A Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra Manuscript from Khotan:
The Gift of a Pious Khotanese Family*

Oskar von Hinüber

T

HE exact location, at which this manuscript was found, is unknown.
However, it is certain that it was discovered by treasure-hunters
during the last decade of the 19th century in the vicinity of Khotan, split
up and eventually sold to different European researchers.1 The by far
largest share of the manuscript was preserved first in the Asiatic Museum (Азиатский Музей), where it arrived, it seems, in two batches.
Later, it was handed over to the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of theRussian Academy of Sciences (Институт Восточных Рукописей
Российской Академии Наук) in St. Petersburg, where it is kept today.
Part of this manuscript of the altogether 396 folios2 was acquired by
Nikolaj Fedorovič Petrovskij (1837–1908), who was the Russian consul
in Kashgar between 1st June 1882 (date of appointment) and August
1903. 3 Consequently, the manuscript was known under the name“Kashgar Manuscript” for a long time, before Ronald Eric Emmerick(1937–2001) drew attention to the colophons, which are written in
Khotanese and therefore point to a provenance from Khotan rather (seebelow).4 The date of acquisition is sometimes given as 19035 probably
following A. Yuyama’s important bibliography instead of the correct
1892, if not earlier. For, a note on this manuscript appeared already in
the Zapiski Vostočnogo Otdelenija Rossijskogo Archeologičeskogo
Obščestva (Записки Восточного Отделения Российского Археоло­гичeского Обществa) “Memoirs of the Oriental Branch of the RussianArchaeological Society” no. 7 of the year 1892 (published 1893) bySergej F. Ol’denburg: Kašgarskaja rukopis’ N. F. Petrovskogo (Kaш­*This is a revised version of the introduction to Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts
from the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SIP/5, etc.). Facsimile Edition [Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 13]. Institute of Oriental
Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Soka Gakkai, Institute of Oriental
Philosophy. St. Petersburg, Tokyo 2013, pp. CXXIII–CXL.

134

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

135гаpскaя рукопись Н. Ф. Петровского) “The Kashgar Manuscript of N.
F. Petrovskij” (p. 81 foll.).6 A substantial number of fragments fromvarious manuscripts, among them an unspecified number of folios of the
Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra, were
presented to the Imperial Russian Academy in St. Petersburg in 1910 byGeorge Macartney (1867–1945), consul at Kashgar between 1890 and
1918.7 It is not clear, how many folios belong to each gift.
Furthermore, the British Library holds 40 folios in the Stein Collection and 4 folios in the Hoernle Collection8. Lastly, a small number offolios is scattered over different libraries: 9 folios of the Trinkler
Collection are kept in Staatsbibliothek, Preußischer Kulturbesitz in
Berlin. These are the “Marburg Fragments,” which were carefully
studied by Heinz Bechert;9 7 fragmentary folios belonging to the Otani
Collection are in the Lüshun Museum (formerly Port Arthur),10 andfinally 1 fragment in the Ellsworth Huntington Papers belongs to theSterling Library of Yale University in New Haven.11
At the beginning, it was not clear that all these folios were actuallyparts of one split up manuscript.12 First, the four folios of the Hoernle
Collection were studied in great detail by Heinrich Lüders (1869–1943).
While Lüders was working,13 the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra edition by
Bunyiu Nanjio (1849–1927) and Hendrik Kern (1833–1917) appeared
between 1908 and 1912.14 H. Kern was able to use the Kashgar (Khotan)
Manuscript only after the main body of the text, which was establishedby B. Nanjio, had already been completed, and H. Kern did so in a very
erratic way.15 With more and more material becoming available, it was
slowly recognized that all these dispersed folios belonged to one and thesame manuscript.
A first complete edition, or rather transcript, of the Kashgar (Khotan)
Manuscript was prepared by Hirofumi Toda (1936–2003) first in sevenparts between 1977 and 1979 and then again in a revised edition in
1981.16 A most useful updated survey of research was provided by Klaus
Wille in 2000.17
The Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is, however, only one of a considerable number of Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscripts recovered fromthe vicinity of Khotan, although the provenance of many Central Asian
manuscripts is either uncertain or even unknown due to the lack ofpertinent notes left by those who acquired them, or very often becauseof the reluctance of the “treasure-hunters,” from whom they wereacquired, to reveal their sources. It can be assumed that at least thefollowing 13 manuscripts and fragments may have been copied in the
Khotan area:

136

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

1. Lüshun manuscript A (Otani Collection) (likely)
2. Lüshun manuscript B (Otani Collection) (likely)18
3. Khådaliq Manuscript ed. by K. Wille 2000
4. Farhåd-B„g manuscript ed. by H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra.
Central Asian Manuscripts, pp. 229–258
5. Kashgar (Khotan) manuscript ed. by H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, pp. 3–225
6. Fragments of two (or more?) manuscripts ed. by H. Toda:
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, pp. 271–320
7. Fragments of seven manuscripts in the St. Petersburg Collection(I. SI P10 & P12 + 13; II. SI P 11[1] & P 7; III. SI P 8; IV. SI P 9; V.
SI P 11; VI. SI P 90a & 90b1; VII. SI L 1)19

The Lüshun manuscripts are by far the oldest, although a dating to the
middle of the fifth century as suggested by Z. Jiang, p. 18a according to
the palaeography, is perhaps a little early. While manuscript B may havebeen copied during the sixth century according to Z. Jiang, p. 18a, theother manuscripts, even those from Gilgit are younger, the Nepalesemanuscripts even substantially.
Manuscripts retrieved from different find-spots can be classified in
two versions, a Central Asian and a Gilgit-Nepalese branch. As H.
Bechert emphasized the Central Asian recension, which is represented
by the manuscripts from the Khotan area, is not only an older version,
but in addition split into two sub-recensions, which are distinguished by
the presence or absence of the Devadattaparivarta.20 At the same time,different linguistic usage, besides reflecting a difference in age, also
separates the two branches of the text tradition geographically.
As H. Lüders already recognized, when he investigated only four
folios from the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript, the Central Asian version
is of considerable linguistic interest, because it contains some Prakrit
forms, which induced him to think that the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra
might have been composed in Middle Indic originally. In particular, H.
Lüders points to the vocative kulaputråho, folio 260b4 a form typicalfor Mågadh¥, and found only in this Middle Indic language.21 A detailed
investigation into the language of the Lüshun manuscript by S.
Karashima has confirmed Lüders’ assumption in the meantime.22
Even though the undated Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript preserves amuch older and more Middle Indic text than the Gilgit-Nepalese branch,
it is difficult to date this manuscript, because the script used in this copy
did not change over a certain period of time. Earlier scholars such as
Nikolaj Dimitrievič Mironov (1880–1936) tried to date the Kashgar

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

137(Khotan) Manuscript to the 7th century.23 In contrast, R. E. Emmerick
assumed that the language of the colophons, which are not written in
Sanskrit, but in late Khotanese, would hardly allow for a date earlier
than the ninth, probably even the tenth century rather.24 If correct, theKashgar (Khotan) Manuscript would have been copied more or less atthe same time as the oldest Nepalese manuscripts, which are dated to the11th century. 25 However, given the uncertainty of dating “lateKhotanese”, a date during the eighth or early ninth century seems to be
more likely for the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript.26
The Khotanese colophons, which were studied by R. E. Emmerick
and by Harold Walter Bailey (1899–1996), are of considerable interest,
even if they may not be very helpful when trying to determine the dateof the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript.
H. W. Bailey provided a transcript and a translation of the colophon at
the end of the text for the first facsimile edition published by Lokesh
Chandra. Unfortunately, the last folio of the Kashgar (Khotan)
Manuscript is damaged with the middle part of the folio being lost andonly the left and right parts being extant.27 These two fragments may
preserve more than half the text of the colophon at the end of parivarta
XXVIII Anupar¥ndanå-Parivarta (folio 459b1–9):] 800: || ttË namo saddharmapuˆ∂a[]meri jsa haµbr¥hyä u pyaräna cu parilo tsuåµdä u k∑ådai jala/2/[puñina
jsa haµbr¥hyä u … jsa haµbr¥hyä u tti ru] puña phar∑aja+(na)haµbr¥hyä u jaraukulina cu pari/3/[lo tsue u … ] jsa u tti ru puña h¥v¥
bråtarä braµgalaina cu parilo tsue u ha[µ]/4/[ … ] u tti ru puña haµtsa
hvårakä saµdu∑†i jsa haµbr¥hyä cu pa/5/[rilo tsue …] haµbr¥hyä u dv¥räjalottamä jsa u dv¥rä ßik∑amåñä cu parilo /6/ [tsue …] budasaµgäna u
haµtsa vinayä jsa u <haµ>tsa pËrä nerä jalårrjunåµñä jsa /7/ […
brå](ta)rä dattakäna u haµtsa bråtarä vikrraµna u hvårakä dhaµrmakä
jsa u hvå/8/ [rakä … u tti ru puña bißyau hayË]nyau jsa u bißyaubusvåryau jsa haµbr¥hyä bißyau ysanyau jsa.

