A SADDHARMAPUṆḌARĪKASŪTRA MANUSCRIPT FROMKHOTANThe Gift of a Pious Khotanese Family
Oskar von Hinüber
The exact location, at which this manuscript was found, is unknown. However, it iscertain 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 in two batches, and was later transferredto the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Институт
Восточных Рукописей Российской Академии Наук) in St. Petersburg, where it is
kept today. The first batch of the altogether 396 folios2 was acquired by Nikolaj
Fedorovič Petrovskij (1837-1908), who was the Russian consul in Kashgar between 1stJune 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 Khotaneseand therefore point to a provenance from Khotan rather (see below).4 The date ofacquisition is sometimes given as 19035 probably following A. Yuyama’s important
bibliography instead of the correct 1893, if not eralier. 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 Department of the Russian ArchaeologicalSociety” no. 7 of the year 1893 by Sergej F. Ol’denburg: Kašgarskaja pukopis’ N. F.
Petrovskogo (Kaшгаpскaя рукопись Н. Ф. Петровского) “The Kashgar Manuscript of
N. F. Petrovskij” (pp. 81 foll.).6 A second batch of a different manuscript of the
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra was presented to the Asiatic Museum in St. Petersburg in1910 by George 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 of the Khotan manuscript in the Stein Collection and 4 folios in the Hoernle
Collection.8 Lastly, a small number of folios of the same manuscript is scattered overdifferent 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 and 1 fragment in the
Ellsworth Huntington Papers finally belongs to the Sterling Library of Yale University

1

in New Haven.11
At the beginning, it was not clear that all these folios were actually parts of one
split up manuscript.12 First, the four folios of the Hoernle Collection were studied ingreat detail by Heinrich Lüders (1869-1943). While Lüders was working,13 theSaddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra edition by Bunyiu Nanjio (1849-1927) and Henrik 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 established by B. Nanjio wasalready completed, and H. Kern did so in a very erratic way.15 With more and morematerial becoming available, it was slowly recognized that all these separated folios
belong to one and the same manuscript.
A first complete edition, or rather transcript, of the Kashgar (Khotan) manuscript
was prepared by Hirofumi Toda (1936-2003) first in seven parts between 1977 and1979 and then again in a revised edition in 1981.16 A most useful updated survey ofresearch was provided by Klaus Wille in 2000.17 The Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is,however, only one of a considerable number of Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra manuscripts
recovered from the vicinity of Khotan, although the provenance of many manuscripts iseither uncertain or even unknown due to the lack of pertinent notes left by those who
acquired them, or very often because of the reluctance of the “treasure hunters,” fromwhom they were bought, to reveal their sources. It can be assumed that at least thefollowing 14 manuscripts and fragments may have been copied in the Khotan area:
1. Lüshun manuscript A (Otani Collection) (likely)
2. Lüshun manuscript B (Otani Collection) (likely)18
3. Khādaliq Manuscript ed. by K. Wille 2000
4. Farhād-Bēg manuscript ed. by H. Toda: Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Central
Asian Manuscripts, pp. 229-258
5. Kashgar (Khotan) manuscript ed. by H. Toda: Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra.
Central Asian Manuscripts, pp. 3-225
6. Fragments of two (or more?) manuscripts ed. by H. Toda:
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. 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 ofthe fifth century as suggested by Zhongxin Jiang (1942-2002), p. 18a, according to the2palaeography is perhaps a little early. While manuscript B may have been copied during
the sixth century according to Z. Jiang, p. 18a, the other manuscripts, even those from
Gilgit are younger, the Nepalese manuscripts even substantially.
Different linguistic usage does not only reflect a difference in age, but also points
to two branches of the text tradition, a Central Asian one in opposition to the
Gilgit-Nepalese branch. As H. Bechert emphasized the Central Asian recension is not
simply an older version, but in addition split into two sub-recensions, which are
distinguished by the presence or absence of the Devadattaparivarta.20
As H. Lüders already recognized, when he investigated only four folios from the
Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript, the Central Asian version is moreover of considerable
linguistic interest, because it contains some Prakrit forms, which induced him to thinkthat the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra might have been composed in Middle Indic
originally. In particular, H. Lüders points to the vocative kulaputrāho, folio 260b4 aform typical for Māgadhī, and found only in this Middle Indic language.21 An
investigation by S. Karashima into the language of the Lüshun manuscripts has
confirmed Lüders’ assumption in the meantime.22
Even though the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript preserves a much older and more
Middle Indic text than the Gilgit-Nepalese branch, it was most likely copied more orless contemporaneous with the oldest Nepalese manuscripts, which are dated to the 11th
century.23 The Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is not dated and written in a script that did
not change over a certain period of time. This induced earlier scholars such as Nikolaj
Dimitrievič Mironov (1880-1936), to date the manuscript to the 7th century.24 However,the colophons, which are not written in Sanskrit, but in late Khotanese, hardly allow any
date early than the 9th, probably the 10th century rather as pointed out by R. E.
Emmerick because of linguistic considerations.25
These colophons are of considerable interest far beyond determining the date of the
Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript. They were studied by R. E. Emmerick and by Harold
Walter Bailey (1899-1996).
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.26 Unfortunately, thelast folio of the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is damaged with only the right part being
extant, which may preserve about half the text of the colophon at the end of parivarta
XXVIII Anuparīndanā-Parivarta (folio 459b1-9):] 800: || ttū namo saddharmapu[]meri jsa haṃbrīhyä u pyaräna cu parilo tsuāṃdä u kṣādai jala/2/[puñina jsa

