = Bendall 312.3â6:
uktañ cÄryaRatnarÄÅisÅ«tre | ye tribhavaparyÄpannÄḥ satvÄs te sarvve pratyekaá¹ tathÄgatastÅ«pÄn kÄrayeyur evaá¹rÅ«pÄn uccaiá¹£tvena tadyathÄ sumeru[3]ḥ parvvatarÄjaḥ | tÄá¹Å ca gaá¹ gÄnadÄ«vÄlikÄsamÄn kalpÄn pratyekaá¹ sarvvasatkÄraiḥ satkuryuḥ | yaÅ ca bodhisatvo âvirahitasarvvajñatÄcittenaikapuá¹£pam apy Äropa[4]yet | ayan tasmÄt pÅ«rvvakÄt puá¹yaskandhÄd bahutaraá¹ puá¹yaá¹ prasavet â
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:48
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | gang dag srid pa gsum du gtogs paâi sems can de dag thams cad so so nas de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten âphang du âdi lta ste | riâi rgyal po ri rab lta bu byed la de dag la yang so so nas gang gÄâi klung gi [P adds: bye ma] snyed kyi bskal par bsti stang bya ba thams cad kyis bsti stang byed pa bas byang chub sems dpaâ gang thams cad mkhyen pa nyid kyis sems dang ma bral bas me tog gcig âdor na | de ni bsod nams kyi phung po snga ma bas bsod nams ches mang du bskyed do zhes gsungs so â
SÅ«trasamuccaya 109.8â17 (DÂ 183a5â7):49
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las | sems can gang dag srid pa gsum du gtogs pa de dag thams cad kyis | so so nas de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten âphang du riâi rgyal po ri rab tsam bya ste | de dag la bskal pa gang gÄâi klung gi bye ma snyed du so so nas bsti stang du bya ba thams cad kyis bsti stang byas pa bas | byang chub sems dpaâ thams cad mkhyen pa nyid kyi sems dang ma bral ba gang gis me tog gcig phul na | de ni bsod nams kyi phung po snga ma bas ches mang du bskyed do zhes ji skad gsungs pa lta buâo â
And as is said in the Noble RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: Suppose those beings filling the three states of existence were all, individually, to have stÅ«pas constructed for the TathÄgata, in form and height like Sumeru, the king of mountains, and were to worship all of those [stÅ«pas] individually with all varieties of worship for as many aeons as there are grains of sand on the banks of the Ganges river. And [on the other hand] if some [single] bodhisattva, with a mind that has not lost [the aspiration for] omniscience, were to offer even a single flower, then the latter [act] would generate merit far exceeding the mass of merit of the former [act].
6) Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya 138a4âb5 = Bendall 312.7â21:
atraivoktaá¹Â | ye khalu punas trisÄhasramahÄsÄhasre lokadhÄtau satvÄs te sarvve mahÄyÄnasaá¹prasthi[5]tÄ bhaveyuḥ â¨|â© sarvve ca cakravartirÄjyasamanvÄgatÄ bhaveyur ekaikaÅ ca rÄjÄ cakravartÄ« mahÄsamudrapramÄá¹adÄ«pasthÄlÄ«á¹ krÌ¥tvÄ sumerumÄtrÄm vartim ÄdÄ«pya pratyekam evaá¹[6]rÅ«pÄn dÄ«papÅ«jÄá¹ tathÄgatacaityeá¹£u pravarttayet | yaÅ cÄbhiniá¹£krÄntagrÌ¥hÄvÄso bodhisatvas tailapraká¹£iptÄm vartiá¹ krÌ¥tvÄ âdÄ«pya tathÄgatacaitye dhÄrayet | asyÄs tailapraká¹£iptÄ[7]yÄ vartter etat pÅ«rvvakaá¹ pradÄ«padÄnaá¹ ÅatatamÄ«m api kalÄá¹ nopaiti | yÄvad upaniá¹£adam api na ká¹£amata iti | peyÄlaá¹Â â
yaÅ ca khalu punas te rÄjÄnaÅ cakravarttino buddhapramukham bhiká¹£usaá¹[b1]ghaá¹ sarvvasukhopadhÄnaiḥ satkuryur yaÅ cÄbhiniá¹£krÄntagrÌ¥hÄvÄso bodhisatvaḥ piá¹á¸apÄtañ caritvÄ pÄtraparyÄpannaá¹ pareá¹£Äá¹ samvibhajya paribhuñjÄ«ta | idan tato bahutarañ ca mahÄrghatarañ ca | yac ca te [2] rÄjÄnaÅ cakravarttinaḥ sumerumÄtrañ cÄ«vararÄÅiá¹ buddhapramukhÄya bhiká¹£usaá¹ghÄya dadyur yac cÄbhiniá¹£krÄntagrÌ¥hÄvÄso bodhisatvas50 tricÄ«varabahirddhÄ | mahÄyÄnasaá¹prasthitÄya buddhapramukhyÄya bhiká¹£usaá¹ghÄya vÄ | tathÄgatacaitye vÄ dadyÄd idaá¹ bhiká¹£oÅ cÄ«varadÄnam [4] etat pÅ«rvvakacÄ«vararÄÅim abhibhavati â yac ca te rÄjÄnaḥ pratyekaá¹ sarvvaá¹ jambÅ«dvÄ«paá¹ puá¹£pasaá¹strÌ¥taá¹ krÌ¥tvÄ tathÄgatacaitye niryÄtayet | yac cÄbhiniá¹£krÄntagrÌ¥hÄvÄso bodhisatvaḥ [5] antaÅa ekapuá¹£pam api tathÄgatacaitye Äropayet | asya dÄnasyaitat pÅ«rvvakan dÄnaá¹ ÅatatamÄ«m api kalÄá¹ nopaiti | yÄvad upaniá¹£adam api nopaitÄ«ti â
Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya:51
yang de nyid las | gang stong gsum gyi stong chen poâi âjig rten gyi khams na sems can gang dag yod pa de dag thams cad theg pa chen po la yang dag par zhugs par gyur la | thams cad âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal srid dang ldan par gyur te | âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po re res kyang mar meâi snod rgya mtsho chen po tsam byas te | ri rab tsam gyi mar meâi snying pos mar me bus la | so so nas âdi lta buâi mar meâi mchod pas [P adds: de bzhin gshegs paâi] mchod rten rnams la mchod pa bas | byang chub sems dpaâ khyim gyi gnas nas âbyung ba gang gis mar meâi snying po âbrus mar gyis bskus te de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten gyi drung du âdzin na | ras âbru mar gyis bskus paâi mar me âdi la snga maâi mar me phul ba des brgyaâi char yang mi phod pa nas rgyuâi bar du yang mi bzod do â
âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po de dag gis sangs rgyas la sogs paâi dge slong gi dge âdun la bde bar sbyar ba thams cad kyis phu dud byed pa bas | byang chub sems dpaâ khyim gyi gnas nas mngon bar byung ba gang gis bsod snyoms blangs te | lhung bzed du chud pa de gzhan dag dang bgo bshaâ byas te zan de ni de bas ches mang zhing ches rin cheâo â gang yang rgyal po chen po de dag gis ri rab tsam gyi gos kyi phung po sangs rgyas la sogs pa dge slong gi dge âdun la phul ba bas | byang chub sems dpaâ khyim gyi gnas nas mngon par byung ba gang gis phyi rol du byung ste | sangs rgyas la sogs pa theg pa chen po la yang dag par zhugs paâi dge slong gi dge âdun dang | de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la chos gos gsum phul na | dge slong gi chos gos byin pa âdis gos sbyin pa snga ma de zil gyis non par âgyur ro â yang rgyal po de dag re res âdzam buâi gling thams cad me tog gis mdzes par byas te | de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la phul ba bas | byang chub sems dpaâ khyim gyi gnas nas byung ba gang gi tha na de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la me tog gcig phul na sbyin pa âdi la sbyin pa snga ma bas des brgyaâi char yang mi phod pa nas rgyuâi bar du yang mi phod do â zhes gsungs so â
SÅ«trasamuccaya 109.18â110.6 (DÂ 183a7â183b7):52
yang rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo nyid las | gang stong gsum gyi stong chen poâi âjig rten gyi khams kyi sems can de dag thams cad theg pa chen po la yang dag par zhugs te | thams cad âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal srid dang ldan par gyur la | âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po re res kyang | rgya mtsho chen po tsam gyi mar meâi snod byas te | ri rab tsam gyi snying po bsregs la so so nas âdi âdra baâi mar mes de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la mchod pa byas pa bas | gang khyim gyi gnas nas mngon par byung baâi byang chub sems dpas mar meâi snying po yungs mar gyis bskus te | de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten gyi drung du bzung na | mar me phul ba snga mas snying po yungs mar gyis bskus pa deâi brgyaâi char yang mi chog pa nas | rgyuâi bar du yang mi chog go â
gang yang âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po de dag gis | sangs rgyas la sogs pa dge slong gi dge âdun la | bde baâi yo byad thams cad kyis bsti stang du byas pa bas | gang yang khyim gyi gnas mngon par byung baâi byang chub sems dpas bsod snyoms blangs te | lhung bzed du âongs pa | gzhan dang bgos te zos na | de ni de bas ches ches âphags so â gang yang âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po de dag gis | ri rab tsam gyi chos gos kyi phung po sangs rgyas la sogs pa | dge slong gi dge âdun la phul ba bas | gang yang khyim gyi gnas nas mngon par byung baâi byang chub sems dpaâ chos gos gsum po ma gtogs par gzhan theg pa chen po la yang dag par zhugs pa dang | sangs rgyas la sogs pa dge slong gi dge âdun dang | de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la phul na snga maâi chos gos kyi phung po de | dge slong la chos gos byin pa âdis zil du brlag go â gang yang âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal po de dag re res âdzam buâi gling thams cad me tog gis bkang ste | de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la phul ba bas | gang yang khyim gyi gnas nas mngon par byung baâi byang chub sems dpas de bzhin gshegs paâi mchod rten la tha na me tog gcig phul na | sbyin pa sna mas sbyin pa âdiâi brgyaâi char yang mi chog pa nas rgyuâi bar du yang mi chog go â zhes gsungs so â