The reading of the colophon follows H. W. Bailey and H. Toda with the
exception of the end of line 2, where both read erroneously dala[,instead of a clearly visible jala[.28The extant part of the colophon in formal script begins with a figure
read by H. Toda as “800,” who however does not give the reasons for his
interpretation. Higher numbers are difficult to interpret, because theyoccur hardly ever in manuscripts, which rarely end with a number ofpages as high as or even higher than 500. One such exception is theMËlasarvåstivådavinaya found at Gilgit, where numbers up to 500 are138

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

found.29 Here it can be seen clearly, that numbers “200, 300” etc. arederived from the number “100” which in many scripts is similar to theak∑ara “a” by subscribing the numbers “2, 3” etc. When comparing thepagination of the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript, which uses numericalsigns not exactly matching the script found in the manuscript itself, it isat any rate clear that the second part of the numerical sign is indeed “8.”However, the first part hardly is a form of the sign for “100,” because it
looks quite different from the one found in the pagination, and, more
important, it seems to be derived from the ak∑ara “kha” and not from“a” as expected. Therefore, a higher number such as 8000 might bemore likely.30
Next, it is difficult to find out, what this number might refer to. A dateis very unlikely, even if “800” is read, because there is no era only
remotely matching this figure, and a round figure such as “800” issuspicious in a date anyway. Sometimes the length of the text is mentioned in the colophon, e.g., in the Mahåvastu granthapramåˆaµ ßloka
25000 “the book extends to 25,000 ßlokas,” which corresponds to
800,000 ak∑aras. A rough calculation shows that the complete Kashgar(Khotan) Manuscript comprises 458 folios with 916 pages with sevenlines of writing and with about 30 ak∑aras in each line, which amounts
to 210 ak∑aras per page or about 420 per folio. Therefore, the sum of
ak∑aras of the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is 192,360 or 6,011 ßlokas.
Neither figure matches the number “800” or “8000,” not evenapproximately. The matter is further complicated by the colophons toparivarta V, which states on folio 140 prathamacaturbhåga˙ samåpta˙“the first quarter has come to an end,” and again to parivarta XIX on
folio 360 t®t¥yaß caturbhåga˙ samåpta “the third quarter has come to anend” (see below). Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the figure“8000” might refer to the length of the last quarter of the text only.
However, the length of the last quarter is 97 folios with 40,740 ak∑aras
or 1273 ßlokas. Lastly, the price for copying the manuscript might havebeen mentioned here as it is rarely done in much later Påli manuscripts
from Northern Thailand.31 Non liquet.
After a double daˆ∂a the colophon in formal script breaks off with“homage to the Saddharmapuˆ∂a[.” This is the beginning of a text in
Khotanese. The transition to the longer colophon in cursive non-formal
script is lost. The extant parts translate as follows according to H. W.
Bailey:“…] with the mother I share [the merit] and with the father, who havegone to the other world, and with the husband Jala[puña		I share and …

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

139

with … I share and then] I share the merit with Phar∑aja + andJaraukulina, who [has gone] to the other [world and … ] with and then the
merit with my own brother Braµgalaka, who has gone to the other world,and I sha[re … ] and then I share the merit together with sister Saµdu∑†å(Sanskrit Santu∑†å), who has gone to the other [world … ] I share andwith daughter Jalottamå and daughter Íik∑amåˆ¥, who [has gone] to theother world [ … ] Buddhasaµgha and with Vinaya and together with the
son’s wife Jalårrjuñån¥ [ … bro]ther Dattaka and together with brotherVikrama and sister Dharmakå and sis[ter … and then] I share [the meritwith all frie]nds and together with all members of the household, with all
relatives.”

The translation does not pose serious problems. Only phar∑aja+na is
obscure. H. W. Bailey takes this complex to mean “judge Ja+” which,however, results in an unusually brief and therefore rather unlikely
personal name. Therefore, it is perhaps better to interpret Phar∑aja+ as
one word and as a name.32
The overall context is clear not the least due to the repetitiveness ofthe colophon formula. The end of the colophon seems to follow an
Indian model, if inscriptional evidence is compared. The inscription of
the vinayadhara Dhaµmasena says evaµ ca savehi nåti-mitabaµdhavehi and an inscription from Taxila has ñati-mitra-salohidaˆa.33
This corresponds to hayËna “friend” (mitra, cf. Saµghå†asËtra § 246,4
ha[yËna] = sakhåyå)34, bisvåra / busvåra “kinsman” (probablybåndhava) and ysani “kinsman” (ñåti, cf. Saµghå†asËtra § 243 verse 30ysåne = jñåtaya˙; ysani also translates bandhujana)35.
A number of deceased persons are mentioned in the beginning after
the principal donor, lady Suviprabhå, whose husband is named among
the persons enumerated to share the merit. The names of altogether 26
persons are preserved in this fragment. Moreover, at least 7 names canbe inferred as missing out of an uncertain number of names actually
lost. It is impossible, to calculate the number of persons probably
exceeding 50 exactly (see below).
For, as a complete folio measures 57 cm by 18 cm, while the extant
right part of the colophon folio measures only 13 cm by 21 cm,
approximately only half the text of the colophon is extant here, which,however, can be supplemented in part by the fragment in the British
Library (cf. note 27 above). The space at the bottom of the fragmentshows that the last line is preserved. Therefore, about 5 cm of the
topmost part of this folio are lost. This missing part of the fragment
contained two lines (ca. 60 ak∑aras) in formal script with the end of the140a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra and at least a brief colophon. In front of theextant part of the colophon in formal script about 14 ak∑aras are lost, if
the text was distributed symmetrically on both sides of the rosette. The
text of line 3 breaks of with saddharmapu[ˆ∂ar¥kasËtra] or saddharmapu[ˆ∂ar¥] with 6 ak∑aras or 7 cm missing at the end.
As the radius of the rosette, which adorns the last folio, measures 7cm, the distance from the outer circle to the margin is 17 cm, which
results in the length of half a folio of 24 cm or 48 cm of a complete one.
As the folio is 57 cm long, about 4.5 cm are missing at the outer sides ofthe fragment. The shorter lines of the Khotanese colophon have about
20 extant ak∑aras with about 4 ak∑aras (~ 4 cm) broken off. Therefore,
the five lines interrupted by the rosette would have had 48 ak∑aras whencomplete, and the last three lines below the rosette contained evenapproximately 60 ak∑aras. Consequently, quite a substantial part of thetext is lost with altogether approximately 120 + 90 = 210 out of 420
ak∑aras of the complete colophon missing. This makes it impossible toestimate the number of persons involved in the donation.
The extant persons are the following:
0. Lady Suviprabhå,		 the principal donor
1. mother of Jalapuñånå †2. father of Jalapuñånå †3. husband Jalapuña
4. name(s) lost
5. Phar∑aja+ (not clear) (†?)
6. Jaraukulina †7. name(s) lost
8. brother Braµgalaka †9. name(s) lost
10. sister Santu∑†å †11. name(s) lost
12. daughter Jalottamå