3haṃbrīhyä u … jsa haṃbrīhyä u tti ru] puña pharṣaja+(na) haṃbrīhyä ujaraukulina cu pari/3/[lo tsue u … ] jsa u tti ru puña hīvī brātarä braṃgalaina cu
parilo tsue u ha[ṃ]/4/[ … ] u tti ru puña haṃtsa hvārakä saṃduṣṭi jsa haṃbrīhyä
cu pa/5/[rilo tsue …] haṃbrīhyä u dvīrä jalottamä jsa u dvīrä śikṣamāñä cu parilo/6/ [tsue …] budasaṃgäna u haṃtsa vinayä jsa u <haṃ>tsa pūrä nerä
jalārrjunāṃñä jsa /7/ [… brā](ta)rä dattakäna u haṃtsa brātarä vikrraṃna uhvārakä dhaṃrmakä jsa u hvā/8/ [rakä … u tti ru puña biśyau hayū]nyau jsa ubiśyau busvāryau jsa haṃbrīhyä u biśyau ysanyau jsa.
The reading of the colophon follows H. W. Bailey and H. Toda with the exceptionof the end of line 1, where both read erroneously dala[, instead of a clearly visible
jala[.27
The 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 they occur hardly ever in manuscripts, whichrarely end with a number of pages as high as or even higher than 500. One suchexception is the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya found at Gilgit, where numbers up to 500 are
found.28 Here it can be seen clearly, that numbers “200, 300” etc. are derived from thenumber “100” which in many scripts is similar to the akṣara “a” by subscribing thenumbers “2, 3” etc. When comparing the pagination of the Kashgar (Khotan)
Manuscript, which uses numerical signs not exactly matching the script found in the
manuscript itself, it is at 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 still, it isderived from the akṣara “kha” and not from “a” as expected. Therefore, a higher
number such as 8000 seems to be more likely.29
Next, it is difficult to find out, what this number might refer to. A date seems to bevery unlikely, even if “800” is read, because there does not seem to be any only
remotely matching era, and a round figure like “800” is suspicious anyway. Sometimes
the length of the text is mentioned in the colophon, e.g., in the Mahāvastu
granthapramāṇaṃ śloka 25000 “the book extends to 25,000 ślokas,” which corresponds
to 800,000 akṣaras. A rough calculation shows that the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript
compises 458 folios with 916 pages with seven lines of writing and with about 30
akṣaras in each line, which amounts to 210 akṣaras per page or about 420 per folio.
Therefore, the sum of akṣaras of the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is 192,360 or 6,011
ślokas. Neither figure matches the number “800” or “8000” not even approximately.

4The matter is further complicated by the colophon to parivarta V, which states on folio
140 prathamacaturbhāgaḥ samāptaḥ “the first quarter has come to an end” and again
by the end of parivarta XIX on folio 360 tṛtīyaś caturbhāgaḥ samāpta “the third quarterhas come to an end” (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 thelast quarter is 97 folios with 40,740 akṣaras or 1,273 ślokas. Lastly, the price forcopying the manuscript might have been mentioned here as it is rarely done in muchlater Pāli manuscripts from Northern Thailand.30 Non liquet.
After a double daṇḍa the colophon in formal script breaks off with “homage to the
Saddharmapu[.” This is the beginning of a text in Khotanese. The transition to thelonger 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 have gone to theother world, and with the husband Jala[puña I share and … with … I share and then] I
share the merit with Pharṣaja + and Jaraukulina, who [has gone] to the other [world and… ] with and then the merit with my own brother Braṃgalaka, who has gone to theother world, and I sha[re … ] and then I share the merit together with sister Saṃduṣṭā
(Sanskrit Santuṣṭā), who has gone to the other [world … ] I share and with daughter
Jalottamā and daughter Śikṣamāṇī, who [has gone] to the other world [ … ]Buddhasaṃgha and with Vinaya and together with the son’s wife Jalārrjuñānī [ …
bro]ther Dattaka and together with the brother Vikrama and the sister Dharmakā andsis[ter … and then] I share [the merit with all frie]nds and together with all members of
the household and with all relatives.”
The translation does not pose serious problems. Only pharṣaja+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 Pharṣaja+ as one word and as a name.31
The overall context is clear not the least due to the repetitiveness of the colophon
formula. The end of the colophon seems to follow an Indian model, if inscriptional
evidence is compared. The inscription of the vinayadhara Dhaṃmasena says evaṃ casavehi nāti-mita-baṃdhavehi and an inscription from Taxila has ñatimitra-salohidaṇa.32
This corresponds to hayūna “friend” (mitra, cf. Saṃghāṭasūtra § 246,4 ha[yūna] =sakhāyā)33, bisvāra / busvāra “kinsman” (probably bāndhava) and ysani “kinsman”(ñāti, cf. Saṃghāṭasūtra § 243 verse 30 ysāne = jñātayaḥ; ysani also translates

5

bandhujana).34
A number of deceased persons is mentioned in the beginning after the principal
donor, an anonymous lady, which follows from the fact that a husband occurs among
the persons enumerated to share the merit. The names of altogether 26 persons arepreserved in the extant fragment. Moreover, at least 7 names can be inferred as missingout of an uncertain number of names actually lost. It is impossible to calculate thenumber of persons probably exceeding 50 exactly.
For, as a complete folio measures 57 cm by 18 cm, while the extant right part ofthe colophon folio measures only 21 cm by 13 cm, approximately only half the text ofthe colophon is extant. The space at the bottom of the fragment shows that the last line
is preserved. Therefore, on the top about 5 cm are lost. This missing part of thefragment contained two lines (ca. 60 akṣaras) in formal script with the end of the
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra and at least a brief colophon. In front of the extant part of thecolophon in formal script about 14 akṣaras are lost, if the text was distributed
symmetrically on both sides of the rosette. The text of line 3 breaks off withsaddharmapu[ṇḍarīkasūtra] or saddharmapu[ṇḍarī] with 6 akṣaras or 7 cm missing at
the end.
As the radius of the rosette, which adorns the last folio, is 7 cm, the distance fromthe outer circle to the margin measures 17 cm, which results in the length of half a folioof 24 cm or 48 cm of a complete one. As a folio is 57 cm long, about 4.5 cm are missing
on both ends of the fragment. The shorter lines of the Khotanese colophon have about
20 extant akṣaras with about 4 akṣaras (~ 4 cm) broken off. Therefore, the five lines
interrupted by the rosette would have had 48 akṣaras when complete, and the last threelines below the rosette had even approximately 60 akṣaras. Consequently, quite asubstantial part of the text is lost with altogether approximately 120 + 90 = 210 out of
420 akṣaras of the complete colophon missing. This makes it impossible to estimate thenumber of persons involved in the donation.
The extant persons are the following:
0. anonymous lady, the principal donor
1. mother of Jalapuñānā †2. father of Jalapuñānā †3. husband Jalapuña
4. name(s) lost
5. Pharṣaja+ (not clear) (†?)
6. Jaraukulina †13. Śikṣamāṇī †14. name(s) lost
15. Buddhasaṃgha
16. Vinaya
17. son’s wife (daughter in law) Jalārrjuñānī
18. name(s) lost
19. brother Dattaka

