Journal ofIndian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 69, No. 3, March 2021

(165)

A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal:
About Sankarasvamin’s Devatisayastotra, and Some
Avadanamalas Related to Jayamuni

Okano Kiyoshi
1. I^ankarasvamin’s DevatiSayastotra and the Malikavadana

In 2018, I studied Pancalarajavadana (PRA), which is the 21*' chapter of the
Subhasitamaharatnavaddnamala (SMRAM), a Sanskrit avadanamala made in Nepal. At
that time, I discovered that the text of PRA contained a long-borrowed passage from the
Sadgatikarika of Asvaghosa (or Dharmikasubhutighosa); that is, from the T' to 104"' verses. Using these new data from the PRA text and the editio princeps of the Sadgatikarika by
Paul Mus (1939), I then published a new critical text of the Sadgatikarika^ and publishedan entire critical text of the PRA the following year.^’ In 2019,1 began to study the previous chapter of PRA, which is referred to as Malikavadana (MA), or the 20"’ chapter of
SMRAM. I soon discovered that the Sanskrit text of Sankarasvamin’s Devatisayastotra(DS), alias Devatdvimarsastuti, was almost entirely contained in the text of MA. Based on
this finding, I recently published my studies on both DS and MA.^’ The first section of thispaper briefly discusses the results of my research on DS.
Specifically, I found that stanzas 148 through 167 in the text of MA borrowed fromDS, the whole of which consists of 21 stanzas. With the exception of the 2T‘ stanza, MA
borrowed from each of these, albeit with many deliberate alterations. This “borrowed text”
portion of DS found in MA (i.e., stanzas 148-167, corresponding to DS stanzas 1-20) can
help improve the critical edition of DS published by Michael Hahn (2000). I therefore
made attempts to revise Hahn’s DS text by presenting my suggestions for improvements.''’Comparing the two texts was not so simple, however. In this regard,I encountered substan
tial problems due to a variety of differences between Hahn’s DS text and the “DS text” in
MA. Table 1 shows important differences between the texts of Hahn’s DS edition and myedition of the “DS text” in MA.^’— 1143 —(166)A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)

Table 1PS stanzaTPS ed. by Hahnlapratyaksato na bhagavan sugato na visnuh

MA ed. by Okanolbalokyatesambuddha eva bhagavan suguni na visnursam^asyate

2a°dayudharaudrapanih°do vighmaih pramayT

2b

rudro vibhutyajakapaladharah pramattah
pujayemahi susantam

3bsambhur vilagnanrsiro-'grakapalamali
pujayama upasantam°kulanaSakaro babhOva
kilasTt

4d

vancanTyah

5a*°janakani
na*vafichanTyah(< vanchanTyah Ms.)
°janitanica

6b

krpaya vidhisu

jagatah kipaya

7asacakrayudham*yuvatim *anke suvadanamca cakrayudham
suratim ahke suvadanam

2d
3a

5d

8a

°nipanasakarah sa cakn
pinaki9a< —)(*badhl? or *drohT? or *him§ro?)*himsro(< himsya Ms.)

9d°bale svalpo ’pi doso 'sti kah°balo srasto ’py adosah suhrt

10aripavo na canye

10bsaksan na drstacara ekataro 'pi caisam

lOd°lolatayana ripur na canyah
sasta trilokagurur ekatamo 'pi dhlrah°lobhataya

12c

sphutam yasya*santamgudham ya§ casantas12d
14b®vinasa°°vipatti°

14b°abhyudgatah°abhyudyatah

14cgakyakule *vare(?) *’dbhutamatis *trata
asura*sura*ratna°sakyakulendur acyutamatis trata
asurasuradara®

15a
15b

mayanvTtarn (?)

mayavitvam (or *mayavitve?)