From the same source: And again, if all beings in the three billion world realms were to set out in the MahÄyÄna, and all were to be endowed with the royal majesty of a universal emperor, and each universal emperor might set up oil lamp basins as vast as the great ocean, and lighting wicks as large as Mount Sumeru might perform appropriate worship with those lamps at each and every one of the shrines to the TathÄgata. And a [single] bodhisattva who has gone forth from the household life might set up and light [only] an oil-dipped wick, and dedicate it to a shrine of the TathÄgata. The former gift of lamps does not approach even a hundredth part of the [merit] from this [gift of] an oil-dipped wick ⦠it does not bear any comparison at all. â¦
And again, those universal emperors might pay homage with all things which conduce to happiness to the community of monks headed by the Buddha, [while on the other hand] a bodhisattva who has gone forth from the household life might eat [only] having begged for alms and shared with others what has fallen into his bowlâthis is much more, has much greater value than that. And again, those universal emperors might present to the community of monks headed by the Buddha a pile of robes as great as Mount Sumeru, or [on the other hand] a bodhisattva who has gone forth from the household life might present [robes], other than the triple robe [he is enjoined to wear],53 to the community of monks just set out in the MahÄyÄna headed by the Buddha, or to a shrine of the TathÄgata; this gift of the monkâs robes surpasses that former [gift of a] pile of robes. And again, individually those kings might cover over the whole continent of JambudvÄ«pa with flowers and present it to a shrine of the TathÄgata, or [on the other hand] a [single] bodhisattva who has gone forth from the household life might offer [only] so much as a single flower to a shrine of the TathÄgata, but the former gift does not approach even a hundredth part of the [merit] of this [latter] gift ⦠it does not bear any comparison at all.
We can notice a few things about these passages, in relation to a possible connection with the RatnarÄÅi. None of the passages presents itself as looking like a lost or missing part of the RatnarÄÅi in terms of its tone or character, and we would be hard pressed to locate a suitable place to insert any one of these passages in the extant sÅ«tra. Their overwhelmingly âMahÄyÄnisticâ tone also sets them apart from the general atmosphere of the RatnarÄÅi. The constant negative comparisons of the disciples or arhats with the bodhisattvas is not to be found in the extant RatnarÄÅi. Likewise the similes, so common in the KÄÅyapaparivarta, for example, are not in character with the literary style of the RatnarÄÅi. Finally, although the importance of stÅ«pas in the world of the RatnarÄÅi is very clear, especially in Chapter IV the type of reverence for stÅ«pas evident in the sÅ«tra is entirely different from that in these passages. All of these things combine to suggest that, rather than representing materials now lost from the RatnarÄÅi as we have it, none of these passages in fact ever actually belonged to the text we now know as the RatnarÄÅi.
It is, of course, true that finding the âsourceâ of a passage or idea does not necessarily put one any closer to actually understanding the passage itself, especially if one is interested in how it is being used and given meaning in its new environment (although comparison is usually illuminating). In the present case, however, in which we are explicitly dealing with anthologies, it is therefore reasonable to suggest that the author(s) of the SÅ«trasamuccaya (and in his turn ÅÄntideva) either actually quoted (or paraphrased) the passages from somewhere. To further explore the history of Buddhist literature in India, to understand the history of the anthologies themselves, and to try to understand the ways the passages might have changed meaning as they changed context, locating the source(s)âshould this ever prove possibleâpromises to be of significant help.
These two earlier anthologies are not, however, the only sources in which we find passages attributed to a RatnarÄÅi, but whose content does not seem to belong to the text as we know it. We thus turn now to the chronologically latest of the anthologies taken up here, the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya of Dipaá¹karaÅrÄ«jñÄna. There we find five passage attributed to the RatnarÄÅi, at least if we understand that the Tibetan âOd srungs kyis zhus pa is meant to designate this text, as it does in all five authentic citations of the sÅ«tra in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, as seen above, a fact which is itself puzzling since, as noted above, this rendering can hardly refer to anything other than what we now know as the KÄÅyapaparivarta (more historically, surely RatnakÅ«á¹a in its Indian contexts, here perhaps closer to *KÄÅyapapariprÌ¥cchÄ). Several of the following passages may perhaps be identified, even if only very tentatively, and it is not entirely impossible that the first is something like a vague summary of material in fact found in our RatnarÄÅi. The passages are as follows:
Passage 1â§â¯1.7 (D 4b2â3):
âod srungs kyis zhus pa las kyang | dge slong dgon pa paâi dbang du byas te | cha gcig grong khyer thams cad kyi dbul po la sbyin par byaâo â gnyis pa ni dgon pa na gnas paâi dud âgroâi skye gnas su gtogs pa rnams la sbyin par byaâo zhes gsungs so.
Also from the *Questions of KÄÅyapa: Concerning the wilderness dwelling monk, one portion [of his alms] he must give to all the poor people of the city. A second [portion] he must give to those who belong to the realm of animals, who dwell in that wilderness.
It may perhaps be possible to understand this as a terse paraphrase of RatnarÄÅi V.13, which we find quoted in Skt. in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya 128.16â129.4:
tena lÅ«ham vÄ praá¹Ä«tam vÄ piá¹á¸apÄtaá¹ saá¹grÌ¥hya samantÄc caturdiÅaá¹ vyavalokayitavyaá¹Â | ka iha grÄmanagaranigame daridraḥ sattvaḥ | yasyÄsmÄt piá¹á¸apÄtÄt samvibhÄgaá¹ kariá¹£yÄmi | yadi daridraá¹ sattvaá¹ paÅyati | tena tatpiá¹á¸apÄtÄt samvibhÄgaḥ kartavyaḥ | atha na kañcit sattvaá¹ daridraá¹ paÅyati tenaivañ cittam utpÄdayitavyaá¹Â | santy anÄbhÄsagatÄḥ sattvÄ ye mama caká¹£uá¹£a ÄbhÄsan nÄgacchanti | teá¹£Äm itaḥ piá¹á¸apÄtÄd agraá¹ pratyaá¹Åaá¹ niryÄtayÄmi | dattÄdÄnÄḥ paribhuñjatÄá¹Â |
Whether he obtains bad or good alms, he should look around everywhere in the four directions, thinking: âWho is the needful poor person in this town, village or city, with whom I should share [food] from these alms of mine?â If he sees a poor person, he should share with him from those alms. If he does not see any poor person, he should think thus: âThere are unseen beings who do not appear in my sight, I must give the best portion of my alms to them. May they enjoy what I have given!â
Passage 2â§â¯1.15 (D 7b4â5):
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | de ciâi phyir zhe na | shÄ riâi bu byang chub sems dpaâ rab tu byung bar gtogs pa rnams ni | chos sbyin par byed pas gnas par âgyur la | byang chub sems dpaâ khyim pa rnams ni | zang zing thams cad yongs su gtong ba dag la ser sna med pas gnas par âgyur ro â shÄ riâi bu deâi phyir chos kyi sbyin pa dag gis bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs paâi byang chub tu mngon par sangs rgyas par nus kyi | de ltar zang zing gi sbyin pa dag gis ni ma yin no zhes gsungs so â
Also from the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: Why? ÅÄriputra, bodhisattvas who renounce the household life live making the gift of the teaching, while householder bodhisattvas live free of stinginess in abandoning all material things. ÅÄriputra, therefore, while gifts of the teaching make possible the attainment of unexcelled perfect awakening, materials gifts do not.