67. name(s) lost
8. brother Braṃgalaka †9. name(s) lost
10. sister Santuṣṭā †11. name(s) lost
12. daughter Jalottamā20. brother Vikrama
21. sister Dharmakā
22. name(s) lost
23. friends (mitra)
24. family (bāndhava)
25. kinsmen (jñāti)As far as we can see from this colophon, the anonymous lady is the principal donor
accompanied by her husband Jalapuña and her deceased parents, who are included inthis act of merit making. Her brother is as stated explicitly Braṃgalaka, and her sister ismost likely Santuṣṭā. Whether or not the two “daughters” Jalottamā and the deceasedŚikṣamāṇī are daughters or nieces of the principal donor, is not clear here. It is equally
obscure, how and if the other persons relate to the lady who donated the manuscript.
Therefore, it is necessary and useful to have a close look at the colophons at the end of
individual parivartas to clarify this matter.
The following colophons in formal script are preserved within the text of themanuscript mostly at the end of individual parivartas:
At the end of the introductory Stotra (4b4):
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkamahāyānasūtrarājastotraṃ kṛtir35 ācārya-Rahulabhadrrasya
At the end of the introduction (6b2-4):
namaḥ sarvajñāya nama āryasamantabhadrāya bodhisatvāya mahāsatvāya. ayaṃdeyadharmaṃ dānapati Jalapuñasya. siddhaṃ namaḥ sarvabuddhabodhisatvebhyaḥ.
evaṃ mayā śrutaṃ … (Begin of the text of the sūtra)Colophons at the end of the individual parivartas:
I. Parivarta (36a1):… samāptaḥ. ayaṃ deyadharmaṃ dānapati Jalapuñasya
II. Parivarta (64a6f.):…. samāptaḥ 2 || miṣjei’ jalapuñāṃ na parstā pīḍi saha jalārrjunasya
III. Parivarta (101b5f.):… samāpta 3 || deyadharmo yaṃ dānapati Suviprabhasya
IV. Parivarta (121a5):… samāptaḥ 4 deyadharmau yaṃ jalottamasya
V. Parivarta (140a6):… samāptaḥ 5 || prathamacaturbhāgaḥ samāptaḥ || - ttū namau saddharmapuṇḍarī
mijṣei’ jalapuñāna parstā pīḍi. haṃtsa pūri śparadattina

7

No donor is mentioned at the end of Parivarta VI (150a5, space 14 akṣaras); VII(189b4, space 15 akṣaras); VIII (203a7, space 7 akṣaras); IX (211a7, space 6akṣaras); X (226a6, space 27 akṣaras); XI (246a4, no space): …
ṣaṣṭaḥ samāptaḥ || 6 ||bhūtapūrvaṃ … etc.
XII. Parivarta (255b7):… samā]pta. [1]2 deya[dharmo yamṃ]H. Toda supplies [saha duhitā jalotama]sya, which cannot be verified by the helpof the facsimile. The name is lost.
XIII. Parivarta (262b7): … trayodaśama samāptaḥ 13 || atha khalu … (No donor ismentioned)
XIV. End of Parivarta (283a2):… caturdaśamaḥ samāptaḥ || [de]yadharmau yaṃ suviprab(!)asya saha duhitājalotamasya
XV. Parivarta (302a7-302b2):… pañcadaśamaḥ samāptaḥ 15 || mijṣei’ jalapuñāna parstā pīḍi uysānye jsīñi
paderāṣci kiḍina. haṃtsa kṣā’dai jalapuñina u pūri jalārrjāṃna dvīrä jalotamä jsa upūrä śparadatäna u dūvakä jsa
XVI. Parivarta (311b7): (End of the parivarta lost)
XVII. Parivarta (331a1):saptāda[śamaḥ
kṣā’]d[ai] jalapuñäna
XVIII. Parivarta (340b3):… aṣṭādaśamaḥ samāptaḥ deyadharma suviprabhasya saha putrā jalārrjunasya
XIX. Parivarta (360b3):… ekonaviṅśatimas samāptaḥ 19 tṛtīyaś caturbhāgaḥ samāpta || ayaṃ deyadharma
suviprabhasya
XX. Parivarta (371b6):
The text of the colophon is lost.
XXI. Parivarta (380b2):… samāptaḥ 21 deyadharmo yaṃ dānapati jalapuñasya saha putrā jalārrjunasya
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):
caturviṇśa]timaḥ samāptaḥ 24 deyadharmo yaṃ [ ca. 17 akṣaras ]sya atha khalu …

