Preface
One day in 1993, I received a set of fine color photographs of the Lotus Sutra
manuscript (no. 4-21) kept in the collection of the National Archives of Nepal fromNoriyoshi Mizufune, a researcher in charge of manuscript studies at the Institute ofOriental Philosophy (IOP).
I had previously had a chance to see a copy of the same manuscript in 1981 at theSeminar für Indologie und Buddhismuskunde of the University of Göttingen. I perused
the whole text along with copies of two other palm-leaf manuscripts from the National
Archives. Before returning home after completing my tenure, I submitted a reportconsisting of a detailed text concordance concerning these three manuscripts to Prof.
Heinz Bechert at the Seminar.
At that time, I was unable to read copies of these manuscripts with detailed
precision due to technical limitations. However, the color photographs provided by theIOP enabled me to read through the manuscript very smoothly, and I completed ahandwritten romanized draft in October 1994. During the course of events, the projectto publish this transliterated version was formally inaugurated in April 1994 according
to a proposal from the IOP. In March 1997, I finalized the typed script for printing.
In order to prepare photographs fit for the facsimile edition of the manuscript andto reconfirm the original for better reading, I traveled to the Indian subcontinent, with astopover in Calcutta and flight over the Himalayan mountains, setting foot in
Kathmandu, the capital of the Kingdom of Nepal, on the evening of November 1, 1997.
Thanks to the efforts of Shoichi Matsuoka, one of Japan’s finest photographers, threepalm-leaf manuscripts stored at the National Archives were successfully photographedwith high definition. In consultation with the originals, I was able to clarify the readingsof indistinct portions which I could not have determined otherwise. It is hard to describe
the feeling of actually observing the manuscripts I had dreamed of seeing since I was avisiting professor in Germany. I vividly remember my sojourn in the bosom of thesnow-crowned Himalayas as a time of bliss.
The first volume of this romanized text of the Sanskrit Lotus Sutra manuscript (no.
4-21)1 from the National Archives of Nepal contains fols. 1b-90b, 1, i.e.,Rāhulabhadra’s Saddharmapuṇḍarīkastavaḥ and chapters 1-10; and the second volume
fols. 90b, 1-179a, 2, i.e., chapters 11-27. This manuscript consists of two textual
portions: fols. 1-176, fol. 178b (Text A), and fols. 177, 178a, 179a (Text B), totaling
179 folios.2
Both fol. 176a and fol. 177a begin with “nayutaśatasahasrā(sic)samudānitāṃ”(Kern-Nanjio’s edition: 484.8), and both fol. 8a and fol. 179a start with “mānuṣaṃ