13. Íik∑amåˆ¥ †14. name(s) lost
15. Buddhasaµgha
16. Vinaya
17. son’s wife (daughter-inlaw) Jalårrjuñån¥18. name(s) lost
19. brother Dattaka
20. brother Vikrama
21. sister Dharmakå
22. name(s) lost
23. friends (mitra)
24. family (båndhava)
25. kinsmen ( jñåti)As far as we can see from the colophon, lady Suviprabhå (Jalapuñånå) is
the principal donor accompanied by her husband Jalapuña and her
deceased parents, who are included in this act of merit making. Her
brother is, as stated explicitly, Braµgalaka and her sister is most likely
Santu∑†å. Whether or not the two “daughters” Jalottamå and thedeceased Íik∑amåˆ¥ are daughters or nieces of the principal donor, is notclear here. It is equally obscure, how and if the other persons relate toa saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

141

lady Suviprabhå who donated the manuscript. Therefore, it is necessary
and useful to have a close look at the colophons at the end of individual
parivartas when trying to clarify this matter.
The following colophons in formal script are preserved within the textof the manuscript mostly at the end of individual parivartas:
At the end of the introductory Stotra (4b4):
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kamahåyånasËtraråjastotraµ k®tir36 åcåryaRahulabhadrrasya
At the end of the introduction (6b2-4):
nama˙ sarvajñåya nama åryasamantabhadråya bodhisatvåya mahåsatvåya.
ayaµ deyadharmam
dānapati Jalapuñasya. siddhaµ nama˙・sarvabuddhabodhisatvebhya˙. evaµ mayå ßrutaµ … (Beginning of thetext of the sËtra)Colophons at the end of the individual parivartas:
I. Parivarta (36a1):… samåpta˙. ayaµ deyadharmam. dānapati Jalapuñasya. atha khalu …
II. Parivarta (64a6f. foll.)… samåpta˙ 2 || mi∑jei’ jalapuñ ām. na parstå p¥d. i saha jalārrjunasya.
atha khalu…
III. Parivarta (101b5 foll.):… samåpta 3 || deyadharmo yam. dånapati Suviprabhasya || atha khalv…
IV. Parivarta (121a5):… samåpta˙ 4 deyadharmau yam. jalottamasya || atha khalv …
V. Parivarta (140a6):
samåpta˙ ||—ttË namau… samåpta˙ 5 || prathamacaturbhågah
・
saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ mij∑ei’ jalapuñāna parstå p¥∂i. haµtsa pËriśparadattina || atha khalv …
No donor is mentioned at the end of Parivarta VI (150a5, space 14
ak∑aras); VII (189b4, space 15 ak∑aras); VIII (203a7, space 7 ak∑aras);
IX (211a7, space 6 ak∑aras); X (226a6, space 27 ak∑aras); XI (246a4, nospace), e.g.: … ∑a∑ta˙ samåpta˙ || 6 || (14 ak∑aras) bhËtapËrvaµ … etc.
XII. Parivarta (255b7):… samå]pta. [1]2 deya[dharmo yaµ dånapati suviprabhasya] (saha)
duhitå (dËvaka)sya (end of folio 255b; beginning of folio 256a1) athakhalu …
H. Toda supplies [saha duhitå jalotama]sya, which contradicts theevidence found in the (new) facsimile edition, where it is clear that thename of the daughter consists of only three, not four ak∑aras. Moreover,the shape of the slightly blurred ak∑aras clearly points to dËvakasya,

142

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

again a feminine name with a masculine ending, cf. note 43 below. The
gap following deya[ is tentatively filled by supplying text from thecolophon to parivarta III, etc.
XIII. Parivarta (262b7): … trayodaßama samåpta˙ 13 || atha khalu… (No donor is mentioned)
XIV. Parivarta (283a2):… caturdaßama˙ samåpta˙ || [de]yadharmau yaµ suviprab(!)asya saha
duhitå jalotamasya atha khalv anya[…
XV. Parivarta (302a7–302b2):… pañcadaßama˙ samåpta˙ 15 || mij∑ei’ jalapuñāna parstå p¥∂i uysånye
js¥ñi paderå∑ci ki∂ina. haµtsa k∑å’dai jalapuñina u pËri jalārrjām. na
dv¥rä jalotamä jsa u pËrä śparadatäna u dūvakä jsa. atha khalu …
XVI. Parivarta (311b7): (End of the parivarta lost)
XVII. Parivarta (331a1):saptåda[ßama˙ (gap) k∑å’]d[ai] jalapuñäna. atha khalu …
XVIII. Parivarta (340b3):… a∑†ådaßama˙ samåpta˙ deyadharma suviprabhasya saha putrå
jalārrjunasya. atha khalu …
XIX. Parivarta (360b3):… ekonavi∫ßatimas samåpta˙ 19 t®t¥yaß caturbhåga˙ samåpta || ayaµ
deyadharma suviprabhasya : atha khalu …
XX. Parivarta (371b6):
The text of the colophon is lost.
XXI. Parivarta (380b2):… samåpta˙ 21 deyadharmo yaµ dånapati jalapuñasya saha putrå
jalārrjunasya. atha khalu …
XXII. Parivarta (387a7):ja]lapuñasya saha suvipra[bha…]
XXIII. Parivarta (407b1):] 23 deyadharma suviprabhasya [atha khalu …
Most likely, the complete colophon is extant.
XXIV. Parivarta (421a1):[ ca. 17 ak∑aras ]sya atha
caturvi∫ßa]tima˙ samåpta˙ 24 deyadharmo yam・khalu …
According to the length of the gap, this colophon could correspond to theone of Parivarta II.
XXV. Parivarta (432b1f.):… pañcaviµßatima˙ samåpta. jalapuñasya [ (gap)
XXVI. Parivarta (445a4):
samåpta˙ deya[ (gap)
XXVII. Parivarta ( 455b7):

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

143… saptaviµßatima˙ samåpta˙ || atha khalu		… (No donor is mentioned)
XXVIII. Parivarta (459a6):]sadevagandharvamånu∑åsuråß ca (End of the line)(459a7): lost (ca. 30 ak∑aras)(459b1): lost (ca. 30 ak∑aras)(459b2): lost (ca. 30 ak∑aras)(459b3): + + + + + + + + + + + + ] 800 || ttu namo saddharmapu[ˆ∂ar¥kasËtra
(459b4): /1/ ]meri jsa haµbr¥hyä u pyaräna cu parilo tsuåµdä u k∑adaijala(459b5): /2/ [puñina jsa haµbr¥hyä u … jsa haµbr¥hyä u tti ru] puña phar∑aja+(na) haµbr¥hyä u jaraukulina cu pari(459b6): /3/ [lo tsue u … ] jsa u tti ru puña h¥v¥ bråtarä braµgalaina cu
parilo tsue u ha[µ](459b7): /4/ [ … ] u tti ru puña haµtsa hvårakä saµdu∑†i jsa haµbr¥hyä
cu pa(459b8): /5/ [rilo tsue …] haµbr¥hyä u dv¥rä jalottamä jsa u dv¥räßik∑amåñä cu parilo
tsa vinayä jsa u <haµ>tsa(459b9): /6/ [tsue …] budasaµgäna u ham・pËrä nerä jalårrjunåµñä jsa(459b10): /7/ [… brå](ta)rä dattakäna u haµtsa bråtarä vikrraµna uhvårakä dhaµrmakä jsa u hvå(459b11): /8/ [rakä … u tti ru puña bißyau hayË]nyau jsa u bißyaubusvåryau jsa haµbr¥hyä u bißyau ysanyau jsa.