8According to the length of the gap, this colophon could correspond to the one of
Parivarta II.
XXV. Parivarta (432b1f.):… pañcaviṃśatimaḥ samāpta. jalapuñasya [XXVI. Parivarta (445a4):]samāptaḥ deya[
XXVII. Parivarta ( 455b7):… saptaviṃ śatimaḥ samāptaḥ || atha khalu … (No donor is mentioned)
XXVIII. Parivarta (459a6):]sadevagandharvamānuṣāsurāś ca (End of the line)(459a7): lost (ca. 30 akṣaras)(459b1): lost (ca. 30 akṣaras)(459b2): lost (ca. 30 akṣaras)(459b3): + + + + + + + + + + + + ] 800 || ttu namo saddharmapu[ṇḍarīkasūtra(459b4): /1/ ]meri jsa haṃbrīhyä u pyaräna cu parilo tsuāmṃdä u kṣadai jala(459b5): /2/ [puñina jsa haṃbrīhyä u … jsa haṃbrīhyä u tti ru] puñapharṣaja+(na) haṃbrīhyä u jaraukulina cu pari(459b6): /3/ [lo tsue u … ] jsa u tti ru puña hīvī brātarä braṃgalaina cu parilo tsueu ha[ṃ](459b7): /4/ [ … ] u tti ru puña haṃtsa hvārakä saṃduṣṭi jsa haṃbrīhyä cu pa(459b8): /5/ [rilo tsue …] haṃbrīhyä u dvīrä jalottamä jsa u dvīrä śikṣamāñä cu
parilo(459b9): /6/ [tsue …] budasaṃgäna u haṃtsa vinayä jsa u <haṃ>tsa pūrä nerä
jalārrjunāṃñä jsa(459b10): /7/ [… brā](ta)rä dattakäna u haṃtsa brātarä vikrraṃna u hvārakä
dhaṃrmakä jsa u hvā(459b11): /8/ [rakä … u tti ru puña biśyau hayū]nyau jsa u biśyau busvāryau jsahaṃbrīhyä u biśyau ysanyau jsa.
Not all of the 28 parivartas are furnished with a colophon. Moreover, somecolophons are partly destroyed or completely lost. Therefore, although there could havebeen 28, only 18 colophons are actually available. All colophons were inserted when the
manuscript was copied: They are written by the same hand as the main body of the text,
and there are no open spaces pointing to gaps later filled in.
All parivartas of the first quarter (prathamacaturbhāga), the parivartas I to V
have colophons, while parivartas VI to XI do not. This might indicate that this part of9the text including parivarta XII with the first colophon after the end of the first quarter
marked at the end of parivarta V, is the indeed second quarter (dvitīyacaturbhāga). It is,however, remarkable that there is space for names at the end of parivartas VI to X as
indicated above. The length of the gap left open varies between 6 akṣaras, where justthe genitive of a name would fit in as in, e.g., parivarta XXV, and 27 akṣaras whichallows inserting a longer colophon as, e.g., at the end of parivarta V. The colophon toparivarta XII, which is mostly destroyed, should have mentioned the end of the second
quarter, which was probably donated as a whole by the persons named at the end ofparivarta XII once. If this assumption is correct, the third quarter (tṛtīya caturbhāga)comprises parivartas XIII to XIX, and the fourth quarter (caturthacaturbhāga)parivartas XX to XXVIII. Consequently, the distribution of parivartas and folios within
the individual quarters is uneven: 1st quarter: 5 parivartas (folios 7-140 = 133 folios),
2nd quarter: 7 parivartas (folios 141-255 = 114), 3rd quarter: 7 parivartas (folios
256-360 = 96 folios), 4th quarter: 9 parivartas (folios 361-458 = 97 folios).
Apart from dividing the text into quarters, which seems to be rare, if not unique,36
there are additional names of persons with indications to their mutual relationship,
which were carefully studied by R. E. Emmerick, who, however, did not have access toall colophons at the time.37
The language of the colophons is a mixture of Khotanese and Sanskrit with strong
formulaic features, which often neglect grammar, particularly gender, when masculine
endings are attached to feminine names. This does not enhance an easy comprehensionof 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 kṣā’dai) Jalapuña has three children with lady (Khotanese mijṣei’)
Jalapuñānā, two sons (Khotanese pūra, Sanskrit putra), Jalārjuna and Śparadatta, andone daughter (Khotanese dvīra, Sanskrit duhitā) Jalottamā. Strangely, Suviprabha also
seems to have a son named Jalārjuna and a daughter Jalottamā, a very unlikely
coincidence indeed.
R. E. Emmerick tried to sort out this problem by assuming that the husband of
Jalapuñānā had two names, Jalapuña and Suviprabha. The first name Jalapuñānā isderived from Jalapuña by help of the suffix -āña, a word formation that marks anaffiliation38 thus corresponding to the Sanskrit suffix -āna / -ānī marking, e.g., husband
and wife since Vedic times such as Indra and his wife Indrāṇī. Here, the Khotanesesuffix -āña shows that husband Jalapuña and wife Jalapuñānā 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 kṣā’dai Jalapuñina “by the husband