jinasya muktā iha ekaraśminā (Text B: ekarasmi vā) / .”3 This suggests that Text B is apartial duplication of Text A. Though duplicated, Text B has an added colophon lackingin Text A. This reads: “nepālavatsaraśatadvitaye prayāte ekâdhi(ka)saptatisamāyu(kte)[ji] caitramāse / ānandadevanṛpateḥ parivarddhamāne rājye
vipakṣabaladālanacaṇḍanīteḥ //” (178a, 2). In effect, it was copied in the Chaitra month(March-April) of the year 271 (1151 C.E.) in the Nepal calendar,4 under the strong reignof King Ānandadeva. L. Petech identifies the reign of King Ānandadeva as 1147-1167
C.E.,5 which infers that the copy date of Text A falls on the same period as Text B orearlier, i.e., approximately the first half of the 12th century. The text redundancy on thefinal part of the script also appears on a Lotus Sutra manuscript (Add. no. 2197)6 in thecollection of the Cambridge University Library. The style of the colophon added to theNepalese manuscript resembles that added to the first text of this Cambridge manuscript(131b, 3).7The colophon to Text B includes the “Verse on the Law of Dependent Origination”(Pratītyasamutpādagāthā).8 This verse also appears in the manuscript kept at the Libraryof the Cultural Palace of the Nationalities, Beijing,9 (no. 0004, fol. 137a, 3), that at theBritish Library (Or. no. 2204, estimated to have been copied in the 12th-13th centuries,fol. 176a, 5) and that at the National Archives of Nepal (no. 3-678, fol. 139b, 2).
The title of chapter 27 reads in Text A (fol. 178b, 1) and Text B (fol. 178a, 1) “…
sa[mā]ptāviṃśatimaḥ yathāsukhavihārārocanaparivarttaś cêti,” which corresponds to themanuscript at the Cambridge University Library (Add. no. 1683, fol. 140b, 1) and theBeijing manuscript (fol. 137a, 1). This title means “the chapter telling [Buddhas] may
live peacefully, the 27th,” named after the content of the second half of the chapter. On
the other hand, “anuparīndanāparivarttaḥ,” or “the entrustment chapter,” appearing in
the manuscripts at the Cambridge University Library (Add. no. 1684, fol. 156b, 4 , andAdd. no. 2197, Texts A, B (i.e., 131b, 2, 132b, 1)),10 was named after the content of thefirst half of the chapter. In terms of the texts, the present writer has read, no manuscripts
other than these mentioned have a written title for this chapter.11
It may safely be said that the text of this manuscript resembles those of theCambridge manuscript Add. no. 1683 and the Beijing manuscript for the most part.
When reading the text of this manuscript, one needs to take the Cambridge manuscript
Add. no. 1682 into account, because, in the view of the present writer, the text of Add.
no. 1682 preserves an older and better reading than other Nepalese palm-leaf
manuscripts.12 Also, the texts of this manuscript and the above-mentioned three copies
are important as they are deemed to be among the most ancient Nepalese palm-leaf
Lotus Sutra copies.
In addition, one ought to take note of the fact that this National Archivesmanuscript has not a few errors and omissions as well as disorders in text and folios.
The following folios and text portions should be transposed for orderly reading: 40/127;
46/133; 60/147; 72/159; 83/170; 60a/60b; 113a/113b; 116a/116b; 122a/122b;
143a/143b; 155a/155b; 158a/158b; 168a/168b. Fol. 87 should be interposed after“...kuladuhitā vā imaṃ” on fol. 99a, 3c; then the text jumps to the beginning words“aṣṭavarṣā jātyā” on fol. 100a, 1a, and continues to “mahāprājñe ...”13 on fol. 99a, 3c.
The text portion of chapter 7 on fol. 62b, 4, corresponding to 160.7-165.9 ofKern-Nanjio’s edition, is missing. In spite of such shortcomings, research on thismanuscript is indispensable for the elucidation of Nepalese Lotus Sutra manuscript
texts.
The script used in this manuscript is categorized as Rañjanā in the catalogue of theNational Archives of Nepal.14
I would like to conclude with some acknowledgments. First, I must express myutmost appreciation to Prof. Heinz Bechert, who took the trouble to obtain and provide
to me a copy of this Nepalese manuscript from Berlin when I was studying at theSeminar für Indologie und Buddhismuskunde of the University of Göttingen from1980
to 1981.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Ms. Sanimaiya Rana, then chiefof the National Archives of Nepal and now deputy director-general of the Departmentof Archaeology, Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture of the Kingdom of Nepal, andresearch officer Shukdev Sharma Gyanwali of the National Archives, who lent me theirkind offices when I visited in November 1997 to conduct a reconfirming examination ofthe original manuscript. I would also like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to IOP
officials who dispatched me to Kathmandu. In particular, I wish to thank Noriyoshi
Mizufune who cooperated extensively in this publication project. Also, I am grateful toMs. Yoshiko Kawamura and Keshab B. Shrestha for their kind assistance andcollaboration in Nepal.
Furthermore, I would like here to express my heartfelt respect to the Kingdom ofNepal and its people, who, under the noble guidance of His Majesty King Birendra
Bir Bikram Shah Dev, have preserved so many precious materials and documents. Themanuscript studies I have so far conducted are greatly benefited from materials whichhave been handed down in the Himalayan kingdom. Nothing would give me greater joy
than to hope that this volume is able to contribute to the promotion of science andculture in Nepal and to bi1ateral friendship between Nepal and Japan.
Hirofumi Toda
March 16, 1999

Notes1.

Sanskrit Lotus Sutra Manuscript from the National Archives of Nepal (No. 4-21), Facsimile Edition,

Lotus Sutra Manuscript Series, 2-1, published by the Soka Gakkai in cooperation with the National
Archives of Nepal, Tokyo 1998.
Sūcīpatra, (Buddha viṣayakā hastalikhita granthaharūko), bhāg-1, (Abhilekha Prakāśanamālā-5),Rāṣṭriya Abhilekhālaya (National Archives of Nepal), 2054 (1997 C.E.), p. 67, no. 85. See also nos. 84,86.
Claus Vogel, “The Dated Nepalese Manuscripts of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra,” Nachrichten derAkademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Göttingen, Jahrgang 1974,
Nr. 5, p. 199.
Sanskrit Manuscripts of Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Collected from Nepal, Kashmir and Central Asia,
Romanized Text and Index, vol. 1, Tokyo 1986, p. (12), 12)-13), p. (37), N1 (table). Descriptions here
may need to be reconsidered.
2.

Text A ends with fol. 178b.

3.

Except for this MS, this passage appears only in no. 412 (palm-leaf MS) and no. 409 (paper MS) in

the collection of the Tokyo University Library. The first half of the text of no. 409 corresponds to that ofno. 412.
4.