15c

api vimukto *’budhataya

aparimukto 'budhataya

16b

mahim mahatim visrjya harayevapa
kastam balih

16d

visrjya haraye *mahTrn (*sa) balir
apa kastain daiam®*karambaram

17c
17d

yuktimac*§astus18cd®cetasam *janair asesaih

19a
19b

yasya ca na santi nikhila

19c
19d
20a
20b
20c
20d

°talan ca sampraptavan
muktimackaryas®cetasa janena lesaih
yasyapi kificin na hi dosalesain

dosah sarve guna§ ca vidyante
brahma va visnur va

sarve gunah santi jagaddhitarthe

maheSvaro va sa me sasta

brahmapi visnur giriso harir va
sa me hi sasta subhakari mitram

dosa na vidyante
camitana vidyate doso
sakalasarvajna§ ca krpalu^ cagatahsarvajnah sajagacchasta
vraje(In the above table, an asterisk (*) indicates that the accompanying word is based on a conjectural
reading by the editor.)— 1144 —A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)(167)

When comparing the two texts, I noticed that eight stanzas (i.e., nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 16,
19, and 20) of the “DS text” of MA did not faithfully borrow from the original DS text. In
those stanzas, many words seemed to have been tampered with in later times. In such places, one must take caution when using the “DS text” of MA text to improve the text of DS.
This is because the DS text borrowed by MA was likely tampered with by the author(group) of MA in Nepal. However, such serious and intentional alterations are not found in
all the stanzas of the “DS text” in MA.Indeed, a deeper investigation shows that such de¬liberate alterations tend to be concentrated at the beginning and end of the DS text (i.e.,stanza nos. 1, 2, 3, 16, 19, and 20), with the exception of two stanzas in the middle section(i.e., nos. 9 and 10). I tried to explain why these stanzas must be modified in a previous pa
per that was written based on my comparisons.®^ The reasons for alterations are especiallyclear in stanzas 1 and 10, which contain modifications of borrowed sentences from DS.
Specifically, this was done to establish consistency with the story presented in MA,the plotof which contradicts an assertion in DS that Buddhas are invisible. In conclusion, when us
ing the “DS text” of MA,one must properly distinguish between the eight modified stanzas(i.e., nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20) and the relatively unmodified other 12 (i.e., nos. 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18), which provide useful data from the “DS text” of MA
in order to improve Hahn’s DS text.
.7)

My newly suggested improvements for Hahn’s DS text are as follows:
vdnchaniyah; 5d ca\ 6b jagatah krpaya; 8a suratirrv, 9a himsro; 12c yas ca;

4d
14b°dbhyudyatah; 15b mdydvitvam (or *mayavitvey, 15c aparimukto; 18c cetasd; ISdjanena
sesaih.
Further, I used the MA text to confirm that Hahn’s conjectures in the DS edition werecorrect in many places. The following are specific words from the MA that I confirm
Hahn’s conjectures were correct: 5a vacamsv, 5c samakdni; 5d vandyatvam; 6a vadhdya; 6dtayoh; 8a afike; 9a visnuh; 9b jndtihd; 9c krurdsyd; 9c °mdmsdsim; 12d °manasah; 13arcchayd; 13c tom; 15si asurasura°; 15c vandyo-, 15c ’budhatayd; I6h mahm; llcyasya.
2. Relationship Between Nepalese avadanamalas and Jayamuni
We can not directly determine who comprised the author group of SMRAM (includingMA), which is a Nepalese avadanamala based on Avaddnasataka (Avs). However, it isworth noting that the scribe of the only manuscript of SMRAM was Jayamuni. Indeed, I— 1145 —(168)A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)proved that that manuscript of SMRAM was written by Jayamuni in a paper from 2019.®^
By focusing on this key person, I believe we can identify the time and area in which Nep
alese Avs-based avadanamalas (including SMRAM)were created. I suspect that Jayamu
ni was at the center of the production movement for the “Avs-based avadanamala litera
ture in Nepal during the 17'*’ century. In the following passages, I briefly explain my“Jayamuni hypothesis.”
As Formigatti (2016,112-113) pointed out, Jayamuni wrote an important paper man
uscript of Avs(CUL, Add. 1611), which is reliably accurate for its direct source, which isprobably a palm-leaf manuscript(NGMCP E1554/24)from the 12* to 14* centuries.^’ His
paper manuscript of Avs seems to have served as the archetype for all later paper manu
scripts of Avs in Nepal. His useful manuscript likely revived the old Indian sacred text
Avs, which was perhaps nearly forgotten for hundreds of years in Nepal before Jayamuni. I
also presume that Jayamuni’s paper manuscript of Avs played an important role in Newar
Buddhism during the 17* century, finally leading to a huge creative movement resulting ina genre of Avs-based avad^amala literature.” From the beginning, we can assume that
Jayamuni may have aimed to produce a series of avadanamalas in which most chapters of
Avs were used as source materials. This would have been done for the purpose of retellingand expanding on stories from those chapters through the use of his paper manuscript of
Avl
Regarding the literature group of “Avs-based avadanamalas,” it is confirmed that two
important works exist in Nepal as very reliable manuscripts written by the scribe Jayamu
10)ni; that is, the Kalpadrumavadanamala (KDAM) and SMRAM. As I previously showed
in a table in Okano (2006, 9),four works are considered “Avs-based avad^amalas”; namely (1) KDAM,(2) Ratnavaddnamala (RAM),”^ (3)SMRAM (whose part became a shorter
version called Ratnavadanatattva), and (4) Asokamdanamald (AAM). Table 2 is the sametable from Okano (2006, 9), as mentioned above.