10Jalapuña” and that of his wife is in Khotanese Jalapuñānā. In Sanskrit however R. E.
Emmerick assumes that the name of the wife is Jalapuṇyā, fem. For, the colophon ofparivarta XXII ja]lapuñasya saha suvipra[ interpreted by R. E. Emmerick as “Jalapuñā(fem.) with Suviprabha (masc.)” shows that Jalapuña (masc.) and Suviprabha (masc.)
are two names of the same person, the husband of Jalapuñā. However, that one and thesame person bears two names, is not only unusual, but almost impossible.
The solution is comparatively easy. It is not the husband, who is mentioned under
two names, but the wife, who is called in Khotanese Jalapuñānā “the one belonging toJalapuña (as wife)” and by her name Suviprabhā (fem.) in Sanskrit. Of course her
gender is concealed in the colophons at the end of parivartas XIV and XXII by the
masculine ending of suviprab(h)asya. The same is true for duhitā jalotamasya “of thedaughter Jalottamā” also in parivarta XIV, where a clearly feminine name again has amasculine ending. The problem is created by the rigid deyadharma formula, in which
the masculine case ending -asya is so firmly rooted that it is used irrespective of genderalso with feminine nouns.39
Having sorted this out, we can have another look at the colophon at the very end of
the text. At the lost beginning the principal donor was named. Therefore the missing
text can be assumed to have started by something like [miṣjei’ jalapuñāna (or:suviprabha) parstā pīḍi. puña haṃtsa] meri jsa haṃbrīhyä u pyaräna cu parilo tsuāṃdä
“Lady Jalapuñānā (or: Suviprabhā) had (this text) written. I share the merit with mymother and my father, who have gone to the other world …”
The family is united in the colophon to parivarta XV: “Lady Jalapuñānā ordered(chapter XV) to be written for sake of the maintenance of the life of herself: together
with her husband Jalapuña, and her son Jalārrjāṃ, her daughter Jalotama and her sonŚparadata (cf. “postcript” p. 388), and (her daughter) Duvākä” (R. E. Emmerick, p. 384).
At the same time this colophon underlines the purpose of the donation.40
Therefore the couple Jalapuṇya and Jalapuṇyānī = Suviprabhā had two sons,
Jalārjuna and Śpāradatta, and two daughters, who were still alive at the time of the
donation, Jalottamā and Duvākī. The third already deceased daughter Śikṣamāṇī ismentioned only in the colophon at the end.
In the colophon at the end only the deceased anonymous parents of Suviprabhā,her husband and one living daughter, Jalottamā, are mentioned. Most likely, the namesof the other members of the family were also included, but are lost. On the other hand,
one more daughter named Śikṣamāṇī surfaces together with Suviprabhā/Jalapuṇyānā’s
brother Braṃgalaka and her sister Santuṣṭā. All three are deceased. Therefore, they canparticipate in the merit created by the donation only indirectly. For this reason, they are11mentioned only in the colophon at the end, which obviously is the place, where atransfer of merit is made.41
Moreover, we learn from the colophon at the end that Suviprabhā/Jalapuṇyānī’sson Jalārjuna is married, and his wife is also named after her husband Jalārjuñānī. The
relationship of the remaining seven persons, Pharṣaja+(?), Jaraukulina, Buddhasaṃgha,Vinaya, Dattaka, Vikrama, and Dharmakā to the family of Jalapuṇya andSuviprabhā/Jalapuṇyānā, if any, or among themselves remains obscure.
Some very Buddhist names mentioned in the colophon are remarkable:Śikṣamāṇī42, Buddhasaṃgha, Vinaya and Dharmakā. They recall the names of twoladies mentioned in the inscription of the vinayadhara Dhaṃmasena, Bodhā and
Buddhā.43 Names of this type seem to have enjoyed a certain popularity, although they
do not seem to occur in Buddhist literature, which, of course, does not at necessarilyreflect Buddhist personal names as used in real daily life.
As the principal donors Jalapuṇya and Suviprabhā/Jalapuṇyānī stand out by theepithet dānapati attached only to their names, three times in the extant colophons toJalapuṇya in the very beginning of the text and at the end of parivartas I and XXI, andonce to that of his wife in parivarta III. Still Suviprabhā/Jalapuṇyānī seems to havebeen the principal donor, because her name is presupposed at the very beginning of thelong colophon at the end of the text.
Jalapuña is mentioned again together with the title Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra on
two folios which are at present detached from the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript, towhich they belong as noted by R. E. Emmerick.44 As the text begins with siddhaṃ, it islikely 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, he praises 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 (śloka)” (R.
E. Emmerick). This is a close parallel to the Book of Zambasta XXIII 1645, where thewell-known and also often quoted example of self-sacrifice by writing a Buddhist verse
with one’s own blood is referred to. Consequently, the gap should be filled by hūñi jsa“with blood” and the translation adjusted accordingly: “He gave a pen. He wrote with(his) blood one verse.”46
The overall number of persons — perhaps as many as 50 — participating in thisdonation by a large and obviously at least well off family — copying manuscripts was
fairly expensive47 — demonstrates that the Sanskrit version of the12Saddharmapuṇdarīkasūtra was held in high esteem in Khotan48 as do the numerous
manuscripts of this text found there and referred to above. This is also underlined bythree paintings found in a manuscript donated by the Khotanese donor Intula andpreserved in the St. Petersburg collection. The end of parivarta V Auṣadhiparivarta on
folio 240a (or 206a), parivarta VI Śrāvakavyākaraṇaparivarta on folio [2]46b (plate968), and at the end of parivarta VII Pūrvayogaparivarta (folio number lost) is marked
by a miniature painting in manuscript SI P 11-1 (plate 963) with the fragment SI P 7(plate 804) of the same manuscript.49 The name of the Khotanese donor is mentioned at
the end of the parivartas, as is interestingly also the division of the text into quarters:… pañcamaḥ samāptaḥ || 5 || prathamaś caturbhāgaḥ || intulasya || atha khalu …
Moreover, there are colophons in small cursive, and sometimes difficult to read,characters at the bottom of page 240a (or 206a): ttū parivartä intulä parste pīḍä“Intula had this parivarta written,” of page [2]46b: ttū [parivartä] i[ntu]lä par[stä](p)ī(ḍ)ä || + + + + + + + (stene) ca paraloke [ca] “Intula had this parivarta
written. ... and in the yonder world,” and at the bottom of fragment SI P 7: intulä
parstä pīḍä.
Interestingly, the Kashgar (Khotan) Manuscript is perhaps also shaped in such a
way that it is prepared for miniature paintings. For, on folio 6b, where the text of the
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra begins, and at all subsequent extant ends of parivartas there
are empty circles which could have been filled by a painting. If this is correct, it isdifficult to guess why the paintings were not executed, if they were planned, in spite of
the fact that the donation as such was brought to an end as shown by the colophon at theend of the text, which was probably added as the last step concluding the act of meritmaking. One might assume that manuscripts could be prepared to incorporate
miniatures as a precautionary measure, as it were, just in case the donors would decideto have pictures painted (and were willing to pay for them). If not, the circles 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,
which could accommodate colophons of different length varying from only a simple
name such as intulasya just quoted above to a longer text. As stated above, allcolophons within the text seem to have been written by the scribe of the manuscript in
the same formal script without any indication that they were added only after the copy
was completed. Consequently, certain parts of the text must have been attributed to therespective donors from the very beginning, when the donation was planned and before
the scribe began his work. If so, these gaps and particularly their varying length make13