Not all of the 28 parivartas are furnished with a colophon. Moreover,some colophons are partly destroyed or completely lost. Therefore,
although there could have been 28, only 18 colophons are actuallyavailable. All colophons were inserted when the manuscript was copied:
They are written by the same hand as the main body of the text, andthere are no spaces pointing to gaps that were filled in later.
All parivartas of the first quarter (prathamacaturbhåga), theparivartas I to V, have colophons, while parivartas VI to XI do not. As
can be seen in the manuscript donated by Intula37 the second quarter(dvit¥yacaturbhåga) ends with parivarta X thus comprising parivartas
VI–X. It is remarkable that there is space for names at the end ofparivartas VI to X as indicated above. The length of the gaps left open
varies between 6 ak∑aras, where just the genitive of a name would fit in
as actually found in, e.g., parivarta XXV, and 27 ak∑aras a gap thatallows inserting a longer colophon as at the end of parivarta X, where in
addition to the name of a donor also dvit¥yaßcaturbhåga˙ 2 would have144

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

to be filled in. Consequently, the third quarter (t®t¥yacaturbhåga)comprises parivartas XI to XIX, and the fourth quarter (caturthacaturbhåga) parivartas XX to XXVIII. Thus, the distribution of parivartas
and folios within the individual quarters is 5 + 5 parivartas in the first,
and 9 + 9 parivartas in the second part of the text with twice approximately 135 + 90 folios: 1st quarter: 5 parivartas (folios 7−140 = 133
folios), 2nd quarter: 5 parivartas (folios 141−226a = 85), 3rd quarter: 9
parivartas (folios 226b−360 = 134 folios), 4th quarter: 9 parivartas(folios 361−458 = 97 folios).38
Apart from the division into quarters, which seems to be rare, if notunique,39 found in these colophons within the text, there are additional
names of persons. Moreover, there are clues to their mutual relationship,
which were carefully studied by R. E. Emmerick, who, however, hadaccess only to the colophons of parivartas II, V, XV at the time.40
The language of the colophons is a mixture of Khotanese and Sanskrit in a stereotyped wording. Consequently, grammar is often neglected in these formulas, particularly gender, when masculine endings areattached to feminine names. This is, obviously, an obstacle to the comprehension of the relationship among the persons named as donors.
Following the rules of grammar blindly, it seems that there are two men,
Jalapuña and Suviprabha. The husband (Khotanese k∑å’dai) Jalapuña
has three children with lady (Khotanese mij∑ei’) Jalapuñånå, two sons
(Khotanese pËra, Sanskrit putra), Jalårjuna and Íparadatta, and one
daughter (Khotanese dv¥ra, Sanskrit duhitå) Jalottamå. Strangely,
Suviprabha also seems to have a son named Jalårjuna and a daughter
Jalottamå, a very unlikely coincidence indeed.
R. E. Emmerick tried to sort out this problem by assuming that thehusband of Jalapuñånå had two names, Jalapuña and Suviprabha. The
first name Jalapuñånå is derived from Jalapuña by help of the suffix-åña, a word formation that marks an affiliation41 thus corresponding to
the Sanskrit suffix -ån¥ indicating a wife since Vedic times such as Indraand his wife Indråˆ¥.42 Here, the Khotanese suffix -åña shows that
husband Jalapuña and wife Jalapuñånå are a couple. Also according to
R. E. Emmerick Jalapuña (masc.) is the name of the husband, as thecolophon of parivarta XV shows beyond doubt in k∑å’dai Jalapuñina“by the husband Jalapuña” and that of his wife is in Khotanese
Jalapuñånå. In Sanskrit however R. E. Emmerick assumes that the nameof the wife is Jalapuˆyå, fem. For, the colophon of parivarta XXII
ja]lapuñasya. saha suvipra[ interpreted by R. E. Emmerick as “Jalapuñå
(fem.) with Suviprabha (masc.)” If so, Jalapuña (masc., parivarta XV)
and Suviprabha (masc., parivarta XXII) should be two names of thea saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

145

same person, the husband of Jalapuñå. However, that one and the same
person bears two names, is not only unusual, but almost impossible.
The solution is comparatively easy. It is not the husband, who ismentioned under two names, but the wife, who is called in Khotanese
Jalapuñånå “the one belonging to Jalapuña (as wife)” and by her nameSuviprabhå (fem.) in Sanskrit. Of course her gender is concealed in thecolophons at the end of parivartas XIV and XXII by the masculine
ending of suviprab(h)asya. The same is true for duhitå dËvakasya “ofthe daughter DËvakä” and duhitå jalotamasya “of the daughter
Jalottamå” in the colophons to parivartas XII and XIV respectively,
which are clearly feminine names again with a masculine ending. The
problem is created by the rigid deyadharma formula, in which themasculine case ending -asya is so firmly rooted that it is usedirrespective of gender also with feminine nouns.43
Having sorted this out, we can have another look at the colophon at
the very end of the text. At the beginning the principal donor wasnamed. Therefore the missing text can be assumed to have started bysomething like:44 ]mi∑jei’ su[viprabha parstå p¥∂i. puña haµtsa] merijsa haµbr¥hyä u pyaräna cu parilo tsuåµdä “Lady Suviprabhå had(this text) written. I share the merit with my mother and my father, whohave gone to the other world …”
The family is united in the colophon to parivarta XV: “Lady
Jalapuñånå ordered (chapter 15) to be written for the sake of themaintenance of the life of herself: together with her husband Jalapuña,
and her son Jalårrjåµ, her daughter Jalotama and her son Íparadata (cf.
R. E. Emmerick, “postcript” p. 388), and (her daughter) DËvakä” (R. E.
Emmerick, p. 384 and on the name p. 386). At the same time thiscolophon underlines the purpose of the donation.45
With the exception of the Iranian names Íparadatta and DËvakä, theothers can be normalized in Sanskrit: The couple Jalapuˆya and Jalapuˆyån¥ = Suviprabhå had two sons, Jalårjuna and Íparadatta, and two
daughters, who were still alive at the time of the donation, Jalottamå andDËvak¥. The third already deceased daughter Íik∑amåˆ¥ is mentioned
only in the colophon at the end.
In the colophon at the end only the deceased anonymous parents ofSuviprabhå, her husband and one living daughter, Jalottamå, arementioned. Most likely, the names of the other members of the family
were also included, but are lost. On the other hand, one more daughter
named Íik∑amåˆ¥ surfaces together with Suviprabhå/Jalapuˆyån¥’sbrother Braµgalaka and her sister Santu∑†å. All three are deceased.
Therefore, they can participate in the merit created by the donation only

146

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

indirectly. For this reason, they are mentioned only in the colophon at
the end, which obviously is the place, where a transfer of merit ismade.46
Moreover, we learn from the colophon at the end that Suviprabhå/Jalapuˆyån¥’s son Jalårjuna is married, and his wife is also named after
her husband Jalårjuˆyån¥. The relationship of the remaining sevenpersons, Phar∑aja+(?), Jaraukulina, Buddhasaµgha, Vinaya, Dattaka,
Vikrama, and Dharmakå to the family of Jalapuˆya and Suviprabhå/Jalapuˆyån¥, if any, or among themselves remains obscure.
Some very Buddhist names mentioned in the colophon are
remarkable: Íik∑amåˆ¥,47 Buddhasaµgha, Vinaya and Dharmakå. They
recall the names of two ladies mentioned in the inscription of thevinayadhara Dhaµmasena: Bodhå and Buddhå.48 Names of this typeobviously have enjoyed certain popularity, although they do not seem tooccur in Buddhist literature, which, of course, does not at necessarilyreflect Buddhist personal names as used in real daily life.
As the principal donors Jalapuˆya and Suviprabhå/Jalapuˆyån¥ standout by the epithet dånapati attached only to their names, three times inthe extant colophons to Jalapuˆya in the very beginning of the text andat the end of parivartas I and XXI, and once to that of his wife inparivarta III. Still Suviprabhå/Jalapuˆyån¥ seems to have been theprincipal donor, because her name is found at the very beginning of thelong colophon at the end of the text.
Jalapuña is mentioned again together with the title Saddharmapuˆar¥kasËtra on two folios which are at present detached from the
Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript, to which they belong as noted by R. E.
Emmerick.49 As the text begins with siddhaµ, it is likely that these two
folios without pagination extant originally stood at the very beginning of
the text. Here, Jalapuña expresses his wish to be reborn together with hisparents and his wife (whose name is not given in this text) at a time,
when the future Buddha Maitreya will appear on earth. Moreover, hepraises the Buddha and his various selfless deeds done for all beings,
among others: “He tore off the flesh of his own skin. He made (his) bone
a document. He gave a pen … wrote with (it) one verse (ßloka)” (R. E.
Emmerick). This is a close parallel to the Book of Zambasta XXIII 1650,
where the well-known and also often quoted example of self-sacrificeby writing a Buddhist verse with one’s own blood is referred to.
Consequently, the gap might be filled by hËñi jsa “with blood” and thetranslation adjusted accordingly: “He gave a pen. He wrote with (his)blood one verse.51”
The overall number of persons—perhaps as many as 50—participat-