Similar is the following passage in the Kusumasañcaya, TÅh 266, mdo sde, âa, 302a1â2:
de ciâi phyir zhe na | shÄ riâi bu gang dag chos kyi sbyin pa la âdzud par byed paâi byang chub sems dpaâ chos kyi sbyin pa la dpaâ ba de ni bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs paâi byang chub tu nye bar gyur pa yin no â de bas na shÄ riâi bu chos kyi sbyin pa mchog la gzud par byaâi zang zing gi sbyin pa la gzud par mi byaâo â gang dag skyes bu dam pa de dag la sbyin pa sbyin par byed na de dag gis chos kyi sbyin pa nyid sbyin par byaâi | zang zing gi sbyin pa ni ma yin te |
Passage 3â§â¯6.6 (D 39b5â40a1):
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | gang byang chub sems dpaâ gang zhig byang chub sems dpaâ la mnar sems paâi sems bskyed pa de ni | de bzhin gshegs pa la mnar sems paâi sems bskyed par âgyur ro â sha ra dva tiâi bu mtshams med pa lnga po las mtshams med pa gang yang rung ba zhig byas pa ni blaâi | byang chub sems dpaâ la mnar sems paâi sems bskyed pa ni ma yin pa nyid do â de ciâi phyir zhe na | shÄ riâi bu âdi ltar rnam pa thams cad mkhyen pa nyid ni byang chub sems dpaâ las nges par byung ngo â gal te byang chub sems dpaâ sems can rnams la mnar sems paâi sems bskyed na thams cad mkhyen pa nyid du mi âgyur ro â de ltar na byang chub sems las byang chub sems dpaâ byung zhing | byang chub sems dpaâ las de bzhin gshegs pa byung ngo â shÄ riâi bu deâi phyir byang chub sems dpas | byang chub sems dpaâ la mnar sems paâi sems bskyed par mi bya zhing | byang chub sems dpas byang chub sems dpaâ la brnyas par mi byaâo zhes gsungs so â
Also from the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: Whichever bodhisattva produces a hostile attitude toward another bodhisattva produces [thereby] a hostile attitude toward the TathÄgata. ÅÄriputra, it would be better even if one were to perform some sin of immediate retribution from among the five sins of immediate retribution than to produce a hostile attitude toward a bodhisattva. Why? ÅÄriputra, in this manner, omniscience with respect to all aspects is born from the bodhisattvas. If a bodhisattva were to produce a hostile attitude toward beings, this would not produce omniscience. In this manner, bodhisattvas are born from the aspiration to awakening, and TathÄgatas are born from bodhisattvas. ÅÄriputra, therefore bodhisattvas must not produce a hostile attitude toward bodhisattvas, nor look down on them.
Passage 4â§â¯29.9 (D 155a1âb5); this is the same basic text as SÅ«trasamuccaya passage 1, above, here somewhat extended in comparison with that earlier passage:
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | kun dgaâ bo de lta bas na dkon mchog gsum yongs su âdzin par âdod pas byang chub sems dpaâ rnams yongs su gzung bar byaâo â byang chub sems dpaâ rnams yang dag par sdud par byaâo â kun dgaâ bo don gyi dbang âdi gzigs nas de bzhin gshegs pa rnams nyan thos dang rang sangs rgyas dag la buâi âdu shes yang dag par skyed par mi mdzad do â de ciâi phyir zhe na | kun dgaâ bo gal te stong gsum gyi stong chen po âdi nyan thos dang rang sangs rgyas rnams kyis gang bar gyur la | de dag las gang bdag gis sems can khyed cag rnams mgron du gnyer bar byaâo â bdag nyid bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs paâi byang chub tu mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas nas âkhor ba na spyod pa rnams sdug bsngal thams cad las thar bar byaâo zhes sems can thams cad dbugs âbyin par byed pa âgaâ yang med do â kun dgaâ bo âdi ji snyam du sems | lag pa dang rkang pa dag bcad na mi de gson par âgyur ram | gsol pa | bcom ldan âdas gson par âgyur lags so â bkaâ stsal pa | yang âgaâ zhig snying phyung bar gyur na gson par âgyur ram | bcom ldan âdas de ni ma lags so â bkaâ stsal pa | kun dgaâ bo lag pa dang rkang pa ji lta ba de bzhin du ngaâi shÄ riâi bu dang maud gal gyi bu dag yin la | snying ji lta ba de bzhin du ngaâi byang chub sems dpaâ rnams yin no â kun dgaâ bo gal te byang chub sems dpaâ shing rta la zhon nas | sil snyan yan lag lnga dang ldan pas rtse rol dgaâ bar byed la | âgaâ zhig deâi shing rta âdren par mi byed na | kun dgaâ bo de bzhin gshegs pa kho nas byang chub sems dpaâ deâi shing rta mgo bos âdren par mdzad do â kun dgaâ bo gal te gnas brtan shÄ riâi bu dang maud gal gyi bu gnyis bskal paâam | bskal pa las lhag par rnam par thar paâi sgo gsum la gnas na yang | de la de bzhin gshegs pa rim gro dang bsnyen bkur gyi phyir spro bar mdzad par mi âgyur ro â kun dgaâ bo gang byang chub sems dpaâ âdod paâi yon tan lnga la smad de | nyon mongs pa thams cad pham par byas nas | de bzhin gshegs paâi stobs bcu yongs su rdzogs par byed | mi âjigs pa bzhi dang | sangs rgyas kyi chos ma âdres pa bco brgyad yongs su rdzogs par byed paâi dus de ni yod la | yang nyan thos ni sangs rgyas kyi chos rnams la mi âjug cing | sems can gyi khams thams cad kyi don du go cha chen po gyon par nus paâang ma yin no â des na de bzhin gshegs pa ni âdi lta ste sems can thams cad la thugs brtse ba nyid kyis sems can thams cad la phan pa dang bde baâi phyir byang chub sems dpaâ yang dag par gzung ba gsung bar mdzad do â kun dgaâ bo âdi lta ste | dper na âkhor los sgyur baâi rgyal poâi btsun mo dam pa ma yin paâi bu de bzhin du ngaâi shÄ riâi bu dang maud gal gyi bu gnyis dang de las gzhan paâi nyan thos rnams yin par lta bar byaâo â dper na btsun mo dam paâi bu âkhor los sgyur baâi mtshan nyid dang ldan pa de bzhin du byang chub sems dpaâ yin par blta bar byaâo zhes gsungs so â
Also from the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: âÄnanda, therefore, one who wishes to hold fast to the Three Jewels should embrace the bodhisattvas. He should gather up the bodhisattvas. Änanda, being aware of this fact, TathÄgatas do not have the idea that the disciples and lone buddhas are their [real] sons. Why? Änanda, even if this billion-fold universe were filled with disciples and lone buddhas, not a single one among them would be able to comfort all beings, saying âI will take care of you beings. Having myself attained unexcelled perfect awakening, I will release from all sufferings those who move through the rounds of transmigration.â
âÄnanda, what do you think? Will a man with his hands and feet cut off survive?â
[Änanda] said: âBlessed One, he would survive.â
[The Buddha] said: âAnd what of one whose heart is taken out, could he survive?â
[Änanda said]: âBlessed One, he would not survive.â
[The Buddha] said: âÄnanda, just as hands and feet are my disciples, ÅÄriputra and MaudgalyÄyana, but as my heart are my bodhisattvas. Änanda, if a bodhisattva mounts a cart and, with the five kinds of instrumental music were to disport himself as he pleased, no one [else] would lead that cart of his, Änanda, only the TathÄgata would lead forward that cart of the bodhisattva. Änanda, even if the Elders ÅÄriputra and MaudgalyÄyana were to dwell in the three gates of liberation for an aeon or more than an aeon, the Blessed One will not be inclined to reverence or serve them. Änanda, there may be an occasion on which a bodhisattva who sports with the five objects of desire [nevertheless] masters all the defilements, perfects the ten powers of a TathÄgata, and perfects the four fearlessnesses and the eighteen special qualities of a Buddha, but still, a disciple, not understanding the Buddhaâs teachings, will not be able to don the great armor for the sake of the totality of beings. Therefore the TathÄgata in this manner, out of compassion for all beings, and in order to benefit and please all beings, preached about embracing the bodhisattvas. Änanda, to take an example, my two disciples ÅÄriputra and MaudgalyÄyana, as well as the other disciples, should be seen as like the son of a Universal Emperorâs secondary consort. The bodhisattvas should be seen as like [true] son of the chief consort, who possess the marks of the Universal Emperor [just as they possess the marks of a Buddha].â
Passage 5â§â¯30.4 (D 157b7â158a6):54
rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las kyang | de la bcom ldan âdas kyis gnas brtan shÄ riâi bu la bkaâ stsal pa | shÄ riâi bu âdi ltar byang chub sems dpaâ chos thams cad zil gyis gnon par âgyur te | shÄ riâi bu rang sangs rgyas de dag gi tshul khrims gang yin pa dang | sems can thams cad de dag gi tshul khrims gang yin pa des ni byang chub sems dpaâi tshul khrims thams cad mkhyen pa nyid kyi sems las byung baâi brgyaâi char yang nye bar mi âgro ba nas | rgyuâi bar du yang nye bar mi âgroâo â shÄ riâi bu de lta bas na byang chub sems dpaâi tshul khrims kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yongs su dag par blta bar byaâo ârang sangs rgyas de dag gi bzod pa gang yin pa dang | byang chub sems dpaâi bzod pa gang yin pa las bzod pa snga ma des ni bzod pa âdiâi brgyaâi char yang nye bar mi âgro ba nas | rgyuâi bar du yang mi âgroâo zhes de bzhin du sbyar te | de bzhin du byang chub sems dpaâi brtson âgrus dang | bsam gtan dang | shes rab dang | byams pa dang | snying rje dang | dgaâ ba dang | btang snyoms dang | byang chub kyi phyogs kyi chos thams cad ni mchog ces byaâo zhes bya ba nas gong na med pa zhes byaâo zhes bya baâi bar dang | shÄ riâi bu de ltar na sems bskyed pa mchog rnams la | gang zhig bar du gcod par brtson pa de ni bsod nams ma yin pa mang du skyed do â gang zhig rang sangs rgyas de dag gi rang gi byang chub la bar chad bya baâi phyir brtson pa dang | gang zhig byang chub sems dpaâ la bar chad bya baâi phyir brtson pa de gnyis las | âdi ni bsod nams ma yin paâi phung po ches mang du skyed do zhes gsungs so â