little sense and are difficult to understand. Was there the hope to win additional donors
to join (and share the merit as well 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 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra in
Khotan, it was not translated into Khotanese, in contrast to other texts such as the very
popular Saṃghāṭasūtra or the equally popular Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. Only a very
brief summary of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra in Khotanese exists, but that in rather
many manuscripts, which again underlines the popularity of the text.50 Besides thissummary there is one single verse translated from Sanskrit into Khotanese and quoted in
the Book of Zambasta.51 It is not likely that this verse is the only trace left by a once
complete, but lost translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra into Khotanese. Rather, it
seems to be a spontaneous translation by the author of the Book of Zambasta whowanted to quote this verse in his enumeration of individual verses from different sūtra
texts.52
With the Saṃghāṭasūtra, which was obviously widely read in Khotan and in Gilgit
in the same way as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra was, the situation is exactly the
opposite. While G. Canevascini was able to identify traces of no less than 29 Khotanesemanuscripts of the Saṃghāṭasūtra, not a single Sanskrit manuscript can be traced backto Khotan. As far as the origin of the Sanskrit manuscripts is known or can be inferred,
they were either copied in Gilgit or in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent.
The Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra is represented by about 20 manuscripts in Khotaneseand by a considerable number of Sanskrit fragments also from the vicinity of Khotan.53
This sūtra thus holds an intermediate position between the exclusively Sanskrit traditionof the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra and the equally exclusively Khotanese tradition of theSaṃghāṭasūtra in Khotan.
Given the total number of all fragments and manuscripts recovered from the
Khotan area, it does not seem likely, though it is of course not impossible, that thissituation is due to the accidental complete loss of all Sanskrit manuscripts of theSaṃghāṭasūtra or all Khotanese traces of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra at Khotan. It is,however, much more likely that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra was among the texts
which were never translated into Khotanese,54 perhaps because, as it is said in the Bookof Zambasta VI.4, “the Khotanese do not value the Law at all in Khotanese” (M.
Maggi).55 If the author of the Book of Zambasta can be taken at his word, thisreluctance to translate the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra again would mark the highest
appreciation for this text.

14Notes
1. Thus this Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra shares the fate of many other manuscripts among them thefamous Khotan (ex Gāndhārī) Dharmapada, cf. John Brough: The Gāndhārī 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 lib raries is described by Hirofumi Toda:
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Central Asian Manuscripts. Romanized Texts, 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.
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 are 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.
4. Actually, already August Friedrich Rudolf Hoernle (1841-1918): Manuscript Remains of Buddhist
Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan. Oxford 1916 (reprinted Amsterdam 1970 [rev.: Jan Willem deJong, Indo-Iranian Journal 14. 1972, p. 265], p. 139 suspected that the manuscript came from Khādaliq.
This remark was obviously often overlooked with the exception of H. Toda: Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra.
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 Report of The International
Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 2002. 6. 2003, pp.
85-182, particularly p. 86.
5. The year 1903 is mentioned in Akira Yuyama: Bibliography of the Sanskrit Texts of the
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Canberra 1970 [rev.: Jan Willem de Jong, Indo-Iranian Journal 15. 1973, pp.
140-144; F. Weller, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 70. 1975, pp. 180 foll.; Boris L. Oguibénine, Journalof the Royal Asiatic Society 1974, pp. 76-78], p. 21, and, probably following A. Yuyama, in H. Bechert:Über die Marburger Fragmente des Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaftenin Göttingen, I. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1972, Nr. 1 [rev.: C. Vogel, Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 125. 1975, pp. 445-448; Jacques May, Indo-Iranian Journal 17.
1975, pp. 270-273], p. 11. — An English summary is given by H. Bechert: Remarks on the textual historyof Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Indo-Asian Art and Culture (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. — Yurij Ašotovič Petrosyan: The Collection of Oriental Manuscripts in the St. Petersburg Branch15

of the Institute of Oriental 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; cf. on Sir George Macartney: Clarmont
Percival Skrine and Pamela Nightingale: Macartney at Kashgar. New Light on British, Chinese, andRussian Activities in Sinkiang, 1890-1918. Hong Kong and Oxford 1987 and Lady (Catherine Borland)
Macartney: An English Lady in Chinese Turkestan. Hong Kong and Oxford 1985.
8. Cf. Jens-Uwe Hartmann & Klaus Wille: Die nordturkestanischen Sanskrit-Handschriften derSammlung 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.
9. H. 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 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra.
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: Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. 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 sevenvery fragmentary folios in the Lüshun Museum Collection. They are edited together with the remaining
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra mansucripts 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-Puṇḍarīka, 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 editionof 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 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra 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. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka ed. by Henrik Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio. St. Petersburg 1908-1912(Bibliotheca Buddhica X) (reprinted Osnabrück 1970).
15. On the well-known shortcomings of this edition: Willy Baruch: Beiträge zum
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Leiden 1938 [rev.: Jean Filliozat, Journal Asiatique 238, 1938, pp. 346 foll.],
pp. 7-12.