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

147

ing in this donation by a large and obviously at least well off family—
copying manuscripts was fairly expensive52—demonstrates that the
Sanskrit version of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra was held in highesteem in Khotan53 as do the numerous manuscripts of this text foundthere and referred to above. This is further underlined by four miniature
paintings found in a manuscript donated by the Khotanese donor Intulaand preserved in the St. Petersburg collection.54
Interestingly, the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript was perhaps also
prepared in such a way that there is room for miniature paintings. For,on folio 6b, where the text of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra begins, andat all subsequent extant ends of parivartas there are empty circles which
could have been filled by a painting. If this is correct, it is difficult toguess why the paintings were not executed, if they were ever planned, inspite of the fact that the donation as such was brought to an end as
shown by the colophon at the end of the text, which was probably added
as the last step concluding the act of merit making. One might assume
that manuscripts could be prepared to incorporate miniatures as aprecautionary measure, as it were, just in case the donors would decideto have pictures painted (and were willing to pay for them). If not, thecircles still could serve as clear markers of the end of a chapter.
More puzzling are the empty spaces at the end of the five parivartas
VI to X of the second quarter of the text, which could accommodate
colophons of different length varying from only a simple name such as
intulasya (quoted above in note 37 above) to a longer text. As statedabove, all colophons within the text seem to have been written by thescribe of the manuscript in the same formal script without any indicationthat they were added only after copying was completed. Consequently,
certain parts of the text must have been attributed to the respective
donors from the very beginning, when the donation was planned andbefore the scribe began his work. If so, these gaps and particularly theirvarying length make little sense and are difficult to understand. Was
there the hope to win additional donors to join (and share the merit aswell as the expenses) during the act of copying only, who, however,were not found or declined? This, we shall never know.
Lastly, in spite of the indubitable popularity of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra in Khotan, it was not translated into Khotanese, incontrast to other texts such as the very popular Saµghå†asËtra or theequally popular SuvarˆabhåsottamasËtra. Only a very brief summary of
the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra in Khotanese exists, but that in rather
many manuscripts, which again underlines the popularity of the text.55
Besides this summary there is one single verse translated from Sanskrit

148

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

into Khotanese and quoted in the Book of Zambasta.56 It is not likelythat this verse is the only trace left of a once complete, but losttranslation of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra into Khotanese. Rather, it
seems to be a spontaneous translation by the author of the Book ofZambasta who wanted to quote this verse in his enumeration ofindividual verses cited from different sËtra texts.57
With the Saµghå†asËtra, which was obviously widely read in Khotan
and in Gilgit in the same way as the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra was, thesituation is exactly the opposite. While G. Canevascini was able toidentify traces of no less than 29 Khotanese manuscripts of the Saµghå†asËtra, not a single Sanskrit manuscript can be traced back to
Khotan. As far as the origin of the 11 Sanskrit manuscripts is known or
can be inferred, they were either copied in Gilgit or in the northwest of
the Indian subcontinent with the only exception being manuscript “L”
written in “Proto-Bengali” script.58
The SuvarˆabhåsottamasËtra is represented by about 20 manuscripts
in Khotanese and by a considerable number of Sanskrit fragments also
from the vicinity of Khotan.59 This sËtra thus holds an intermediate
position between the exclusively Sanskrit tradition of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra and the equally exclusively Khotanese tradition of theSaµghå†asËtra in Khotan.
Given the total number of all fragments and manuscripts recoveredfrom the Khotan area, it does not seem likely, though it is of course notimpossible, that this situation is due to an accidental complete loss of all
Sanskrit manuscripts of the Saµghå†asËtra or all Khotanese traces of the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra at Khotan. It is, however, much more likelythat the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra was among the texts which were
never translated into Khotanese,60 perhaps because, as it is said in theBook of Zambasta VI.4, “the Khotanese do not value the Law at all in
Khotanese” (M. Maggi).61 If the author of the Book of Zambasta can betaken at his word, this reluctance to translate the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra again would stress the highest appreciation for this text.

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

149

NOTES
1
Thus this Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra shares the fate of many other manuscripts
among them the famous Khotan (ex Gåndhår¥) Dharmapada, cf. John Brough: TheGåndhår¥ Dharmapada edited with an introduction and commentary. London Oriental
Series, Volume 7. London 1962, p. 2.
2
The present distribution of this manuscript over various libraries is described byHirofumi Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts. Romanized Text,
Edited With an Introduction, Tables and Indices. Tokushima 1981 (reprinted 1983) [rev.:O. v. Hinüber, Indo-Iranian Journal 28. 1985, pp. 137–139]. The number of folios
preserved at different places is given in the introduction, p. XII. According to BongardLevin & Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja: Pamjatniki, as note 19 below, p. 85 the Kashgar(Khotan) Manuscript comprises 291 complete folios and 108 larger fragments.
3
An obituary by Sergej Fedorovič Ol’denburg (1863–1934): Pamjati Nikolaja
Thedoroviča Petrovskago 1837–1908 appeared in Zapiski Vostočnogo Otdelenija
Rossijskogo Archeologičeskogo Obščestva 20. 1910, pp. 1–8, where, most unfortunately, except for some bibliographical references no detailed information on antiquities
collected by N. F. Petrovskij is given, nor is the end of his tenure at Kashgar mentioned;
for the date cf. Skrine and Nightingale, Macartney at Kashgar, as below note 7, p. 134
and Bongard-Levin & Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja: Pamjatniki, as note 19 below, p. 17
mentioning only the year 1903.
4
Already August Friedrich Rudolf Hoernle (1841–1918): Manuscript Remains of
Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan. Oxford 1916 (reprinted Amsterdam1970) [rev.: Jan Willem de Jong, Indo-Iranian Journal 14. 1972, p. 265], p. 139 suspected that the manuscript came from Khådaliq. This remark was obviously often
overlooked with the exception of H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian
Manuscripts, as note 2 above, p. XI or Seishi Karashima: A Trilingual Edition of the
Lotus Sutra—New edition of the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese versions. Annual Reportof The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for
the Academic Year 2002. VI. 2003, pp. 85–182, particularly p. 86.
5The year 1903 is mentioned in Akira Yuyama: Bibliography of the Sanskrit Texts of
the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Canberra 1970 [rev.: Jan Willem de Jong, Indo-Iranian
Journal 15. 1973, pp. 140–144; F. Weller, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 70. 1975, p.
180 foll.; Boris L. Oguibénine, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1974, pp. 76–78], p.
21, and, probably following A. Yuyama, in H. Bechert: Über die Marburger Fragmente
des Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,
I. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1972, Nr. 1 [rev.: C. Vogel, Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 125. 1975, pp. 445–448; Jacques May, IndoIranian Journal 17. 1975, pp. 270–273], p. 11.—An English summary is given by H.
Bechert: Remarks on the textual history of Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka. Indo-Asian Art andCulture (Acharya Raghu Vira Commemoration Volume) 2. 1973, pp. 21–27.
6
Unfortunately, this note is not accessible to me; quoted after Margarita Iosifovna
Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja in: The Caves of One Thousand Buddhas. Russian Expeditions
on the Silk Route, on the Occasion of 190 Years of the Asiatic Museum. Exhibition
Catalogue. St. Petersburg 2008, p. 104 and Irina Fedorovna Popova: Foreword to150