Also from the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra: In that regard, the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable ÅÄriputra: âÅÄriputra, a bodhisattva will outshine [others] in all aspects. And ÅÄriputra, the discipline of those lone buddhas, and the discipline of all those beings, does not reach even a hundredth part of the discipline of the bodhisattva, which arises from the mind of omniscienceâit does not permit any comparison. ÅÄriputra, therefore one should see the bodhisattvaâs perfection of discipline as [extremely] pure. As far as the patience of the lone buddhas goes, it does not reach even a hundredth part of the patience of the bodhisattvaâit does not permit any comparison. ⦠As for the bodhisattvaâs energy, concentration, wisdom, compassion, love, joy, equanimity [the qualities constituent of a buddha]âall the qualities of a bodhisattva are proclaimed to be superior, without equal. ⦠Therefore, ÅÄriputra, those who strive to create hindrances for the supreme aspirants [to awakening, that is, bodhisattvas] will generate much demerit. Of the two, those who strive to create hindrances to self-awakening of those lone buddhas and those who strive to create hindrances to bodhisattvas, the latter generates a much bigger heap of demerit.â
A final source worth mentioning here is the Dasheng xiuxing pusa xingmen zhujing yaoji 大ä¹ä¿®è¡è©è©è¡é諸ç¶è¦é (T. 847), a work translated into, or compiled in, Chinese in 721 by Zhiyan æºå´.55 Although Harrison (2023) considers it without doubt to be an Indian work, I would be more hesitant.56 Be that as it may, this anthology contains a passage credited to a *RatnarÄÅi (or at least to a text with a Chinese title identical with that of the current RatnarÄÅi, namely Baoju jing 寶èç¶), and one that seems to correspond conceptually to several of the, otherwise unidentified, passages quoted and translated above. The passage reads:57
åç¼è©æå¿, æéè²èãç¾ æ¼¢èä¿®è¡è©è©æ¸é, è¼éä¸åã
ç¾æ, ä½åé·èèå©å¼è¨: ãè¥æ¤ä¸å大åä¸çè¡ç, çå¾é¿ç¾ æ¼¢æ, 復æä¸å大åä¸çè¡ç, çå¾æä½ãæ¯è«¸ä½ååç½®ä¸ç¾ æ¼¢ãååä¾é¤æ¯è«¸å¦ä¾ãæç¶ä¸å«ãç¾å«ã åå«ä¹è³ç¶æ¼ææ²³æ²å«ãèå©å¼, æ¼æäºä½ãæ³å¾©ä¾é¤ç¡éç¡é諸ä½å¦ä¾, å ¶ç¦çå¤, 説ä¸å¯ç¡ãä½è¨: è¥æå¦æ¯ç¡éé¿ç¾ æ¼¢ä¾é¤å¦æ¯ç¡é諸ä½, 復æåç¼è©æå¿è , æ¯äººåå¾³å¤æ¼æ¯æ¸ç¾ æ¼¢ãæ³ä»¥è©æç¡æ·æ , ä¾é¤è«¸ä½å諸å¼åã師å§ãåå°ãåç¥èç, ä¹è³çç, æ½å ¶ä¸åä¹é£, æ¤ä¹åå¾³æ¯é¿ç¾ æ¼¢ä¾é¤åå¾³, ç¾åååä¸å¦ä¾é¤åä¿®è©æå¿è ãã
The respective weight [of the merit produced by] the initial aspiration to awakening, compared with the quantities [of merit] of disciples arhats and practicing bodhisattvas, is different.
At that time, the Buddha spoke to the Elder ÅÄriputra, saying: âImagine that all beings in the billion-fold cosmos were to become arhats, and then suppose that all beings in the billion-fold cosmos were to become buddhas, and imagine that before each one of those buddhas stood a single one of those arhats, and each one of those arhats were to make offerings to those respective TathÄgatas, whether for one aeon, a hundred aeons, a thousand aeons ⦠up to ⦠for aeons as many as the sands of the Ganges river. Well then, ÅÄriputra, what do you think? Even more, if they were to make offerings [not to a single TathÄgata but] to limitless, boundless buddhas, TathÄgatas, then the merit from that would be enormous, it would be inexpressible.58 The Buddha said: Suppose that in such a manner limitless arhats were to make offerings to equally limitless buddhas, but then again, on the other hand, suppose that there is someone who has made the initial aspiration to awakening [that is, a beginner bodhisattva], then this personâs merit is greater than that of those numerous arhats. Even if, with the goal of preventing the severance of the lineage of awakening, one were to offer but a single portion of food [riceball?] to all the buddhas and their disciples, to teachers, preceptors, good friends and so on, even down to animals, the merit of this act, in comparison with the merit produced by the offerings of those arhats [to innumerable buddhas], would not equal even a hundreth or a thousandth of the merit generated by the offering to one who has made the initial aspiration to awakening.â
4 Conclusion
The materials we have examined above do not lead us to a grand conclusion. We have learned that Tibetan translators, some working centuries apart, followed much the same method, if we are even justified to use the word âmethodâ to refer to what Harrison rightly called an often ad hoc (or more cautiously we should perhaps say, seemingly ad hoc) approach to preexisting translations, sometimes adopting them outright, even to the point of copying into their translation materials which the Sanskrit source evidently abbreviated, whether that be a single clause or sentence, or even whole verses or longer units of text. At other times, it appears that the translators were much more careful, removing vocatives, for instance, not found in their Sanskrit source, or making other similar small-scale changes. And yet again, there are cases in which they chose to offer an entirely different translation. At this point, we remain unable to penetrate further into the translation practices of these Tibetan scholars, and it is hard, at this remove, to imagine what sorts of evidence we might explore that could move us significantly closer to the clear answers we wish for. Of course, extending the type of work presented here to the entirety of the three anthologies would provide us a greater evidential basis, but it is unlikely that further such investigations will fundamentally alter the picture that we have already sketched. We must therefore, perhaps, rest content with our awareness of the challenges we face, and the humility they call for as we make use of these sources in our studies of sÅ«tras. That is to say, we have learned that we often have no reason to consider the anthologies as witness to a specific form of a text independent of the Tibetan translation of that text as transmitted in the Kanjurs. This, then, is a firm result, even if it is a negative one, that brings with it a caveat we must keep in mind as we make use of these materials. Any future editor of a sÅ«tra, for instance, should bear this in mind and be duly cautious in drawing conclusions about textual history from such translated citations.
From another perspective, it is interesting and potentially significant to notice which of the forty-nine texts of the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a collection were deemed by the compilers of the anthologies to have materials of interest and value to them. The absence of reference to a text tells us nothing: there could certainly have been myriad reasons why any of the compilers did not find in any of those works any passage relevant for their particular agendas, and given that we still do not know much about the working methods of the compilers, unless and until research sheds further light on those methods we are unable to say more. That said, one thing is certain: despite the citation of a number of texts which now, in Chinese and Tibetan, are included in this collection, none of the anthologiesânor, we may mention, any other Indian source known to usâshows any awareness that these scriptures are associated with each other in belonging to any collection. This, of course, is not a new finding, but it nevertheless continues to be relevant to our thinking about the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a as a collection.
I am grateful for the careful corrections of Paul Harrison, who offered invaluable guidance and corrections through several drafts. In addition, a number of valuable corrections were kindly offered by Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Michael Radich, to whom appropriate thanks are due. The editor Rafal Felbur offered final corrections and suggestions.
The present paper does not deal with tantric scriptural literature, for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that this literature is not referred to in the anthologies under consideration here, not even in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, a work of the tenth century. On tantric materials in works authored by DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna, who was responsible for the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, see Mochizuki 2016: 659â681. Paul Harrison (personal communication) suggests, however, that âa few of the works [the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya] cites or refers to might be considered early tantras.â This, it seems to me, leads us into the extremely unclear area of the definition of tantric literature, which for the moment at least I prefer to avoid.
There are high hopes that this situation may gradually change when access to the treasure houses of Tibetan monasteries becomes possible. In addition, we are already gradually getting access to fragments of MahÄyÄna scriptures in GÄndhÄrÄ« as well.
