The Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra at Gilgit
Manuscripts, Worshippers, and Artists
Oskar von HinüberT

he Gilgit library, the only surviving library from ancient India, wasdiscovered by chance in 1931 at Naupur near Gilgit at the site of anancient building often mistakenly thought to have been a stËpa. Recent
researches by G. Fussman, however, point into a different direction. As
far as this can be deduced from the rather poorly documented
archaeological evidence, the building was a small lived-in tower rather
and a living place for monks thus resembling edifices, which can beseen on images from ancient Gandhåra. The monk(s), who used thissmall perhaps two-storied building, served as religious advisers,
possibly also practitioners of rituals, and certainly as healers to the local
Buddhist community. This is confirmed by two medical texts foundamong the books recovered from Naupur/Gilgit. Recently Fussman’sfindings were more supplemented than contradicted by G. Schopen, whocertainly correctly emphasized other activities of the monks as scribes
and copyists of Buddhist manuscripts1. The site seems to be covered by
a Muslim cemetery today2.
It is impossible at present to determine the exact number of texts, or,perhaps titles rather3, and manuscripts preserved in this library once.
One of the reasons is that the facsimile edition, useful as it is, does notallow reassembling the folios dispersed after the discovery ofmanuscripts split up into different parts4. This could be done only inusing the originals 5. Consequently, only an estimate is possible
according to which there were approximately 50 manuscripts containing
57 titles plus 17 Avadånas, which may or may not have been preserved
as separate texts or as parts of an as yet uncertain number of Avadåna
collections.
The Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra figures prominently among the Gilgit
manuscripts, because no less than four manuscripts are preserved in thecollection. Three manuscripts are kept in the National Archives in New
Delhi which are split up into different parts numbered as serial nos. 44,
45, 47a, 48, and 49. Moreover, there are stray folios in the serial
numbers 50a, 52a, 52d,26.
52

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

53

A large number of these folios was edited by Shoko Watanabe:
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra Manuscripts Found at Gilgit. Tokyo Part I(1972), Part 2 (1974), whose “Group A” comprises the 120 folios fromserial no. 45 (FE pages 2813-3052), “Group B” comprises 14 folios
from serial no. 44 (FE pages 2785-2812), 33 folios from serial no. 47a(FE pages 3053-3118), while 2 folios from serial no. 49 (FE pages
3217-3220) and 2 folios from serial no. 52d,2 (FE pages 3311-3312) are
missing in S. Watanabe’s edition though they actually are folios 99, afragment from the XXth Parivarta as well as 71 and 72 of his “Group B”
respectively. The same is true for serial no. 52a (FE page 3306), which
consists of the right half of folio 102a,b in S. Watanabe’s edition and offolios 65 and 98 of “Group B” (FE pages 3496/3495 and 3499/3500)
buried in serial no. 50, which otherwise contains folios of a large
Prajñåpåramitå text. Lastly, serial no. 48 (FE pages 3121-3216) contains
48 folios of S. Watanabe’s “Group C”, which were edited by Hirofumi
Toda: Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra Gilgit Manuscripts (Groups B and C),
in: Tokushima Daigaku KyØyØbu KiyØ (Jinbun-Shakai Kagaku) 14.
1979, p. 249-304, particularly p. 249-300. Twenty additional folios ofthis manuscript were edited later also by H. Toda: Gilgit Manuscripts(Tucci’s Collection) Group C, in: Tokushima Daigaku KyØyØbu
Rinrigakka kiyØ 15. 1988. This transcript is based on photos preservedin Rome and published by Raniero Gnoli: The Gilgit Manuscript of the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtram, in: Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae
Dicata. Vol. II. Serie Orientale Roma LVI, 2. Rome 1987, p. 533 andplates I-XX. Lastly, seven folios are preserved in the British Library.
Only this part of the manuscript appears in S. Watanabe’s edition as“Group C.”

Finally, a large fragment of a fourth Gilgit manuscript comprising 30
folios which are preserved today in Kashmir (the exact location is notknown) was edited by O. v. Hinüber: A new fragmentary manuscript of
the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Tokyo 19827. A facsimile of all fragments
accompanies by this edition.
Apart from this facsimile, the Gilgit manuscripts of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra are also available in black and white facsimiles, whichwere published from Delhi between 1959 and 1974 by Lokesh Chandra
as mentioned in note 4. Furthermore, Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manu­
scripts are also available electronically as facsimiles reproduced fromvarious microfilms of the National Archives at Delhi on a set of
CD-ROMs published by the Rissho University. Here, the Gilgit