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts from the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of theRussian Academy of Sciences, as note * above, p. XXVII.—Yurij Ašotovič Petrosyan:
The Collection of Oriental Manuscripts in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute ofOriental Studies and Its Investigation. Manuscripta Orientalia Vol. 2, no. 3, 1996, pp.
27–37 contains only a very general survey without any helpful details.
7
After M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja as preceding note and Bongard-Levin &Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja: Pamjatniki, as note 19 below, p. 17 with note 23, whereas thestatement ibidem p. 78 “This manuscript was received by the Academy of Sciences as a
gift from the English consul at Kashgar, G. Macartney in 1910” referring to manuscript
SI P/5 (Kashgar [Khotan] Manuscript) is an obvious error, and thus the exact details of
the acquisition of the Kashgar (Khotan) manuscript preserved in St Petersburg remain
obscure due to partly contradictory comments by G. M. Bongard-Levin and M. I.
Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja.—On Sir George Macartney: Clarmont Percival Skrine andPamela Nightingale: Macartney at Kashgar. New Light on British, Chinese, and Russian
Activities in Sinkiang, 1890–1918. London 1973, repr. Hong Kong and Oxford 1987 andLady (Catherine Borland) Macartney: An English Lady in Chinese Turkestan. Hong
Kong and Oxford 1985.
8
Jens-Uwe Hartmann & Klaus Wille: Die nordturkestanischen Sanskrit-Handschriften der Sammlung Hoernle (Funde buddhistischer Sanskrit-Handschriften II), in:Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen II,
bearbeitet von Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Klaus Wille, Claus Vogel, Günter Grönbold.
Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 4.
Göttingen 1992, pp. 9–63.
9H. Bechert: Marburger Fragmente, as note 5 above.
10
These fragments were considered as lost for some time, cf. H. Bechert, Marburger
Fragmente, as note 5 above, p. 12.
11
Akira Yuyama & Hirofumi Toda: The Huntington Fragment F of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Studia Philologica Buddhica. Occasional Paper Series II. Tokyo 1977.
12
The history of research is traced by Bechert: Marburger Framente, as note 5 above,
pp. 17–23.—According to H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, as note 2 above, p. XII, these six fragments are preserved at Peking. This needs
correction. In fact, there are not six, but seven very fragmentary folios in the Lüshun
Museum Collection. They are edited together with the remaining Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscripts from the materials collected by Kozui Otani (1876–1948) by
JIANG Zhongxin: Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Fragments from the Lüshun Museum Collection.
Facsimile Edition and Romanized Text. Lüshun and Tokyo 1997, facsimiles (“manuscript D”) pp. 174–187.
13
H. Lüders: Miscellaneous Fragments I. Saddharma-Puˆ∂ar¥ka, in: A. F. R. Hoernle:
Manuscript Remains, as note 4 above, pp. 139–162, cf. Hoernle’s note p. 143. Lüders’article also contains an edition of the Nepalese manuscript tradition corresponding to pp.
261,14–265,13 and pp. 269,7–271,3 in Kern-Nanjio. The relevant information was given
to H. Lüders by H. Kern before the latter’s edition appeared.—On Lüders’ work on the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra cf. also Ursula Sims-Williams: The papers of the Central
Asian scholar and Sanskritist Rudolf Hoernle, in: Seishi Karashima & Klaus Wille:
Buddhist Manuscripts from Central Asia. The British Library Sanskrit Fragments
Volume I. Tokyo 2006 [rev: R. Salomon, Journal of the American Oriental Society 128.
2008, p, 809], pp. 1–26, particularly p. 4.
14
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka ed. by Hendrik Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio. St. Petersburg 1908–

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

151

1912 (Bibliotheca Buddhica X) (reprinted Osnabrück 1970).
15
On the well-known shortcomings of this edition: Willy Baruch: Beiträge zum
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Leiden 1938 [rev.: Jean Filliozat, Journal Asiatique 238,
1938, p. 346 foll.], pp. 7–12.
16
H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, as note 2 above.
17
Klaus Wille: Fragments of a Manuscript of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra fromKhådaliq. Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series 3. Tokyo 2000, pp. 159–183, chapter 4.5
provides a concordance of all known Central Asian fragments with the Kashgar
Manuscript, cf. now also M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja & Noriyuki Kudo: A Newly
Identified Fragment of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra kept in the St. Petersburg Branchof the Institute of Oriental Studies. ARIRIAB X. 2007, pp. 57–66.
18
The origin of Lüshun manuscript C is unkown, manuscript D is the Kashgar(Khotan) manuscript, cf. Z. Jiang, Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Fragments from the Lüshun
Museum Collection, as note 12 above, p. 23 foll.
19
According to Grigorij Maksimovič Bongard-Levin (1933–2008) & M. I. Vorob’ëvaDesjatovskaja: Pamjatniki indijskoj pis’mennosti iz Central’noj Azii. Izdanie tekstov,issledovanie i kommentarij. Vypusk 1. Pamjatniki pis’mennosti Vostoka LXXIII,1 =Bibliotheca Buddhica XXXIII. Moscow 1985 [rev.: J. W. de Jong, Indo-Iranian Journal
30. 1987, pp. 215–221; D. Seyfort Ruegg, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 51. 1988, pp. 576–578; L. Sander, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 84. 1989, pp.
92–97], p. 87.—The facsimile edition “Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscripts from theInstitute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences” (see note *above) contains the following manuscripts of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra preserved in
St. Petersburg: SI P/5 (Khotan [Kashgar] Manuscript, SI 1925/1927), pp. 1–802; SI P/7(SIS 1933, inv. 1933), pp. 803–804; SI P/8 (SIS 1934, inv. 1934), pp. 805–810; SI P/9(SIS 1935, inv. 1935), pp. 811–850; SI P/10 (SIS 1937, inv. 1937), pp. 851–916; SI P/11
(SIS 1939, inv. 1939), pp. 917–966; SI P/12+13 (SIS 1940, inv. 1940), pp. 967–968; SI
P/20, pp. 969–972; SIS 2077, inv. 2077, pp. 973–974; SI P/67,3d,v,g,a,b (SIS 2093, inv.
2093, fr. 4,5,3,N 90,N 91), pp. 975–984; SI P/67,8a,b (SIS 2098, inv. 2098, fr.1,2), pp.
985–988; SI P/68 (SIS 3013, inv. 3013), pp. 989–990; SI P/79,1,2 (SIS 3030, inv. 3030),
pp. 991–994; SI P/90b1,a (SIS 3044, inv. 3044), pp. 995–998; SI L/1 (SIS 3330, inv.
3354), pp. 999–1000; SI P/151 (SI 3693, inv. 3749), pp. 1001–1002; SI P/151 (SI 3694,
inv. 3750), pp. 1003–1004.
20
H. Bechert: Marburger Fragmente, as note 5 above, p. 15.
21
H. Lüders: Miscellaneous Fragments I. Saddharma-Puˆ∂ar¥ka, as note 13 above, p.
161 foll.; there are more examples of this particular vocative plural form which are listedby H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, as note 2 above, pp.
XXIII § 18, cf. also O. v. Hinüber: Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 467. Band. Wien 22001, § 322.
22
Seishi Karashima: Some Features of the Language of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra.
Indo-Iranian Journal 44. 2001, pp. 207–230.
23
N. D. Mironov: Buddhist Miscellanea: I. Avalokiteßvara - Kuan-Yin; II. Central
Asian Recensions of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1927, pp. 241–252 and pp. 252–279.
24
R. E. Emmerick in H. Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Central Asian Manuscripts,
as note 2 above, p. XII.
25
Claus Vogel: The Dated Nepalese Manuscripts of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra.