In this regard, see the comments of Jens-Uwe Hartmann 2019: 17: âThe scholar of ancient India is continually faced with an extreme incongruity between the amazing amount of literatureâeven in the Buddhist tradition where so much has been lostâand the total absence of knowledge about the âSitz im Lebenâ of this literature, about its place in the life of the people using and producing it. Regardless of which specific text among those that later became classified as MahÄyÄna sÅ«tras we take up, we know nothing about the precise place and the time in which it was produced; we know practically nothing about the people who produced it, about their motives or their economic situation; and, even worse, we know practically nothing about the audience, about the people such a sÅ«tra was addressed to, about its purpose and its use. We do not know which people read or studied such a sÅ«tra; nor do we even know if each sÅ«tra was read and studied at all.â
On anthologies, see Mochizuki 2015. Although the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya and SÅ«trasamuccaya are also preserved in Chinese translation, these sources are not relevant below and are therefore left aside. Note, however, that they do provide evidence for the establishment of states of the Indic texts that may be otherwise unavailable, and are thus essential in any wider considerations of these sources. Jens-Uwe Hartmann notes in regard to establishing states of texts and relative dating: âThis also holds true for the gSuá¹ rab rin po cheâi gtam rgyud of sKa ba dPal-brtsegs (raká¹£ita), if he is indeed the author or compiler (TP No. 5844, TD No. 4357 [= 4362]), which would make the work much earlier than Atisaâs.â In this regard, we might also think of the so-called Mdo sde brgyad bcu khungs (now edited in Tauscher 2021), the anthology of Phag mo gru pa called Mdo lung rin chen sprungs pa (see below note 55), and other such texts, but these too raise challenges best addressed elsewhere.
So far only a few fragments have been published in Sanskrit, by Karashima 2009 and Wang et al. 2020.
There is no known extant Sanskrit manuscript of the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya. However, as discussed by Kano 2015: 93â94, a Sanskrit manuscript is mentioned in Tibetan sources.
For lovely color photos, see
Thanks at least in part to the work of Paul Harrison, for instance 2007. After a first rendering credited to Bendall and Rouse 1922, the text was translated into English for a second time by Goodman 2016, who frequently observes differences between the Skt. and Tib. in its notes, and these can be helpful to gain a quick picture of some kinds of differences. Note that although Goodman helpfully notes the pages of Bendallâs edition, for reasons nowhere explained he in fact used the edition of Vaidya as the basis of his translation.
That said, it is true that the SÅ«trasamuccaya, TÅh. 3934, was addressed in the SÅ«trasamuccayabhÄá¹£ya-RatnÄlokÄlaá¹kÄra of RatnÄkaraÅÄnti, TÅh. 3935, ed. Mochizuki 1993â1995, trans. Mochizuki 2005â2010, and the SÅ«trasamuccayasañcayÄrtha, TÅh. 3937, credited to DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna, ed. in Mochizuki 2016: 993â996, study and trans. 301â310.
It is for this reason that I limit my attention to the three anthologies, namely because they are preserved in Tibetan. In other words, it is precisely thanks to this preservation that we are able to examine the question of the relation between the translations found in the anthologies and those of the cited sources preserved in the Kanjur. For a further anthology of potentially great interest, see Part 3, below.
Although no reference is made to this comment, or indeed to any scholarship, based apparently on a couple of examples to which they refer, Wang et al. 2020: 60 aver, âthe translators of the [SÅ«trasamuccaya] tended not to have translated directly from [the SÅ«trasamuccaya in] Skt but have copied their citations from the Tibetan translations of the source texts as long as the translators could identify and locate parallel passages in the source texts.â I think it remains to be seen whether indeed the translators only translated themselves when they did not have access to preexisting translations, but I realize that it may never be possible to actually answer this question.
Li offers an extensive discussion in Li 2016: 218â224. Unfortunately, while Li considers some citations in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, she does not mention the SÅ«trasamuccaya.
We also do not know the source of the marginalia in the manuscript, at least some instances of which were ignored by Bendall, and from this and other perspectives, it is clear that a new edition of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya, accompanied by its Tibetan and Chinese translations, identification of quotations, and consideration of the relation between quotation and sÅ«tra source, is a real desideratum. As Paul Harrison has discovered, Bendall also failed, more frequently than one would wish, to report the manuscriptâs readings correctly, sometimes rather radically so. Note that Wogihara 1904â1906 already offered many valuable corrections and suggestions, and in this series of articles, inter alia, Bendall himself corrected some of his errors in reading the manuscript. See above note 8.
To be clear, what I mean here is that as we have them the Kanjurs themselves, while relying on old materialsâtranslations made perhaps in the 9th to 12th centuriesâdate to centuries later, and even after the advent of printing most transmission was by manuscript copying, adding further complications.
Note that the Peking edition orders the sūtras within the collection slightly differently.
I count, in fact, only the following: TathÄgataguhyaka (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 3), one extremely short passage shared by the SÅ«trasamuccaya and Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya; PitÄputrasamÄgama (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 16), one small overlap; Ugradatta (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 19), the SÅ«trasamuccayaâs citation is found in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya; AdhyÄÅayasaá¹codana (MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a 25), two shared passages. In the first two cases, the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya quotes more text than is quoted in the corresponding passage of the SÅ«trasamuccaya, and thus cannot be wholly dependent on it. This very small scale of correspondence in the case of MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a quotations is also perhaps to be remarked.
On the much discussed verse of ÅÄntideva in which he recommends study of the SÅ«trasamuccaya, see Filliozat 1964. I do not think that any subsequent studies have challenged this understanding. For other studies of the relationship between the texts, see Sasaki 1965, Asano 1995, Harrison 2023.
In a few notes below (27, 28, 35, 36, 37, 40), I report the results of a small side study. I was curious whether in his own works, and in the first place in the *BodhipathapradÄ«pa and its commentary the *BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjikÄ (I follow the traditional reconstructed titles, although there is clearly some disconnection here), the same author made use of the sÅ«tra citations he had collected in his anthology. It is a puzzling result that very clearly he did not. While elsewhere his debt to ÅÄntideva and his Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya is crystal clear, there is almost no overlap between the proof texts adduced in the BodhipathapradÄ«pa and BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjika and citations in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya. This, I believe, requires some explanation. My notes in this regard, I should stress, are not intended to be comprehensive.
I am aware, thanks to the remarks of Harrison 2018: 237â240, that there also exist versions of the SÅ«trasamuccaya and Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya in the Phug brag Kanjur (although Harrison mentions only the latter), and that for the latter we also have a few fragmentary sections from Tabo. These materials will require careful consideration, but such an examination is outside the scope of the present paper.
Some of the passages below were noted by Asano 1995, 2003. I do not always agree with his conclusions.
See Mochizuki 1995: 2, and 25n7 (where he could not identify the citation).
Although Goodman 2016: 418nxiv avers that the Tibetan trans. differs from the Skt., in fact the only difference is the order of the four feet of the verse; otherwise it is a quite literal translation.
Åiká¹£. in its turn was quoted in the DurbodhÄlokÄ of âDharmakÄ«rti of Kedah,â identified in Sinclair 2021: 14, pointing out that this identification was overlooked by Isoda 1988: 102 (411) (it is the passage in the middle of the page; Isodaâs numbering system baffles me).
See Mochizuki 1993: 22, and 33n65, who was likewise unable to identify the putative citation. See also Braarvig and Pagel 2006: 22n12.
See Mochizuki 1995: 16 and 48n99 (where he points to kha, 103b7â106b6, but no such passage exists in this sÅ«tra; I think his reference to Chinese [T. 316 (XI) 206c21â207c20] more or less corresponds to the passages I identify here in Tibetan).
The sÅ«tra is cited in the BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjikÄ (Sherburne 2000: 254â255), but the cited passage is not found in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya (in the sÅ«tra it is at 167b1).
Although this text is cited in both the BodhipathapradÄ«pa and BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjikÄ (Eimer 1978: 116â119; Sherburne 2000: 178â179), it does not appear in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya.
Harrison 2018: 234 offers important notes on the passage, and adds in a personal communication: âNote that Bendall left out an anusvÄra, turning two names into one: jñÄnottaraprabhÄketuá¹, [for what the manuscript reads as] jñÄnottaraá¹ prabhÄketuá¹. Observe there is no iti at the end.â Harrison considers this Category C, but in cases where ÅÄntidevaâs presentation is so far from its putative source, I wonder if even this might be misleading, since it might not really correspond at all.
Much of the material is repeated in the BodhicaryÄvatÄrapañjikÄ of PrajñÄkaramati, which, as is well known, borrows heavily from the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya. See for the first passage ad VI.14 (La Vallée Poussin 1901â1914: 177.1â13 = Åiká¹£ 181.12â182.6, with a slight abridgement), for the second ad IX.88 (La Vallée Poussin 1901â1914: 508.7â511.2), only partial, and so on. I do not further note overlap between the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya and BodhicaryÄvatÄrapañjikÄ.
See Wogihara 1904â1906: 215.