16

16. H. Toda: Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, as note 2 above.
17. Klaus Wille: Fragments of a Manuscript of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra from Khādaliq. Lotus
Sutra Manuscript Series 3. Tokyo 2000, pp. 159-183 chapter 4.5 giving 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 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra kept in the St. Petersburg
Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies. ARIRIAB 10. 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 10 above, p. 23
foll.
19. According to Grigorij Maksimovič Bongard-Levin & M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja: 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.
20. H. Bechert: Marburger Fragmente, as note 5 above, p. 15.
21. H. Lüders: Miscellaneous Fragments I. Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka, as note 13 above, p. 161 foll.;
there are more examples of this particular vocative plural form which are listed by H. Toda:
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, as note 2 above, p. 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 Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Indo-Iranian
Journal 44. 2001, pp. 207-230.
23. Claus Vogel: The Dated Nepalese Manuscripts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaftenin 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 Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Kept in
the Library of the Cultural Palace of the the Nationalities, Beijing. Peking 1988.
24. N. D. Mironov: Buddhist Miscellanea: I. Avalokiteśvara - Kuan-Yin; II. Central Asian
Recensions of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1927, pp. 241-252 and pp.
252-279.
25. R. E. Emmerick in H. Toda: Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra. Central Asian Manuscripts, as note 2
above, p. XII.
26. Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka-Sūtra. Kashgar Manuscript (foreword by Heinz Bechert). Tokyo 1977, p.
1 foll.

17

27. Missing text is put into brackets [ ], damaged akṣaras into parentheses ( ), while < > marks anakṣara forgotten by the scribe, and + stands for gap of one akṣara.
28. The numbers from this manuscript are conveniently collected by Klaus Wille: Die
handschriftliche Überlieferung des Vinayavastu der Mūlasarvāstivādin. Verzeichnis der Orientalischen
Handschriften in Deutschland. Supplementband 30. Stuttgart 1990, table p. 20.
29. By coincidence the only numerical sign beyond “1000” noted by Georg Bühler in his
palaeography is “8000” quoted from the Chammak Plates of Pravarasena II published in Vasudev Vishnu
Mirashi: Inscriptions of the Vākāṭakas. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum V. Ootacamund 1963, pp. 22-27,
line 19. The interpretation is certain because of the text sahasrair aṣṭābhiḥ 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 diofferent. It seems that the numerical signs for “1000” etc. were createdindependently in different scripts.
30. Cf. O. v. Hinüber: Die Pāli Handschriften des Klosters Lai Hin. Wiesbaden 2013, p. XLVIII foll.,
cf. note 46 below.
31. On pharṣa “judge” cf. Ela Filippone: Is the Judge a Questioning Man? Notes in the Margin of
Khotanese pharṣavata-, 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 with older literature, but without reference to the colophon.
32. O. v. Hinüber: A Second Inscription from Phanigiri (Andhrapradesh): Dhaṃmasena’s Donation.
ARIRIAB 15. 2012, pp. 2-10, particularly p. 4, line 7 foll. An improved edition of this inscription,
particularly of lines 14-17, appeared in ARIRIAB 16. 2013, pp. 3-12. — Sten Konow: Kharoṣṭhī
Inscriptions with the exception of those of Aśoka. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum II,1. Calcutta 1929,
no. XXXV,2, p. 91.
33. Giotto Canevascini: The Khotanese Saṃghāṭasūtra. A critical edition. Beiträge zur Iranistik Band
14. Wiesbaden 1993.
34. Cf. H. W. Bailey: Dictionary of Khotanese Saka. Cambridge 1979 s.v. ysani. The colophon of
the Jñānolkadhāraṇī has a similar wording harbiśyau ysanyau u busvāryau jsa haṃ tsa biśyau
sarvastvyau 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 fürdie Kunde des Morgenlandes XV.2. Leipzig 1920 (repr. Nendeln 1966), p. 164.
35. The name of an author is given in a corresponding way in ]kṛtir bhikṣor ācaryaDharmattrāta[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 Viśvantarāvadāna, p. 157 = no.

18

1347: ]samāptam kṛtir ācārya-Śūrasya ||, in: O. v. Hinüber: The Gilgit Manuscripts. An Ancient Buddhist
Library in Modern Research (in press). The same formula also occurs in epigraphy, e.g.: kṛti buddhabalaat the end of the Shigar inscription, cf. O. v. Hinüber: Die Palola Ṣāhis. 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.
36. 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
Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra manuscript donated by Intula (see below).
37. 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. Only the colophons of the Parivartas II, V, XV are
discussed here.
38. Almuth Degener: Khotanische Suffixe. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 39. Stuttgart 1979 [rev.: P.
O. Skjærø, 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, pp. 372 foll.], pp.71-73 § 7.B.11-7.B.19.
39. Examples for the mechanical use of various case endings are collected in O. v. Hinüber: Die
Palola Ṣāhis, as note above note 35, p. 145; O. v. Hinüber: Buddhistische Inschriften aus dem Tal desOberen Indus, in: Antiquities of Northern Pakistan Vol. I: Rock Inscriptions in the Indus Valley. Mainz
1989, pp. 73-106, particularly p. 85: bhāginyā pravāsubena, raktaśāntenasya bhikṣoḥ, āyuṣmāṃ
raktaśāntenaś; O. v. Hinüber: The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra at Gilgit: Manuscripts, Worshippers, andArtists. The Journal of Oriental Studies 22. 2012, pp. 52-67, particularly p. 54: pevoṭhīyena, fem.; further:siṇhoṭesya, Chilās 20:2 (siṇhoṭena x siṇhoṭasya), 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 ṣeriyesya, 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 adharmaeṇa, Saṃghāṭasūtra manuscript F § 103.3, cf. G. Canevascini, as note
33 above, p. 49.
40. Devaśirikā, the donatrix of manuscript D of the Saṃghāṭasūtra expresses a similar wish: sveśarīre āyurvalavarṇavṛddhi, O. v. Hinüber: Palola Ṣāhis, as note 35 above, no. 10 (Saṃghāṭasūtra).
41. Another example for deceased persons being included in the act of merit making is the colophon
to the Gilgit manuscript “D” of the Saṃghāṭasūtra, cf. precing note.
42. The existence of this name does not necessarily point to the actual existence of the status of aśikṣamāṇā in the carreer of a Buddhist nun in ancient Khotan. On the absence of śikṣamāṇās 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
Bhikkhunīsaṃgha. A Contribution to the Earliest History of Buddhism. ARIRIAB 11. 2008, pp. 3-29,