152

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I. Philologisch-historische
Klasse, Jahrgang 1974, Nr. 5: nos. (3) AD 1039, (4) AD 1064 and (6) AD 1065 etc.
Another old Nepalese manuscript not accessible to C. Vogel and dated to N.S. 202(Caitra) = AD 1082 is edited by JIANG Zhongxin: A Sanskrit Manuscript of
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka Kept in the Library of the Cultural Palace of the Nationalities,
Beijing. Peking 1988.
26
This date was suggested by Mauro Maggi in a letter to S. Karashima, who kindly
shared this information with me.
27
Saddharma-Puˆ∂ar¥ka-SËtra. Kashgar Manuscript (foreword by Heinz Bechert).
Tokyo 1977, p. 1 foll.—Only the right part found in the Facsimile Edition (see note *) is
discussed in the following. The missing left part could be traced on 23rd July 2013
among the Khotanese manuscripts preserved in the British Library: Prods OktorSkjærvø: Khotanese Manuscripts from Chinese Turkestan in the British Library. London
2002 [rev.: V. Hansen, Journal of the American Oriental Society 124. 2004 /2005], pp.
380–382; L. Sander, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 100. 2005, pp. 557–561; O. v.
Hinüber: Ein Meilenstein in der Erforschung des zentralasiatischen Buddhismus. Zu
einem neuen Katalog khotan-sakischer Handschriften. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 157. 2007, pp. 385–394; cf. also Huaiyu Chen: Newly
identified Khotanese Fragments in the British Library and their Chinese Parallels.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 22. 2012, pp. 265–279], p. 354 foll., no. IOL Khot
158/3. A re-edition of both parts of the colophon together with the Intula colophons (seenote 54 below) is under preparation and will appear in ARIRIAB XVIII. 2015.
28
Missing text is put into brackets [ ], damaged ak∑aras into parentheses ( ), while < >marks an ak∑ara forgotten by the scribe, and + stands for a gap of one ak∑ara.
29
The numbers from this manuscript are conveniently collected by Klaus Wille: Die
handschriftliche Überlieferung des Vinayavastu der MËlasarvåstivådin. Verzeichnis derOrientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland. Supplementband 30. Stuttgart 1990, tablep. 20.
30
By coincidence the only numerical sign beyond “1000” noted by Georg Bühler in
his palaeography (1896) is “8000” quoted from the Chammak Plates of Pravarasena II
now published in Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi: Inscriptions of the Våkå†akas. Corpus
Inscriptionum Indicarum V. Ootacamund 1963, pp. 22–27, line 19. The interpretation iscertain because of the text sahasrair a∑†åbhi˙ 8000. High numbers noted by Louis
Renou & Jean Filliozat: L’Inde classique. Manuel des études indiennes. Tome II, Hanoï
1953, pp. 705–707 look quite different. It seems that the numerical signs for “1000” etc.
were created independently in different scripts.
31
O. v. Hinüber: Die Pali Handschriften des Klosters Lai Hin bei Lampang in NordThailand. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz. Veröffentlichungender Indologischen Kommission, Band 2. Wiesbaden 2013, p. XLIX foll., cf. note 52
below.
32
Or phar∑a “judge” cf. Ela Filippone: Is the Judge a Questioning Man? Notes in the
Margin of Khotanese phar∑avata-, in: Iranian Languages and Texts from Iran and Turan.
Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial Volume ed. by Maria Macuch, Mauro Maggi & Werner
Sundermann. Iranica Band 13, Wiesbaden 2007, pp. 75–86 quoting older literature, but
without referring to this colophon.
33
O. v. Hinüber: A Second Inscription from Phanigiri (Andhrapradesh): Dhaµmasena’s Donation. ARIRIAB 15. 2012, pp. 2–10, particularly p. 4, line 7 foll. withcorrections in O. v. Hinüber: Again on the donation made by the vinayadhara Dhaµ-a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

153

masena and on other inscriptions from Phanigiri. ARIRIAB 16. 2013, pp. 3–12.—Sten
Konow: Kharo∑†h¥ Inscriptions with the exception of those of Aßoka. Corpus
Inscriptionum Indicarum II,1. Calcutta 1929, no. XXXV,2, p. 91.
34
Giotto Canevascini: The Khotanese Saµghå†asËtra. A critical edition. Beiträge zur
Iranistik Band 14. Wiesbaden 1993.
35
H. W. Bailey: Dictionary of Khotanese Saka. Cambridge 1979 s.v. ysani. The
colophon of the Jñånolkadhåraˆ¥ has a similar wording harbißyau ysanyau u busvåryau
jsa haµtsa bißyau sarvasatvyau uysnauryau jsa “zusammen mit den gesamten
Geschlechtsangehörigen [= Blutsverwandten] und Verschwägerten, zusammen mit allen(Sak.) allen (Sanskr.) Wesen (Sanskr.) Wesen (Sak.)” after Ernst Leumann: Buddhistische Literatur Nordarisch und Deutsch. I. Teil: Nebenstücke. Abhandlungen für die
Kunde des Morgenlandes XV.2. Leipzig 1920 (repr. Nendeln 1966), p. 164.
36
The name of an author is given in a corresponding way in ]k®tir bhik∑or åcaryaDharmattråta[sya, in: Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden. Teil 9: Die Katalognummern 2000–3199 beschrieben von K. Wille, herausgegeben von H. Bechert.
Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Band X, 9. Stuttgart 2004
[rev.: O. v. Hinüber, Indo-Iranian Journal 48. 2005, pp. 299–312], Kat.-Nr. 2026, p. 53,(provenance unknown); Gilgit Manuscript no. 8 Vißvantaråvadåna, p. 157 = no. 1347:]samåptam k®tir åcårya-ÍËrasya ||, in: O. v. Hinüber: The Gilgit Manuscripts: An
Ancient Buddhist Library in Modern Research, in: Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe
Hartmann, Eds.: From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist
Manuscript Research. Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts:
The State of the Field, Stanford June 15–19 2009. Österreichische Akademie derWissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 460. Band = Beiträge
zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens Nr. 80. Wien 2014, pp. 79–135, particularly p.
96. The same formula also occurs in epigraphy, e.g.: k®ti buddhabala at the end of the
Shigar inscription, cf. O. v. Hinüber: Die Palola ›åhis. Ihre Steininschriften, Inschriften
auf Bronzen, Handschriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber. Materialien zur Geschichte
von Gilgit und Chilas. Antiquities of Northern Pakistan Vol. 5. Mainz 2004, p. 69.
37
G. M. Bongard-Levin & M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja: Pamjatniki, as note 19
above, p. 103, ms. P/10, folio 287b2 foll.: saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ke mahåvaitulyasËtraratne
dharmabhåˆakaparivarto nåma daßama samåpta˙ 10 dvit¥yaßcaturbhåga˙ 2 deyadharmau yaµ dånapati intulasya, cf. also at the end of the first quarter in the same
manuscript ibidem, p. 133, folio 206(not 240!)a3 foll.: saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ke mahåvaitulyasËtraratne o∑adhiparivarto nåma pañcama˙ samåpta˙ 5 || prathamaßcaturbhåga˙ || intulasya || atha khalu bhagavån ….
38
It is conceivable that the distribution of parivartas and folios was quite regular in
the “original” manuscript when this division into “quarters” was introduced. There areindications in the extant fragments of Intula’s donation of a Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra
manuscript (SI P/10) that the scribe tried to reproduce the folios of his exemplar, if thestretching (end of folios 296, 297, facsimile edition pp. 859, 861) and compressing (endof folio 299, facsimile edition p. 865) of the script is taken into consideration.
39
There is no example for this kind of text division in Louis Renou: Les divisions
dans les textes sanskrits. Indo-Iranian Journal 1. 1957, pp. 1–32. It does occur once
again, however, in the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscript donated by Intula as
indicated above in note 37.
40
R. E. Emmerick: Some Khotanese Donors, in: Mémorial Jean de Menasce éd, par
Ph. Gignoux et A. Tafazzoli. Leuven 1974, pp. 383–388, 3 plates.