— 1146 —(169)A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)
Table 2
Avs

V

VI

vn

vm

IX

X

21

41

51

61

71

81

91

22

42

52

62

72

82

92

I

n

m

1

11

2

12

IV

(varga)

KDAM
<33>

(15)

(100)

<54>

(16)
(32?)
3

13

23

43

4

14

24

44

53

63

73

83

93

64

74

84

94

85

95

RAM
(55)
25

45

26

46

56

66

76

86

96

27

47

57

67

77

87

97

8

28

48

58

68

78

88

98

9

29

49

69

79

30

50

70

80

6
SMRAM

AAM

7

10

17

20

65

60

90

(The table above shows places where each of the hundred chapters of Avs were retold in the four
avadanamalas. The Roman numerals at the top of the table indicate the number of “Class” (varga) in
Avl Numbers in()indicate Av§’s chapters that seem to be out of position when viewed from the ta
ble as a whole.)

It has been confirmed that at least two of these four works, namely (1)KDAM and (3)SMRAM were manuscripts written by the scribe Jayamuni himself. These two Jayamuni
manuscripts seem to be the earliest and the most reliable existing paper manuscripts for
those Nepalese “Av§-based avad^amalas.”
Notably, works (1) and (3) account for approximately 70% of the total number of-12)chapters in the four works of “Av§-based avadanamalas.’This fact alone suggests that

Jayamuni played an important role in establishing the entire literature of Nepalese “Av§based avad^amalas.”
Other than those two manuscripts of the “Avs-based avadmamalas,” I confirmed that
Jayamuni also wrote two important other manuscripts that can be classified as— 1147 —(170)A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)avad^amalas works; namely, these are the Tathagatajanmavadanamala (TJAM) andSambhadmmddnamdld (SAM).'^^ The main theme of those two avadanamalas is the Bud
dha’s biography. Here, the materials used for the retelling were mainly Sanskrit texts of theLalitavistam, Mahdvastu, and Buddhacarita.
In sum, regarding the four avad^amalas manuscripts written by the scribe Jayamuni(i.e., SMRAM,KDAM,TJAM and SAM),two retell the subject of the Avs, while the othertwo concern Sakyamuni’s biography. I suppose that the former two manuscripts were made14)

when Jayamuni was middle-aged, while the latter two were made during his later years.