I cite this only as an example, for there are a number of others as well: Åiká¹£. 145a5: dper na rang bzhin stong pa yi â me long dkyil âkhor yongs dag la â gzugs brnyan snang ba de bzhin du â ljon pa chos rnams shes par gyis â. From the SÅ«tra 50b1: me long shin tu yongs dag la â ji ltar rang bzhin med pa yi â gzugs brnyan snang ba de bzhin du â ljon pa chos rnams shes par gyis â. This is equivalent to Skt. 261.18â262.1: yat svabhÄvaÅÅ«nyam ÄdarÅamaá¹á¸ale supariÅuddhe saá¹drÌ¥Åyate pratibimbaá¹ tathaiva druma jÄnÄ«hÄ«mÄn dharmÄn. If this is metrical, I cannot identify its metre.
This has now been found in Sanskrit, edited in Wang et al. 2020: 81 (I quote the text as given by the editors): ugrapariprÌ¥cchÄsÅ«tre coktaá¹Â | iha grÌ¥hapate grÌ¥hÄ« bodhisatvo âgÄramadhyÄva satpuruá¹£akarmÄá¹i karoti | na kÄpuruá¹£akarmÄá¹i | dharmeá¹a bhogÄn paryeá¹£ate | nÄdharmeá¹a | samena | na viá¹£ameá¹a | samyÄgÄjÄ«vo bhavati | na mithyÄjÄ«vaḥ | parÄn aviheá¹hayan sa tebhyo dharmapratilabdhebhyo bhÄgebhyaḥ | anityasaá¹jñÄbhÄvanÄkuá¹£alaḥ | sÄram ÄdadÄti | yad uta tyÄgayan vr̥ṠhÄyan mÄtrÄpitrÌ¥Ìá¹Äm upasthÄnena putrabhÄryÄdÄsÄ«dÄsakarmakarapauruá¹£eyÄá¹Äá¹ samyagparipÄlanena mitrÄmÄtyajñÄtisÄlohitÄnÄ(á¹) satkÄreá¹a uttari ca dharmani yojanÄya. Péter Szántó will shortly publish newly available Sanskrit materials from this sÅ«tra, including a revision of this passage.
Note that the relation between this newly available passage and the material in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya is not entirely straightforward. The latter reads (I cite the manuscript, but in Bendall 1897â1902: 267.12â13): 117a3: iha grÌ¥hapate grÌ¥hÄ« bodhisatvo dharmeá¹a bhogÄn paryeá¹£ate | nÄdharmaá¹a | samena | na viá¹£ameá¹a | samyagÄjÄ«vo bhavati na viá¹£amÄjÄ«va iti |. Then: 71a4â6 (Bendall 144.5â8): putrabhÄryÄdÄsÄ«dÄsakarma[5]karapauruá¹£eyÄá¹Äá¹ samyakparibhogeneti | [Then ÅÄntidevaâs own words:] tathÄ svaparabodhipaká¹£aÅrutÄdyanta- (margin: jÄ«vitapariká¹£ÄrasyÄpi tyÄgo na kÄryaḥ | kÄryavyagratÄyÄ atyÄgo pi na kÄryaḥ)-rÄyakarau tyÄgÄtyÄgau na kÄryau | adhikasatvÄrthaÅaktes (margin: svÄrthena) tulyaÅakter vÄ bodhisatvasyÄdhikatulyakuÅalÄntarÄyakarau tyÄgÄ- (margin: anantaroktau) -tyÄgau na kÄryÄv iti siddhaá¹ bhava[6]tÄ«ti |.
See Wogihara 1904â1906: 97â98.
The same sÅ«tra is cited by DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna in the BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjikÄ (Sherburne 2000: 88â89), but the passage cited there does not correspond to anything quoted in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya.
The sÅ«tra is cited in the BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjikÄ (Sherburne 2000: 178â179, 194â199), but the cited passages are not found in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, save for a small part (Sherburne 2000: 198â199) in §â¯7.3.
The second verse here is also quoted in the BodhipathapradÄ«pa of DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna (Eimer 1978: 110 and 111 note). However, the two additional verses (Eimer 1978: 112, 113 note) quoted in the same place are not found in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya.
For the verse numbers I refer to the forthcoming reedition of the sūtra by Péter-Dániel Szántó.
Although Staël-Holstein 1926 is no longer the standard edition of the Sanskrit, its numbering remains standard and is thus quoted here.
The sÅ«tra is cited by DÄ«paá¹ karaÅrÄ«jñÄna in the BodhimÄrgadÄ«papañjikÄ (Sherburne 2000: 100â101, 298â299), the first part of which corresponds to MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya §â¯31.4, though it continues also into the next section of the sÅ«tra. The second passage does not appear in the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya, but corresponds to Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya 55.3â5.
Note that the sÅ«tra is cited in every instance here as âOd srungs kyis zhus pa, a Tibetan rendering we would expect to be equivalent to *KÄÅyapapariprÌ¥cchÄ (generally known as the *KÄÅyapaparivarta), not RatnarÄÅi.
This passage is in fact quoted in Sanskrit in the RatnagotravibhÄga (Johnston 1950: 56.16â17): nirvÄá¹am iti bhagavann upÄya eá¹£a tathÄgatÄnÄm iti.
The absence of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccayaâs so-called RatnarÄÅi quotation from the extant Chinese translation of the RatnarÄÅi was noted by Wogihara 1904â1906: 258. The titles under which the passages are quoted make it quite clear that a text named RatnarÄÅi is being referred to: the Sanskrit of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya has exactly RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra, all Tibetan versions Rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo, and the ninth century Chinese translations of both Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya and SÅ«trasamuccaya have 寶ç©ç¶. Only the last could be considered at all problematic, as it is also used to render RatnakÅ«á¹a. The *KÄÅyapaparivarta is often cited in Chinese by this name. But by the ninth century in China the RatnarÄÅi was of course known as part of the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a collection, and there can be little question that RatnarÄÅi is in fact intended here. I noted the SÅ«trasamuccaya and Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya passages in Silk 1994: 693â702.
Where the Sanskrit is available, I translate it; otherwise I translate the Tibetan. Although the Chinese evidence is important, in keeping with the approach of this article, and to save space, I give only the locations of the relevant passages in notes. I further do not engage in detailed comparisons of the different versions, yet another task for the future.
Note that although in case 4, below, we do have some Sanskrit of the SÅ«trasamuccaya, we do not have the portion of the text in which the title of the quoted material would have been given.
Also in Chinese, 大ä¹å¯¶è¦ç¾©è« T. 1635 (XXXII) 52b22âc3.
大ä¹å¯¶è¦ç¾©è« T. 1635 (XXXII) 53a18â22.
大ä¹å¯¶è¦ç¾©è« T. 1635 (XXXII) 61b19â24.
Derge TÅhoku 3940 dbu ma, khi 167b7â168a2 and Peking Åtani 5336 dbu ma, ki, 195a8âb3; I do not indicate the several trivial variants from the latter. 大ä¹éè©è©å¸è« T. 1636 (XXXII) 134a23â27.
大ä¹å¯¶è¦ç¾©è« T. 1635 (XXXII) 63a25âb1.
The manuscript has here, enclosed in parentheses, (ḥ piá¹á¸upÄtaá¹ caritvÄ pÄtraparyÄpapannaá¹ pareá¹£Äá¹ [3] samvibhajya paribhuñjÄ«ta | idan tato bahutarañ ca), that is, after bodhisatva the scribe copied a sentence from earlier, then noticed his mistake.
Derge TÅhoku 3939 dbu ma, khi 168a2âb2 and Peking Åtani 5336 dbu ma, ki, 195b3â196a3; I do not indicate the several trivial variants from the latter. 大ä¹éè©è©å¸è« T. 1636 (XXXII) 134a27âb14.
大ä¹å¯¶è¦ç¾©è« T. 1635 (XXXII) 63b1â19.