54

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

manuscripts are found on CD-ROM Vol. II nos. 9 and 10 containing
only the serial numbers 44, 45, and 47.
All of the Gilgit manuscripts of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra are
written on birch bark, with the notable exception of manuscript no. 48(“Group C”) written on so called “clay-coated paper,” which was
described and chemically analysed by R. Kishore: A Clay-coatedmanuscript in the Gilgit Collection. The Indian Archives. New Delhi 15.
1963/63, p. 1-3. This is the only Gilgit manuscript in its entirety written
on this particular sort of “paper,” while very few other manuscripts, e.g.,
no. 36 Saµghå†asËtra (manuscript “F”) are written partly on birch barkand partly on “paper.”Only rarely colophons of the Gilgit manuscripts are preserved. By
lucky coincidence, two Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscripts areamong them. This is of eminent interest and importance, because thepersons mentioned in the colophons as donors of the manuscript are, atthe same time, the first worshippers of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra,whom we know by name. These names were probably kept alive in thelocal Buddhist community also after the manuscript was donated. For it
is said in the Íayanåsanavastu of the MËlasarvåstivådavinaya8:
uktaµ ca bhagavatå abhyat¥takålagatånåµ dånapat¥nåµ nåmnå
dak∑iˆå åde∑†avyå iti. saµghasthaviro ’bhyat¥takålagatånåµdånapat¥nåµ arthåya gåthåµ bhå∑ate“And it was said by the Lord: ‘Reward must be ascribed by name to thedeceased, passed away donors.’ The senior-most monk in the commu­
nity recites a verse for the benefit of the deceased, passed away donors.”

Although this paragraph refers to the donation of a monastery, it is not
at all unlikely that other donations such as manuscripts, which were heldin high esteem, were also accompanied by a recitation of the names of
those who donated them. Moreover, it seems likely although this is notclearly stated in the text quoted above that it was a custom to repeat therecitation of the names of the deceased donors to keep alive theirmemory. Thus it is not impossible that the names of the donors of the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra were remembered in Gilgit over a longer
period of time.
Fortunately, it is certain that we have at least the colophon to manu­
script “C,” because the end of the text immediately precedes thecolophon, or better colophons. For there is first a colophon added to thetext of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra and a second one composed by andfor the donors of the individual manuscripts.

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

55

The colophon attached to manuscript “C” marks the beginning of one
line of the manuscript tradition in which a colophon with a string of
attributes praising the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra is used comprising theverse:aµgårakar∑Ë∫ gåhitvå åkramya k∑urasaµstaraµ.
gantavyaµ kulaputreˆa yatra sËtram ida[µ] bhavet.
“A son of a good family must go where the SËtra is (even)after having dived into pits (filled with) burning coals,
having stepped upon scattered razors.”

This line is continued until the end of the Nepalese manuscript traditionin the 19th century, while this verse (and other verses added
occasionally) are missing in a second line of the manuscript tradition,
which begins in the 11th century in Nepal9.
The colophon of manuscript “C” was made known by Sylvain Lévi as
early as in 1932 in the very first publication of texts from the Gilgit find.
The text given here is based on “Die Palola ›åhis” p. 81f. No. 41B withsome minor corrections10:… yatra sËtram ida[µ] bhavet || /1/ devadharme (!) yaµmahåsraddhopåsaka (1) lerak∑iˆena. (2) tathå sardhaµ ßiri/2/yena. (3)tathå ßußureˆa. (4) tathå mahåßiriyena. (5) tathå chchå∂ipuru∑esithusighena. (6) tathå sårdhaµ putraena. (7) tathå vå/3/ßåsighenaleranihelapatinå. (8) tathå j¥vasidhiyena. (9) tathå vupharˆena. (10)sidhasighena. /4/ (11) tathå sårdhaµ mahådharmabhåˆaka åcårya
bhik∑u krayådhana kalyåˆatråt[e]na. (12) tathå sårdhaµmahådharmabhåˆaka bhik∑u dhrarme/5/dramatinå. (13) tathå sårdhaµa∑†auliyena saµcavamena. (14) tathå sårdhaµ bhik∑unå k∑emaena. (15)tathå cikirir∑eˆa. (16) tathå sårdhaµ /6/ bur¥sukhena. (17) tathå
sårdhaµ såitåpuru∑e vargasighena. (18) tathå måtumena. (18a)j¥vak∑inena. (19) tathå ma∫galaßiriyena /7/ (20) tathå burĭ k∑iˆena. (21)tathå sårdhaµ cvavaßiriyena. (22) tathå kulåc¥na apar∑ikena. (23) tathå
khukhuphanena. (24) tathå pevo†h¥/8/yena. (25) tathå daßiyena. (26)tathå ßåraßriyena. (27) tathå mulåriyena. (28) tathå utrupharˆena. (29)tathå kararatsena. /9/ (30) tathå kålagatena pitunå cikirir∑eˆa. (31)kålagata vålosenana(!). (32) kålagata sagarkaena. (33) kålagata vå/10/
sathËlena. (34) kålagata khukhathËlena. (35) kålagata khukhiyena. (36)kålagata pharˆena. (37) kålagata cvarmak∑iˆena. /11/ (38) kålagata
lerapukhrena. (39) kålagata putreˆaˆa (!) ßËlaphanana. (40) kålagata
mitapharˆena. (41) kålagata khukha/12/ + (ß)ena. (42) kålagata si + ++ + +. (43) (kålagata vålo)sighena