154

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

41
Almuth Degener: Khotanische Suffixe. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 39. Stuttgart
1979 [rev.: P. O. Skjærvø, Kratylos 35. 1990, pp. 99–102; B. Tikkanen, Studia
Orientalia, Helsinki 67. 1991, pp. 213–215; D. Weber, Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 143. 1993, pp. 421–425; O. v. Hinüber, Indo-Iranian
Journal 36. 1993, p. 372 foll.], pp.71–73 § 7.B.11–7.B.19.
42
Jacob Wackernagel: Altindische Grammatik. Band II,2 Die Nominalsuffixe vonAlbert Debrunner. Göttingen 1954 [rev.: F. Edgerton, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 75. 1955, pp. 55–66; P. Thieme, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 209. 1955, pp.
182–216 = Kleine Schriften. 21984, pp. 661–695; M. Mayrhofer, Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 51. 1956, pp. 5–15; K. Hoffmann, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 110. 1960, pp. 175–182 = Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. 1973,
pp. 130–137], p. 280 § 1164b, cf. Jeremy Rau: The Origin of Indic and Iranian Feminines in -ån«-d. Journal of the American Oriental Society 127. 2007, pp. 57–66.
43
Examples for the mechanical use of various case endings are collected in O. v.
Hinüber: Die Palola ›åhis, as above note 36, p. 145; O. v. Hinüber: Buddhistische
Inschriften aus dem Tal des Oberen Indus, in: Antiquities of Northern Pakistan Vol. I:
Rock Inscriptions in the Indus Valley. Mainz 1989, pp. 73–106, particularly p. 85:
bhåginyå pravåsusabhena, raktaßåntenasya bhik∑o˙, åyu∑måµ raktaßåntenaß; O. v.
Hinüber: The Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra at Gilgit: Manuscripts, Worshippers and Artists.
The Journal of Oriental Studies 22. 2012, pp. 52–67, particularly p. 54: pevo†h¥yena,fem.; further: si∫ho†esya, Chilås 20:2 (si∫ho†ena x si∫ho†asya), in: Ditte Bandini-König:Die Felsbildstation Thalpan I, Kataloge Chilas-Brücke und Thalpan (Steine 1–30).
Materialien zur Archäologie der Nordgebiete Pakistans Band 6. Mainz 2009,
correspondingly ∑eriyesya, Thalpan 516:1, virudhaena, Thalpan 509:37, both in: Ditte
Bandini-König: Die Felsbildstation Thalpan IV, Katalog Thalpan (Steine 451–811).
MANP Band 9. Mainz 2009 and adharmaeˆa, Saµghå†asËtra manuscript F § 103.3, cf.
G. Canevascini, as note 34 above, p. 49.
44
mi∑jei’ su is extant in the fragment preserved in the British Library, see note 27
above.
45
Devaßirikå, the donatrix of manuscript “D” of the Saµghå†asËtra expresses a similar
wish: sve ßar¥re åyurvalavarˆav®ddhi, O. v. Hinüber: Palola ›åhis, as note 36 above, no.
10 (Saµghå†asËtra).
46
Another example for deceased persons being included in the act of merit making is
the colophon to the Gilgit manuscript “D” of the Saµghå†asËtra, cf. preceding note.
47
The existence of this name does not necessarily point to the actual existence of thestatus of a ßik∑amåˆå in the career of a Buddhist nun in ancient Khotan. On the absenceof ßik∑amåˆås cf. Ann Heirman: Where is the Probationer in the Chinese Buddhist
Nunneries? Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 158. 2008, pp.
105–137 and O. v. Hinüber: The Foundation of the Bhikkhun¥saµgha. A Contribution to
the Earliest History of Buddhism. ARIRIAB 11. 2008, pp. 3–29, particularly p. 19.
48
O. v. Hinüber: A Second Inscription from Phanigiri, as note 33 above, p. 5 withcorrections in ARIRIAB 16. 2013, p. 3 foll.
49
These folios are published as facsimile in R. E. Emmerick & M. I. Vorob’ëvaDesjatovskaja: Saka Documents VII: the St. Petersburg Collections. Corpus
Inscriptionum Iranicarum Part II Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of
Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V. Saka. London 1993 [rev.: A. Degener, Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society 3rd Series 5. 1995, p. 119 foll.; H. Kumamoto, Indo-Iranian
Journal 38. 1995, pp. 371–376 (also on the text volume); G. Canevascini, Bulletin of thea saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

155

School of Oriental and African Studies 59. 1996, p. 163 foll.; M. Maggi, Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 92. 1997, p. 589 foll.; R. Schmitt, Kratylos 42. 1997, pp. 175–177],
plates 49, 50 and in transcription by R. E. Emmerick & M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja:
Saka Documents Text Volume III: the St. Petersburg Collections. Corpus Inscriptionum
Iranicarum Part II Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iranand Central Asia. Vol. V. Saka. London 1995 [rev.: A. Degener, Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society 3rd Series 6. 1996, p. 439 foll.; M. Maggi, Indo-Iranian Journal 41.
1998, pp. 282–288; Y. Yoshida, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
60. 1997, pp. 567–569; H. Kumamoto, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 92. 1997, pp.
239-245], p. 68 foll.
50
The Book of Zambasta. A Khotanese poem on Buddhism, edited and translated by
R. E. Emmerick. London Oriental Series Volume 21. London 1968.
51
This suggestion is not without problems, because the traces of ak∑aras, particularly
the beginning of line 3 with jsa do not really seem to match.—A corresponding Sanskrit
text is, e.g., mad¥yena ßoˆitena massiµ kuryyåc carmmam utpå†ya bhËrjjaµ kuryyåd
asthi bhaktvå ca kalamaµ kuryyåt, Adelheid Mette: Die Gilgitfragmente des Kåraˆ∂avyËha. Indica et Tibetica 29. Swisttal-Odendorf 1997 [rev.: H. V. Guenther, Journal of
the American Oriental Society 120. 2000, p. 153], p. 143, 9–11 = P. L. Vaidya:MahåyånasËtrasaµgraha, Volume I. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 17. Darbhanga 1961, p.
293, 22 foll.; Måt®ce†a writes his Praˆidhånasaptati with his own blood: Jens-Uwe
Hartmann: Das Varˆårhavarˆastotra des Måt®ce†a herausgegeben und übersetzt.
Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische
Klasse. Dritte Folge Nr. 160. Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden XII. Göttingen1987[rev.: J. W. de Jong, Indo-Iranian Journal 32. 1989, pp. 243–248; M. Hara,
Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 86. 1991, pp. 313–318; O. v. Hinüber, Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 39. 1995, p. 248 foll.], p. 20 etc.
52
On the prices of Påli manuscripts copied much later in 16th century Northern
Thailand cf. note 31 above.
53
On the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra in Khotan: Mauro Maggi, in: R. E. Emmerick &Maria Macuch (eds.): The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran. Companion Volume I to A
History of Persian Literature. A History of Persian Literature Vol. XVII. London 2009,p. 342 foll.
54
These miniatures and the Intula colophons will be discussed in the article underpreparation as mentioned in note 27.
55
R. E. Emmerick: A Guide to the Literature of Khotan. Second Edition, Thoroughly
Revised and Enlarged. Studia Philologica Buddhica. Occasional Paper Series III. Tokyo
1992, pp. 27–29; H. W. Bailey: Sad-dharma-puˆ∂ar¥ka-sËtra. The Summary in Khotan
Saka. The Australian National University. Faculty of Asian Studies. Occasional Paper
10. Canberra 1971 [rev.: M. J. Dresden, Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.
1973, p. 599 foll.]; H. W. Bailey: The Khotanese Summary of the Sad-dharma-puˆ∂ar¥ka-sËtra, in: Taisho Daigaku Kenkyukiyo. Memoirs of the Taisho University, The
Department of Literature and Buddhism. 57. 1972, pp. 530–526.
56
Book of Zambasta, as note 50 above, VI 3. The verse was identified already by
Ernst Leumann (1859–1931).
57
Cf. M. Maggi, as note 53 above, p. 338 foll.
58
O. v. Hinüber: An Ancient Buddhist Library in Modern Research, as note 36 above,
pp. 114, 118.
59
Prods Oktor Skjærvø: The Most Excellent Shine of Gold, King of Kings of Sutras.

156

a saddharmapuÔﬂarÁkasÚtra manuscript from khotan

The Khotanese SuvarˆabhåsottamasËtra. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures
60, 61. Central Asian Sources V, VI. Cambridge/Mass. 2004, 2 Volumes; on the Sanskrit
manuscripts Vol. I, p. XXXIII foll., on the Khotanese manuscripts pp. LXII–LXXI
60
Thus also M. Maggi, as note 53 above, p. 375.—It is remarkable that no Khotanese
Vinaya text seems to exist with the only exception of the Tumšuqese Karmavåcanå
containing the vows of an upåsaka (or an upåsikå?): R. E. Emmerick: The Tumshuqese
Karmavåcanå Text. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur,
Mainz. Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse. Jahrgang 1985, Nr.2 [rev.: V. H.
Mair, Journal of the American Oriental Society 106. 1986, p. 879 foll.; H. Kumamoto,
Kratylos 32. 1987, pp. 176 foll.; P. O. Skjærvø, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1987, pp. 77–90; O. v. Hinüber, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 83. 1988, p. 619 foll.]
with important corrections by Klaus Totila Schmidt: Ein Beitrag des Tocharischen zur
Entzifferung des Tumšuqsakischen. Altorientalische Forschungen 15. 1988, pp. 306–
314.
61This would not shed a very favourable light on the Saµghå†asËtra in Khotanese,unless, perhaps, both texts simply appealed to different readers, the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra to the educated and the (to our taste at least) rather unassuming Saµghå†asËtra to the common man (?).