19

particularly p. 19.
43. O. v. Hinüber: A Second Inscription from Phanagiri, as note 32 above; Pavajitikā is not a
personal name, as assumed erroneously, cf. ARIRIAB 13. 2013, p. 3 foll.
44. These folios are published as facsimile in R. E. Emmerick & M. I. Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja:
Saka Documents VII: the St. Petersburg Collections. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum Part II Inscriptionsof 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, pp. 119 foll.; H. Kumamoto,Indo-Iranian Journal 38. 1995, pp. 371-376 (also on the text volume); G. Canevascini, Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 59. 1996, pp. 163 foll.; M. Maggi, Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 92. 1997, pp. 589 foll.; R. Schmitt, Kratylos 42. 1997, pp. 175-177], plates 49, 50 and intranscription 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 andParthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. V. Saka. London 1995 [rev.: A. Degener,
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3rd Series 6. 1996, pp. 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], pp. 68 foll.
45. The Book of Zambasta. A Khotanese poem on Buddhism, edited and translated by R. E.
Emmerick. London Oriental Series Volume 21. London 1968.
46. This suggestion is not without problems, because the traces of akṣaras, particularly the
beginning of line 3 with jsa do not really seem to match. — A corresponding Sanskrit text is, e.g.,madīyena śoṇitena massiṃ kuryyāc carmmam utpāṭya bhūrjjaṃ kuryyād asthi bhaktvā ca kalamaṃ
kuryyāt, Adeleid Mette: Die Gilgitfragmente des Kāraṇḍavyūha. 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: Mahāyānasūtrasaṃgraha, Volume I. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 17. Darbhanga 1961, p. 293, 22
foll.; Mātṛceṭa writes his Praṇidhānasaptati with his own blood: Jens-Uwe Hartmann: DasVarṇārhavarṇastotra des Mātṛceṭa herausgegeben und übersetzt. Abhandlungen der Akademie derWissenschaften 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.
47. On the prices of Pāli manuscripts copied much later in 16th century Northern Thailand cf. note
30 above.
48. On the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra in Khotan: Mauro Maggi, in: R. E. Emmerick & Maria
Macuch (edd.): 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. 324 foll.
49. Both miniatures are reproduced in black and white in G. M. Bongard-Levin & M. I.

20

Vorob’ëva-Desjatovskaja: Pamjatniki, as note 19 above, pp. 250 and 253. The miniature on folio 240a isreproduced in colour in the exhibition catalogue The Lotus Sutra and Its World. Buddhist Manuscripts of
the Great Silk Road. Manuscripts and blockprints from the collection of the St. Petersburg Branch of theInstitute of Oriental Studies. St. Petersburg & Tokyo 1998, plate 2 = Buddhistische Manuskripte der
Seidenstraße. Das Lotussutra und seine Welt. Wien und Wolfenbüttel 2000, plate 2.
50. R. E. Emmerick: A Guide to the Literature of Khotan. Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised andEnlarged. Studia Philologica Buddhica. Occasional Paper Series III. Tokyo 1992, pp. 27-29; H. W.
Bailey: Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra. The Summary in Khotan Saka. The Australian National University.
Faculty of Asian Studies. Occasional Paper 10. Canberra 1971 [rev.: M. J. Dresden, Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 93. 1973, pp. 599 foll.]; H. W. Bailey: The Khotanese Summary of the
Sad-dharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra, in: Taisho Daigaku Kenkyukiyo. Memoirs of the Taisho University, The
Department of Literature and Buddhism. 57. 1972, pp. 530-526.
51. Book of Zambasta, as note 45 above, VI 3. The verse was identified already by Ernst Leumann(1859-1931).
52. Cf. M. Maggi, as note 48 above, pp. 338 foll.
53. Prods Oktor Skjærvø: The Most Excellent Shine of Gold, King of Kings of Sutras. The
Khotanese Suvarṇabhāsottamasūtra. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 60, 61. Central Asian
Sources V, VI. Cambridge/Mass. 2004, 2 Volumes. On the Sanskrit manuscripts Vol. I, pp. XXXIII foll.;on the Khotanese manuscripts pp. LXII-LXXI.
54. Thus also M. Maggi, as note 48 above, p. 375. — It is remarkable that no Khotanese Vinaya text
seems to exist with the only exception of the Tumšuqese Karmavācanā containing the vows of anupāsaka (or an upāsikā?): R. E. Emmerick: The Tumshuqese Karmavācanā Text. Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz. Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse.
Jahrgang1985, Nr. 2 [rev.: V. H. Mair, Journal of the American Oriental Society 106. 1986, pp. 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, pp. 619 foll.] with corrections byKlaus Totila Schmidt: Ein Beitrag des Tocharischen zur Entzifferung des Tumšuqsakischen.
Altorientalische Forschungen 15. 1988, pp. 306-314.
55. This would not shed a very favourable light on the Saṃghāṭasūtra in Khotenese, unless, perhaps,
both texts simply appealed to different readers and users, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra to the educated orlearned and the (to our taste at least) rather unassuming Saṃghāṭasūtra to the common monk orlayman(?).

21