56

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit“This is the pious donation by (1) the most devout upåsaka Lerak∑iˆa.
(2) together with Íiri/2/. (3) with Íußura. (4) with Mahåßiri. (5) withChchå∂ipuru∑e-Sithusi∫gha11. (6) together with (his?) son. (7) with
Vå/3/ßåsi∫gha Lera-nihelapati. (8) with J¥vasidhi. (9) with Vupharˆa.
(10) Sidhasi∫gha. /4/ (11) together with the Mahådharmabhåˆaka (and)Ócårya the monk Krayådhana Kalyåˆatråta. (12) together with theMahådharmabhåˆaka the monk Dhrarme/5/dramati. (13) together withA∑†auli(ya) Saµcavama. (14) together with the monk K∑ema. (15) with
Cikirir∑a. (16) together with /6/ Bur¥sukha. (17) together withSåitåpuru∑e-Vargasi∫gha. (18) with Måtuma. (18a) J¥vak∑ina. (19) withMa∫galaßiri /7/ (20) with Bur˚k∑iˆa. (21) together with Cvavaßiri. (22)with Kulåc¥na Apar∑ika. (23) with Khukhuphana. (24) with Pevo†hi /8/.
(25) with Daßi. (26) with Íåraßri. (27) with Mulåri. (28) with
Utrupharˆa. (29) with Kararatsa. /9/ (30) with the deceased father
Cikirir∑a. (31) the deceased Vålosena. (32) the deceased Sagarka. (33)the deceased Vå/10/sathËla. (34) the deceased KhukhathËla. (35) the
deceased Khukhi. (36) the deceased Pharˆa. (37) the deceased
Cvarmak∑iˆa. /11/ (38) the deceased Lerapukhra. (39) (his?) deceasedson ÍËlaphana. (40) the deceased Mitapharˆa. (41) the deceased
Khukha/12/ + (ß)a. (42) the deceased Si + + + + +. (43) the deceasedVålosi∫gha.”This, then, is the first time in the history of Indian Buddhism that agroup of lay people venerating the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra speaks to
us directly.
The names are discussed in some detail in “Die Kolophone der GilgitHandschriften12.” They point to fairly international group of donors.
Names ending in °pha(r)ˆa (nos 9, 23, 28, 36, 39, 40) show Iranian
influence as does no. 38 Lera-pukhra containing the Iranian, possibly
Bactrian or Parthian word for “son” pukhra13, which is also discussed
below. On the other hand those containing the element puru∑e (nos. 5
and 17) point to a local language of the Gilgit area, Burushaski, as do
those formed with khukha/khukhu (nos. 34, 35, 41). Others are hybrid
names such as the Burushaski-Iranian name no. 23 Khukhuphana, andmany are simply obscure.
It is not only the large number of names that point to a major
donation. There are three monks involved in this project (nos. 11, 12,14), the first two being senior monks as mahådharmabhåˆakas.
Obviously, the more venerable monk, as indicated by his titles Mahå­dharmabhåˆaka and Ócårya, Krayådhana Kalyåˆatråta is named first.
The word krayådhana or perhaps rather krayådhara as read by Sylvain