The four remaining manuscripts of avad^amalas can be appreciated as the most valuable
manuscripts written when the production of such works were finally completed in 17* century Nepal.
Several scholars have already studied activities of Jayamuni, including Tatelman(1996, xii-xviii), Formigatti (2016), Toumier (2017, 382-393), and Marciniak (2017a;
2017b). Formigatti (2016, 112-113) showed a list of currently known Jayamuni manu
scripts, to which I have added three others; namely the three avadanamalas of SMRAM
15)(NGMCP B 101/3), TJAM(NGMCP A 123/5), and SAM (Matsunami no. 429).

Regarding TJAM and SMRAM,I published critical editions and Japanese translationsof many chapters in the South Asian Classical Studies, a journal issued by Indology of
Kyushu Univ. So far, I have published the texts of chapters 1, 3,4, 8,13, and 14 (totaling six
chapters) of TJAM,'^’ and the texts of chapters 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 38(totaling 11 chapters) of SMRAM.’ In making those editions of avadanamalas, I havealways used Jayamuni’s manuscripts of TJAM and SMRAM as the basis for my work. Ex
tensive experience with text editing has taught me that using Jayamuni’s manuscripts as thebasis for such work allows for a smooth editing process. Further, Jayamuni’s avadanamalasmanuscripts seem very close to the hypothetic “autographs,” which were made by theauthor group of avad^amalas around Jayamuni. I believe Jayamuni was also in one of theauthor groups, or at least had a close relationship with them.
From my observations outlined above, I believe that Jayamuni was not just the scribeof the manuscripts, but was also involved in the production of the many avadanamalas dur
ing the 17* century. Needless to say, the famous scholar Jayamuni may not have been the
only person to help initiate the prominent productive movement of Nepalese avadanam^asworks, but my opinion is that he likely played a leading role. His scholarly education, eco— 1148 —A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)(171)

nomic power, and social familial status may have allowed him to lead a variety of collabo
rating monks of mahaviharas (for example, Uku Baha) near the temple Mahabuddha inproducing many avadanamalas. When Jayamuni was active during the mid-17‘*’ century, I
believe that the area where many Nepalese avadanamalas were produced was centeredaround Mahabuddha, which was the temple owned by Jayamuni’s family.’*^ Some scholars,
including myself,'^^ have pointed out intentional uses of the word “Mahabuddha" can befound in many avadanamalas. This shows the influence of the temple Mahabuddha in the
production of avad^amalas. Further, as Tatelman (1996, xv) pointed out, the place referred to as Bodhimanda(pa), where the legendary teacher JayasrI in Nepal preached someavad^amalas, is also another name for Mahabuddha temple. This fact is also evidence of aclose relationship between the Nepalese avadanamalas and Jayamuni.