Our hint to understanding this comes from the note in Wogihara 1904â1906: 258: â312.16. tricÄ«vara(á¹)bahirdhÄ. âAny thing other than the three robes.â (72b). A bhiká¹£u should not be covetous, but he must always keep his tricÄ«vara. tricÄ«varabahirdhÄ in Bodhic° V, 85 and our text tricÄ«varabahirdhÄ(á¹) seems to mean âanything other than the three robes.ââ¯â The BodhicaryÄvatÄra verse reads: vinipÄtagatÄnÄthavratasthÄn saá¹vibhajya ca | bhuñjÄ«ta madhyamÄá¹ mÄtrÄá¹ tricÄ«varabahis tyajet, âOne should share with those fallen into unfortunate states of existence, the unprotected and those who have undertaken vows, and then should eat himself only middling portions (of food), and donate [everything else], save for his triple robe.â The commentary of PrajñÄkaramati (La Vallée Poussin 1901â1914: 141.15â142.10) clarifies: vasanÄdibhir Ätmaraká¹£ÄmÄha | tricÄ«varabahis tyajet iti â saced Ägatya kaÅcid bodhisattvaá¹ pÄtracÄ«varaá¹ yÄceta | tenÄtityÄgo na kartavyaḥ | kiá¹ tu yat tad anujñÄtaá¹ bhagavatÄ | tricÄ«varaá¹ Åramaá¹akalpaḥ | tato âtiriktaá¹ ca yad bhavet tyaktavyam arthine | nÄnyathÄ | uktaá¹ ca bodhisattvaprÄtimoká¹£e | sacet punaḥ kaÅcid Ägatya pÄtraá¹ vÄ cÄ«varaá¹ vÄ yÄceta sacet tasyÄtiriktaá¹ bhaved buddhÄnujñÄtÄt tricÄ«varÄt | yathÄ parityaktaá¹ dÄtavyam | sacet punas tasya Å«naá¹ tricÄ«varaá¹ bhavet yan niÅritya brahmacaryÄvÄsaḥ | tan na parityaktavyam | tat kasmÄd dhetoḥ | avisarjanÄ«yaá¹ hi tricÄ«varam uktaá¹ tathÄgatena | sacec chÄriputra bodhisattvas tricÄ«varaá¹ parityajya yÄcanaguruko bhavet | na tenÄlpecchatÄ ÄsevitÄ bhavet iti. In fact, the quoted passage is found in similar form in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya (I cite only the most relevant portion, MS 71b2â3; Bendall 1897â1902: 144.17â145.3): sacet punaḥ kaÅcid evÄgatya pÄtraá¹ vÄ cÄ«varam vÄ yÄceta | tasyÄtiriktaá¹ bhaved buddhÄnujñÄtÄt tricÄ«varÄd yathÄ parityaktan dÄtavyaá¹ sacet punas tasyonaá¹ cÄ«varaá¹ bhaved yan niÅritya brahmÄcaryavÄsaḥ | tan na parityakta[3]vyaá¹Â | tat kasya hetor avisarjanÄ«yan tricÄ«varam uktan tathÄgatena | sacet punaḥ ÅÄriputra bodhisatvaḥ tricÄ«varaá¹ parityajya yÄcanakaguruko bhaven na tenÄlpecchatÄ ÄsevitÄ bhavet, âSuppose, again, that someone were to come and beg for oneâs bowl or robe. If one would have an extra beyond the three robes stipulated by the Buddha, then he should give that up and donate it. But if he were then to be in need of a robe [were he to give one away], the robe upon which the life of celibacy relies, then he is not to give it up. Why? The TathÄgata has said that the triple robe is not to be abandoned. What is more, ÅÄriputra, if a bodhisattva, giving up his triple robe, were to become focused on begging, he would not be cultivating the state of having few wishes.â See on the text Fujita 1988: 121â122 (although his translation is off the mark).
One can see, incidentally, that the unusual expression initially bothered even La Vallée Poussin, who in 1896: 316 note 2 queried whether to read tricīvaraṠna hi tyajet in place of tricīvarabahis tyajet.
I am in debt to Péter Szántó for his help with this passage.
By saying that this is the final source to mention here, of course, I do not mean to imply that the sources treated here would cover all problematic attributions even of this same sÅ«tra. Tibetan sources, for instance, also contain problematic passages. In the Mdo lung rin chen dpungs pa of Phag mo gru pa rdo rje rgyal po (1110â1170), his sÅ«tra compendium, we read the following, with a verse attributed to a RatnarÄÅi: a ti yo ga ni | Rin po cheâi phung poâi mdo las | sangs rgyas kun gyi gsang baâi don | spros pa gcod cing dngos po med | rang bzhin med cing âgyur ba med | rnal âbyor pa yis shes par bya | ces so â. This does not point to anything, verse or prose, in the current RatnarÄÅi, and I have not been able to identify it elsewhere. See the Golden Manuscript Bkaâ-âbum, vol. 3, p. 218r, transcribed by Dan Martin, who very kindly shared his text with me. I checked BDRC W23860, page 666, line 6; in W3CN22944 folio 3r7âv1 (my thanks to Charles Ramble for deciphering the script for me; it reads almost identically to the other [to me more legible] edition). At the website âDans le sillage dâAdvayavajraâ (
I find somewhat suspicious that of the forty some citations, fully 10 come from texts found now in the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a collection. Since I believe (though of course I may be wrong!) that this collection did not exist as such before 713, when it was presented to the throne by Bodhiruci, for an anthology created in 721 to have such a high percentage of citations from texts from a single collection at the very least should raise questions. Perhaps the only important study of this text before Harrison 2023 was Asano 1998.
T. 847 (XVII) 956b17âc1. I rely here only on the TaishÅ edition. My profound thanks to Rafal Felbur for his invaluable guidance in the reading of this passage, to Paul Harrison for a valuable key suggestion, and to Michael Radich for further corrections. If I have not understood or followed their suggestions, of course I am to blame.
It is possible that there was a change of speaker, otherwise it is not clear why the Buddha is again named, but this is not certain.
Literature
Asano Morinobu æµ éå®ä¿¡. 1995. âSÅ«trasamuccaya to Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya: inyÅ-kyÅten yori mita eikyÅ-kankei.â SÅ«trasamuccaya 㨠Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya: å¼ç¨çµå ¸ããè¦ãå½±é¿é¢ä¿ [The SÅ«trasamuccaya and the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya: their relation in light of the texts quoted]. BukkyÅgaku ä»æå¦ 37: 56â74.
Asano Morinobu æµ éå®ä¿¡. 1996. âÅiká¹£Äsamuccaya ni okeru RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra no inyÅâ Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya ã«ããã RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra ã®å¼ç¨ [The RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra Quoted in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya]. Indogaku BukkyÅgaku kenkyÅ« å°åº¦å¦ä»æå¦ç 究 44/2: 141â145 (840â836).
Asano Morinobu æµ éå®ä¿¡. 1998. âDaijÅ shugyÅ bosatsu-gyÅmon shokyÅ yÅshÅ« ni tsuiteâ 大ä¹ä¿®è¡è©è©è¡é諸çµè¦éã«ã¤ã㦠[On another SÅ«trasamuccaya]. Indogaku bukkyÅgaku kenkyÅ« å°åº¦å¦ä»æå¦ç 究 47.1: 182â186 [329â325].
Asano Morinobu æµ éå®ä¿¡. 2003. âDaijÅ shÅ«dÅron no keifu: KyÅ no shÅ«sei kara DaijÅshÅ«bosatsugakuron eâ 大ä¹ä¿®éè«ã®ç³»è: ãçµã®éæãããã大ä¹éè©è©å¦è«ã㸠[From SÅ«trasamuccayas to Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya]. Kokushikan tetsugaku å½å£«èå²å¦ä¼ 7: 115â137.
Bendall, Cecil. 1897â1902. ÃikshÄsamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching Compiled by ÃÄntideva, Chiefly from Earlier MahÄyÄna-sÅ«tras. Bibliotheca Buddhica 1 (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy. Reprint: Osnabrück, Biblio Verlag, 1970).
Bendall, Cecil, and W[illiam] H[enry] D[enham] Rouse. 1922. Åiká¹£Ä-samuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhist Doctrine (London: John Murray).
Braarvig, Jens, and Ulrich Pagel. 2006. âFragments of the Bodhisatttvapiá¹akasÅ«tra.â In Buddhist Manuscripts Volume III. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection (Oslo: Hermes Publishing): 11â88.
Eimer, Helmut. 1978. BodhipathapradÄ«pa. Ein Lehrgedicht des AtiÅa (DÄ«paá¹karaÅrÄ«jñÄna) in der tibetischen Ãberlieferung. Asiatische Forschuneng 59 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz).
Ensink, Jacob. 1952. The Question of RÄá¹£á¹rapÄla (Zwolle: J.J. Tijl).
Filliozat, Jean. 1964. âÅiká¹£Äsamuccaya et SÅ«trasamuccaya.â Journal Asiatique 252.4: 473â478.
Finot, Louis. 1901. RÄá¹£á¹rapÄlapariprÌ¥cchÄ: SÅ«tra du MahÄyÄna. Bibliotheca Buddhica II (St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy. Reprint: Indo-Iranian Reprints II. The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1957).
Fujita KÅkan è¤ç°å å¯. 1988. ââBodhisattvaprÄtimoká¹£acatuá¹£kanirhÄraâ ni tsuiteâ â¨BodhisattvaprÄtimoká¹£acatuá¹£kanirhÄraâ©ã«ã¤ã㦠[On the BodhisattvaprÄtimoká¹£acatuá¹£kanirhÄra]. MikkyÅ Bunka å¯ææå 163: 132â117 (sic).
Goodman, Charles. 2016. The Training Anthology of ÅÄntideva: A Translation of the Åiká¹£Ä-samuccaya (New York: Oxford University Press).
Harrison, Paul. 2007. âThe Case of the Vanishing Poet: New Light on ÅÄntideva and the Åiká¹£Ä-samuccaya.â In Konrad Klaus & Jens-Uwe Hartmann, eds., Indica et Tibetica: Festschrift für Michael Hahn, zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern überreicht. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 66 (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien): 215â248.
Harrison, Paul. 2009. âVerses by ÅÄntideva in the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya: A New English Translation.â Bulletin of the Asia Institute 23 (Evo á¹£uyadi: Essays in Honor of Richard Salomonâs 65th Birthday): 87â103.