Jiang Zhongxin, A Sanskrit Manuscript of Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Kept in the Library of the Cultural

Palace of the Nationalities, Beijing, Romanized Text,

China Social Sciences Publishing House, Beijing

1988, Introduction, pp. 9-11.
5.

Luciano Petech, Mediaeval History of Nepal (c. 750-1482), Serie Orientale Roma, LIV, second,thoroughly revised edition, Rome 1984, pp. 61-67.
6.

Willy Baruch, Beiträge zum Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, Leiden 1938, p. 2 Cf. The MS (Cf) seems tohave been copied by several scribes. In addition, the text in seven folios written in Newari script (fols. 7,43, 57, 75, 115, 121, 122) bears a close resemblance to that of Add. no. 1683 in the collection of theCambridge University Library.
7.

Vogel (1974), p. 201, (5), Petech (1984), p. 49, 3).

8.

Akira Yuyama, “’Jūniinnen ju’ oboegaki” (Notes on the Pratītyasamutpāda-gāthā), Indogaku

Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies), 20-1, pp. (48)-(52).
Keishō Tsukamoto, Indo bukkyō himei no kenkyū (A Study of Indian Buddhist Inscriptions), I, Text,
Note, Japanese translation, Kyoto 1999.
9.

Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra, a Sanskrit Palm-leaf Manuscript Kept in the Library of the Cultural

Palace of the Nationalities (facsimile edition), Beijing 1984. Hereafter referred to as the Beijing
manuscript.
10.

Text portions on Add. no. 2197, fols. 76-78, 83ff. (except fols. 115, 121, 122), are parallel withthose on Add. no. 1684.
11.

The Tibetan version holds the chapter title “yoṅs su gtad pa” (Skt. anuparīndanā-). See Jiang

Zhongxin (1988) Introduction, p. 11. The description “in all other Sanskrit manuscripts of the Lotus Sūtra
we have seen so far, this chapter is, without exception entitled anuparīndanā” may need to bereconsidered.
12.

Hendrik Kern, trans., Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, or The Lotus of the True Law, SBE, vol. XXI (1884),

pp. xxxviii-xxxix. Though this volume reads here “London codices” inferring plural MSS, in actuality itshould be a single MS: no. 6 at the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, which isreferred to as “A” in Kern-Nanjio’s edition (1908-1912). So H. Kern’s account here is incorrect. Seenotes on Burnouf’s French translation (1852), pp. 356, 418. Kern-Nanjio’s “A,” a paper MS, isgenealogically different from and apparently discords with Add. no. 1683 (“the former manuscript”) andAdd. no. 1682 (“the second Cambridge MS.”), both palm-leaf MSS. Thus, Kern’s understanding that “No.
1683 has much in common with the London codices” is incorrect.
“The Paris MS.” referred to by Kern means no. 2 in the collection of the Société Asiatique, which E.
Burnouf used as the basic text for translation. At the same time, Burnouf made reference to the Tibetan
version for completing his French translation. “Les deux manuscrits de M. Hodgson” in the notes to theFrench translation indicate a couple of handwritten copies, nos. 140-141 (“le premier manuscrit de M.
Hodgson” for Burnouf’s translation; W. Baruch: Pb) and nos. 138-139 (“le second manuscrit de M.
Hodgson” for Burnouf’s translation; Baruch: Pa), in the collection of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
See Burnouf’s translation, p. 418. The Société Asiatique MS and the two copies at the Bibliothèque
Nationale are on different branches of transmission, so their textual contents do not necessarily accordwith each other. The Société Asiatique MS falls on a different branch of genealogy from the twocounterparts at the Bibliothèque Nationale, which can be regarded as two copies of the same version as
they hold an identical text. See Baruch (1938), p. 4, Pa, Pb.
The same is true in the case of Add. no. 1032 (Cd) and Add. no. 1324 (Ce) in the collection of theCambridge University Library. It is also the case of no. B7 (Aa) and no. 4199 (Ac) in The Asiatic Society,Calcutta. See Baruch (1938), p. 2, Cd, Ce, pp. 3-4, Aa, Ac. Though W. Baruch indicates that Cd and Ce
belong to a certain group along with Aa and Ac, one can find that they do not necessarily accord with one
another if strict perusal is carefully undertaken. Rather, Aa and Ac resemble no. 6 at the Royal AsiaticSociety, London, (W. Baruch: R, Kern-Nanjio: A). Therefore, W. Baruch’s description that R belongs to
one group along with Aa, Ac, Cd and Ce is incorrect in the strictest meaning.
13.

In regard to the Facsimile Edition, p. xix, Notes on the Use of This Edition (2), “mahāprajñe ...”

should be read “°prā°.”14.

Sūcīpatra, p. 67, no . 85. See Burnouf’s translation, p. 373. Described as “Kuṭila” in C. Bendall

Catalogue, p. xxi.