Notes1) See Okano 2018.
2) See Okano 2019, 52-70.
3) See Okano 2020.
4) See Okano 2020, 129-133.
5) For a more detailed table, see Okano 2020, 126-129.
6) See Okano 2020,135-139.
7) See Okano 2020, 129.
8) See Okano 2019, 14-20,52-54.
9) Cf. Demote 2006,214-215; Fiordalis 2019.
10) The manuscript of NGMCP A117/13-Al 18-1. See Asplund 2013, 56-59; Formigatti 2016, 113.
11) Sanskrit texts of 12 chapters of RAM and 26 chapters of the Ratnavadanatattva were published by
Kanga Takahata (1954).
12) Works(2) and (3) are highly homogeneous, and considered to be sister works created by the samegroup of authors. I suspect that Jayamuni’s manuscript of work (2) also would have existed in Nepal.
13) See Okano 2019, 14-16. Cf. Okano 2013 also. — 1 have supposed that SAM was produced somedecades earlier than the Bhadrakalpavadana, whose content is similar to SAM.
14) See Okano 2020, 150-151.
15) See Okano 2019, 14-17. — Asa result of researches for the identification of Jayamuni manuscripts
by Formigatti (2016, 112-113), Toumier (2017, 385-388), Marciniak (2017b, 123-125) and Okano(2019, 14-17), the following 16 manuscripts can now be considered as manuscripts written by Jayamuni,
which I have divided into two groups, A and B (cf. Okano 2000, 148-149):[Group A:] Avaddnasataka (CUL, Add. 1611); Rastrapdlapariprcchd (CUL, Add. 1586);
Sumdgadhdvaddna (CUL, Add. 1585); Divydvaddnamdld (NGMCP A 123/6); Mahdvastu (NGMCP B
98/14); Bodhisattvajdtakdvadanamdld(NGMCP B 98/4); Drdhddhydsaydvaddna by Gopadatta(NGMCP
H 380/7); Sphutdrthd Abhidharmakosavydkhyd by Yasomitra (CUL, Add. 1041); Bodhicarydvatdra(NGMCP H 380/7); DhlmatTpariprcchdvaddna(NGMCP A 131/14);[Group B:] Kalpadrumdvaddnamdld (NGMCP A 117/13 to A 118/1; A 861/5); Subhdsitamahdratndva-— 1149 —(172)A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)danamala(NGMCP B 101/3); Mahajjatakamdld(NGMCP B 98/15); Sugatavaddna(NGMCP H 380/7).
16) The following 6 chapters of TJAM have been published by me as critically editied Sanskrit texts:[chapter 1 TusitabhuvanS.^] SACS 9(2014), 112-125;[chapter 3 Myakula...] SACS 10(2015), 27-45;[chapter 4 Kauliya...] SACS 10 (2015), 59-71; [chapter 8 BodUsattvajanma...] SACS 8 (2013), 227252;[chapter 13 Grdmdntika...] SACS 12(2017), 69-81;[chapter 14 SUpakald...] SACS 14(2019), 2137, SACS 15(2020), 192-206.
17) The already published Sanskrit texts of 11 chapters of SMRAM are as follows: [chapter 16
Pretikd] SACS 7 (2012), 334-349; [chapter 17 Preffbhatamaharddhikd] SACS 8 (2013), 188-208;[chapter 20 Malika] SACS 15 (2020), 155-173; [chapter 21 Pdncalardja] SACS 14 (2019), 54-70;[chapter 23 Ya^omitra] SACS 4(2009), 144-160;[chapter 30 JdtyandhapreHkd] SACS 6(2011), 221229; [chapter 31 SrestMno ’vaddna] SACS 5 (2010), 83-91; [chapter 33 Sresthipreffbhuta] SACS 5(2010),98-111;[chapter 34 Viriipa] SACS 9(2014), 136-151;[chapter 35 Padmdksa] SACS 9(2014),
169-182; [chapter 38 Surya] SACS 10 (2015), 84-97. — In addition to the above, a Sanskrit text of
Pretikavaddna, the 15th chapter of Ratndvaddnamald, whose Jayamuni manuscript is currently missing, was also published by me: SACS 6(2011), 240-255.
18) See Okano 2019, 8-13.
19) See Tatelman 1996, xiv-xvi; Toumier 2017, 385-386; Okano 2020, 142, note 23; Okano 2019, 1213.
Abbreviations
AAM
Av§

A^okdvaddnamdld
Avaddnasataka

DS
KDAM

Devdti^ayastotra (alias Devatdvimarsastuti)
Kalpadrumavaddnamdld
Mdlikdvaddna

MA
PRA
RAM

Pdficdlardjdvaddna
Ratndvaddnamald

SACS
SAM

South Asian Classical Studies(= Minami Asia Kotengaku ffiT vTS‘:ft^)
Sambhadrdvaddnamdld

SMRAM Subhdsitamahdratndvaddnamdld
TJAM

Tathdgatajanmdvaddnamdld (alias Padyalalitavistara)