Harrison, Paul. 2018. âA Reliable Witness? On the Tibetan Translation of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya.â In Lutz Edzard, Jens W. Borgland and Ute Hüsken, eds., Reading Slowly: A Festschrift for Jens E. Braarvig (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag): 227â242.
Harrison, Paul. 2023. âAnthologizing the Great Way: Remarks on the SÅ«trasamuccaya attributed to NÄgÄrjuna and its congeners.â In Vincent Eltschinger, Jowita Kramer, Parimal Patil and Chizuko Yoshimizu, eds., Burlesque of the Philosophers: Indian and Buddhist Studies in Memory of Helmut Krasser. Hamburg Buddhist Studies Series (Bochum/Freiburg: project verlag): 93â134.
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe. 2019. âThe earliest âMahÄyÄnaâ sÅ«tra manuscripts and what they tell us.â HÅrin 20: 13â22.
Isoda Hirofumi 磯ç°ç æ. 1988. âDurbodhÄlokÄ ni tsuiteâ ã Durbodhaloka ã ã«ã¤ã㦠[On the DurbodhÄlokÄ]. Indogaku BukkyÅgaku kenkyÅ« å°åº¦å¦ä»æå¦ç 究 37.1: 413â406 (100â107).
Johnston, E.H. 1950. The RatnagotravibhÄga MahÄyÄnottaratantraÅÄstra (Patna: Bihar Research Society).
Kano, Kazuo. 2015. âThe Transmission of Sanskrit Manuscripts from India to Tibet: The Case of a Manuscript Collection in the Possession of AtiÅa DÄ«paá¹karaÅrÄ«jñÄna (980â1054).â In Carmen Meinert, ed., Transfer of Buddhism Across Central Asian Networks (7th to 13th Centuries). Dynamics in the History of Religions 8 (Leiden: Brill): 82â117.
Karashima, Seishi. 2009. âA Sanskrit Fragment of the SÅ«trasamuccaya from Central Asia.â In Martin Straube, Roland Steiner, Jayandra Soni, Michael Hahn und Mitsuyo Demoto, eds., PÄsÄdikadÄnaá¹: Festschrift für Bhikkhu PÄsÄdika. Indica et Tibetica 52 (Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag): 263â273.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de. 1896. âBodhisattvacaryÄvatÄra: Exposition de la pratique des bodhisavvta.â Le Muséon 15: 306â318.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de. 1901â1914. BodhicaryÄvatÄrapañjikÄ, PrajñÄkaramatiâs Commentary to the BodhicaryÄvatÄra of ÃÄntideva. Bibliotheca Indica 983, 1031, 1090, 1126, 1139, 1305, 1399 (Calcutta: Asiatic Society).
Li, Channa. 2016. âAuthorship Lost in Transmission: Elusive Attributions of Two Tibetan SÅ«tra Translations.â Revue dâEtudes Tibétaines 37: 207â230.
Mochizuki, Kaie æææµ·æ §. 1993â1995. âRatnÄkaraÅÄntiâs SÅ«trasamuccayabhÄá¹£yaá¹RatnÄlokÄlaá¹kÄra IâIII.â Seishin æ£²ç¥ 65: 1â40; 66: 1â38; 67: 1â62.
Mochizuki, Kaie æææµ·æ §. 2002. A Study of the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya of DÄ«paá¹karaÅrÄ«jñÄna. A Report of Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (Project 127100009). Privately printed.
Mochizuki, Kaie æææµ·æ §. 2004. A Study of the MahÄsÅ«trasamuccaya of DÄ«paá¹karaÅrÄ«jñÄna II. Tibetan Text. A Report of Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (Project 14510028). Privately printed.
Mochizuki, Kaie æææµ·æ §. 2005â2010. âRatonÄkarshÄnti KyÅjÅ« kaisetsu HÅmyÅ shÅgonron wayaku (1â6)â ã©ããã¼ã«ã©ã·ã£ã¼ã³ãã£ãçµé解説ã»å®æèå³è«ãå訳(1â6). Minobu RonsŠ身延è«å¢ 10: 1â40; 11: 1â50; 12: 29â64; 13: 65â130; 14: 21â42; 15: 1â90.
Mochizuki, Kaie. 2015. âSÅ«tra Anthologies.â In Jonathan A. Silk, ed, Brillâs Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. I (Leiden: Brill): 292â303.
Mochizuki Kaie ææ æµ·æ §. 2016. DÄ«pankarashurÄ«junyÄna kenkyÅ« ãã£ã¼ãã³ã«ã©ã·ã¥ãªã¼ã¸ã¥ãã£ã¼ãç 究 [DÄ«paá¹karÄÅrÄ«jñÄna studies]. PhD diss., Rissho University.
Nattier, Jan. 2003. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (UgrapariprÌ¥cchÄ) (Honolulu: University of Hawaiâi Press).
PÄsÄdika, Bhikkhu. 1989. NÄgÄrjunaâs SÅ«trasamuccaya: A Critical Edition of the Mdo kun las btus pa. Fontes Tibetici Havnienses 2 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag).
Régamey, Konstanty. 1938. The BhadramÄyÄkÄravyÄkaraá¹a: Introduction, Tibetan Text, Translation and Notes. The Warsaw Society of Sciences and Letters, Publications of the Oriental Commission 3 (Warsaw: NakÅadem Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego Wydano z ZasiÅku Funduszu Kultury J. PiÅsudskiego).
Sasaki Kazunori ä½ã æ¨ä¸æ². 2007. âÅiká¹£Äsamuccaya no bonbun shahon ni tsuite: Seiritsu to denshÅ ni oite hatashita gakushÅ VibÅ«tichandora no yakuwariâ Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya ã®æ¢µæåæ¬ã«ã¤ãã¦: æç«ã¨ä¼æ¿ã«ããã¦æãããå¦å ã´ã£ãã¼ãã£ãã£ã³ãã©ã®å½¹å² [On the Sanskrit Manuscript of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya: VibhÅ«ticandra as the scribe and the transporter]. Indogaku BukkyÅgaku KenkyÅ« å°åº¦å¦ä»æå¦ç 究 55.2: 92â96 (937â933).
Sasaki KÅken ä½ã æ¨åæ². 1965. âÅiká¹£Äsamuccaya to SÅ«trasamuccaya no kankei ni tsuiteâ ã·ã¯ã·ã£ã¼ã»ãµã ããã£ã¤ã¨ã¹ã¼ãã©ã»ãµã ããã£ã¤ã®é¢ä¿ã«ã¤ã㦠[On the relationship between the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya and the SÅ«trasamuccaya]. Indogaku bukkyÅgaku kenkyÅ« å°åº¦å¦ä»æå¦ç 究 14.1: 180â183.
Seyfort Ruegg, David. 1973. âOn Translating the Buddhist Canon (a dictionary of Indo-Tibetan terminology in Tibetan and Mongolia: the Dag yig mkhas paâi byuá¹ gnas of Rol-paâi-rdo-rje).â In Perala Ratnam, ed., Studies in Indo-Asian Art and Culture 3. Commemoration Volume of the 71st Birthday of Acharya Raghuvira. Åata-Piá¹aka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 209 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture): 243â261.
Sherburne, Richard. 2000. The Complete Works of AtÄ«Åa ÅrÄ« DÄ«pamkara JñÄna, Jo-bo-rje. The Lamp for the Path, the Commentary, together with the newly translated Twenty-five Key Texts (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan).
Silk, Jonathan A. 1994. The Origins and Early History of the MahÄratnakÅ«á¹a Tradition of MahÄyÄna Buddhism, With a Study of the RatnarÄÅisÅ«tra and Related Materials. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Michigan.
Sinclair, Iain. 2021. DharmakÄ«rti of Kedah: His Life, Work and Troubled Times. Temaskek Working Paper Series 2. (Singapore: Temasek History Research Centre/ISEASâYusof Ishak Institute).
Staël-Holstein, Alexander Wilhelm, Baron von. 1926. The KÄçyapaparivarta: A MahÄyÄnasÅ«tra of the RatnakÅ«á¹a Class: Edited in the Original Sanskrit in Tibetan and in Chinese (Shanghai: Commercial Press).
Tauscher, Helmut. 2021. Spug ye shes dbyangs, Mdo sde brgyad bcu khungs: An early Tibetan sūtra anthology. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 99 (Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien).
Wang, Junqi, and Meifang Zhang, Xiaofang Lü, Xin Song, Kawa Sherab Sangpo, Dazhen. 2020. âA Preliminary Study on a Newly Discovered Sanskrit Manuscript of NÄgÄrjunaâs SÅ«trasamuccaya.â Journal of Buddhist Studies (Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka & The Buddha-Dharma Centre of Hongkong) 17: 59â88.
Wogihara, Unrai. 1904â1906. âBouddhisme. Notes et Bibliographie: Contributions to the study of the Åiká¹£Äsamuccaya derived from Chinese sources (1), (Continuation), and (end),â Le Muséon (New Series) 5: 96â103, 209â215; 7: 255â261.