Bibliography
Asplund, Leif. 2013. The Textual History of Kavikumdrdvadana: the Relations Between the Main Texts,
Editions and Translations. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Demoto, Mitsuyo. 2006. “Fragments of the Avadanasataka.” Buddhist Manuscripts, Volume III ofManu
scripts in the Sch0yen Collection, ed. Jens Braarvig, 207-244. Oslo: Hermes Publishing.
Fiordalis, David V 2019. “The AvadanaSataka and the Kalpadrumavadanamala: What should we be do
ing now?” Critical Reviewfor Buddhist Studies 25: 47-77.
Formigatti, Camillo A. 2016. “Walking the Deckle Edge: Scribe or Author?: Jayamuni and the Creationof the Nepalese Avadanamala Literature.” Buddhist Studies Review 33(1/2): 101-140.
Hahn, Michael. 2000. “^ahkarasvamin’s Devatavimarsastuti.” In Vividharatnakarandaka: Festgabe fiir
Adelheid Mette, ed. Christine Chojnacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmaim, and Volker M. Tschannerl, 313-329.
Indica et Tibetica 37. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.

— 1150 —A Study of Buddhist Avadanamalas in Nepal(Okano)(173)

Marciniak, Katarzyna. 2017a. “The oldest paper manuscript of the Mahavastu.” Annual Report of the In
ternational Research Institutefor Advanced Buddhology XX: 103-121.
.2017b.“A manuscript of Gopadatta's Jatakamala copied by Jayamuni Vajracarya.” Annual Re
port ofthe International Research Institutefor Advanced Buddhology XX; 123-128.
Mus, Paul. 1939. La Lumiere sur les Six Voies- tableau de la transmigration bouddhique d'apres dessources sanskrites, pdli, tibetaines et chinoises en majeure partie inddites. Travaux et mdmoires deI’lnstitut d’ethnologie, 35. Paris: Institut d'ethnologie.
Okano Kiyoshi

2013. “Neparu no butsuden avadana-mara Tathagatajanmavadanamala”●y T 3^—
Tathagatajanmavadanamala. Indogaku Bukkybgaku kenkyu
62(1): 323-330.
. 2006. “Subhasitamaharatnavadanamala ni tsuite” Subhasitamaharatnavadanamalal-'^V''T.

Minami Ajia kotengaku WT

1: 1-19.

. 2018. “Rokudojyu (Sadgatikaiikah) no kenkyu: Bon-z6-kan-pa taisho Tekisuto”(Sadgatikarikah)
3^ .X h. Minami Ajia kotengaku MT v
13; 1-164.
. 2019. “Kalpalata to Avadanamala no kenkyu (8): Jayamuni, TJAM dai 14 syo (I), SMRAM
dai 21 syo, Kalpalata dai 84 syo” Kalpalatai: Avadanamala(8): Jayamuni, TJAM(I), SMRAM H21#, Kalpalata H84^. Minami Ajia kotengaku MT
14: 1-123.
. 2020. “Kalpalata to Avadanamala no kenk)m (9): Devatisayastotra, SMRAM dai 20 syo,
TJAM dai 14 syo (U)” Kalpalata i: Avadanamala<7)0f^ (9): Devatisayastotra, SMRAM H20^,
TJAM ^14$ (H). Minami Ajia kotengaku
15: 89-227.
Takahata Kanga. 1954. Ratnamaldvadana: A Garland of Precious Gems, or, a Collection of Edifying
Tales, Told in a Metrical Form, Belonging to the Mahdyana. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko.
Tatelman, Joel. 1996. “The Trials of YaSodhara: A Critical Edition, Aimotated Translation and Study of
Bhadrakalpavadana II-V” PhD diss.. University of Oxford.
Toumier, Vincent. 2017. La formation du Mahavastu et la mise en place des conceptions relatives d la
carridre du bodhisattva. EFEO Monographies no. 195. Paris: EFEO.
(This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K02217)
Key words

avadanamala, Avadanasataka, Devatisayastotra, Devatavimariastuti, Jayamuni,
Malikavadana, Subh^itamaharatnavadanamala, Sahkarasvamin, Sadgatikarika,
Sainbhadravadanamala, Tathagatajanmavadanamala(Professor, Kyushu University, PhD)

— 1151 —