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

57

Lévi is obscure but should also be a title14. The next person is theMahådharmabhåˆaka the monk Dhrarmedramati, whose name cor­
responds to standard Sanskrit Dharmendramati. The peculiar linguis­tic
form of his name is of particular interest because dhrarma instead ofdharma shows a typically north-western linguistic feature the so-called“Dardic metathesis of liquids,” which confirms that this was a local
monk and, consequently, that the donation was in all likelihood a local
project.
The following name no. 13 A∑†auliya Saµcavama is enigmatic. The
name in itself is obscure; a∑†auliya or a∑†auli should be a title, higher inrank than that of a simple monk (bhik∑u), because Saµcavama precedes
the bhik∑u K∑ema.
It should be noted that the names of all three monks are Sanskrit,while otherwise names that could be derived from Sanskrit constitute a
small minority of six out of probably 44 persons enumerated (2, 4, 8, 10,18a[?], 19). For, given the obscure derivation of most names, it is by nomeans always clear how to segment names and titles, and consequently
to arrive at an exact number of donors.
Fourteen of the at least forty-four persons mentioned in the colophon
were dead at the moment of the donation (nos. 30 - 43), and,
consequently, the merit made was transferred to them. The first among
the deceased is no. 30 the father Cikirir∑a, and it is remarkable that there
is a second living person also named Cikirir∑a (no. 15). Most likely thedeceased Cikirir∑a was the father of the principal donor Lerak∑iˆa, who
might be an Iranian, if no. 38 Lerapukhra is compared15. Moreover no.
20 Buri-k∑iˆa can be compared to no. 1 Lera-k∑iˆa, and, furthermore no.
16 Bur¥-sukha to Buri-k∑iˆa. If Lera is the son of Lerak∑iˆa, he is named
after his father as is Mamu-pukhra after his mother (see below).
It is striking that at a first glance not a single woman seems to haveparticipated in the donation, because all names end in -(y)ena, amasculine ending. This is all the more astonishing once the Gilgit
bronzes are compared where women abound. However, this impression
is a deception, because in these formulas masculine case endings arealso used with feminine personal names. Therefore, names such as°ßiriyena may well be ending in °ßr¥, and could be feminine (ormasculine, of course). However, no. 24 Pevo†h¥ certainly is a lady, as aremost likely no. 25 Daßi, no. 26 Íåraßr¥, no. 27 Mulåri, and no. 19
Ma∫galaßr¥, and moreover, no. 2 Íiri (Ír¥), perhaps the wife of
Lerak∑iˆa placed next to him (?) and no. 4 Mahåßr¥. Thus at least sevenladies are mentioned.

58

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

Masculine names ending in -o†(h)a- are well attested in theinscriptions along the Upper Indus, the area where all these people most
likely lived, and these names have regularly feminine forms ending in-o†(h)¥-. Thus, the name Pevo†h¥ again points inhabitants of the (perhaps
wider) Gilgit area as donors.
It is not entirely certain whether or not a stray folio without
pagination contains the colophon to manuscript “A,” which is connected
only tentatively to this manuscript by S. Watanabe. The size however
seems to fit. The reading of the colophon, which was published in “Die
Palola ›åhis,” no. 40B p. 80 could be improved in many places by thehelp of the excellent photos prepared for the planned new facsimile
edition16.
/1/ ](s)ya. (1) tathå sårdhaµ mahåßraddhopåsikƒ mamußiriyena. (2)mamupukhrasya. (3) tathå sårdhaµ vålopharˆasya (4) tathå sårdhaµmahåga[µ]{ja}pati d¥l¥ka agaco /2/ [ … tath]å sårdhaµ (5) sadåvida­vagåtureˆa. (6) tathå sårdhaµ mahå(∑†ha) åramatideßapharˆasya. (7)tahå sårdhaµ kh¥tåµ-puru∑eˆa gakhrapatinåµ. (8) tathå sårdhaµ sa/3/[ …] sarvasatvånåµ anut(!)a{ra}jñånavåpunåyå bhavati. ||The first half of the folio containing approximately 18 ak∑aras in eachline is lost, if complete folios of this manuscript are compared. In casethe colophon started in line 1 as usual by deyadharmo yaµ (5 ak∑aras),
the name of the principal donor (5 ak∑aras) tathå sårdhaµ (3 ak∑aras)
and the name of a second donor (5 ak∑aras) are lost, or, alternatively,
only the name of the principal donor (5 ak∑aras) and his title, e.g.,mahåßraddhopåsaka (7 ak∑aras). At a first glance the clearly recogniz­
able remains of the genitive ending ]sya at the beginning of line 1 seemto favour the second alternative. However, tathå sårdhaµ is also used
together with the genitive instead of the instrumental case in this andother colophons.
In lines 2 and 3 again 18 ak∑aras each are missing. Here, it is
impossible to estimate the number of donors, which could fill the gap,
because of the varying length of names and titles. However, two names
are the minimum of the text lost, and probably three the maximum,
because yad atra puˆyaµ or the like should have preceded sarva­satvånaµ in line 3, which is written with a gap in the middle of the word
as sarvasa (gap) tvånåµ because of a knothole. Therefore, about alto­
gether a dozen persons participated in the donation among them again
one lady no. 2 Mamußiri, a most devout upåsikå, and her son named
obviously after his mother “the son of Mamu.” This is remark­able,
because in ancient India, mothers are named after their sons not the

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

59

other way round, a well-known example being the former wife of the
Buddha called Råhulamåtå. In the colophon of manuscript “C” the nameno. 38 Lera-pukhra, who is perhaps named after his father, if he is thedeceased son of the principal donor no. 1 Lerak∑iˆa is equally remark­able. Again there are Iranian names, such as no. 3 Vålopharˆa, cf.
colophon “C” no. 43 Vålo-si∫gha and no. 32 Vålo-sena, and one
Burusho no. 7 Kh¥tåµ-puru∑a Gakhrapati, but not a single Sanskritname. Most names and titles are obscure. It is not impossible that no. 4
is a mahågaµ{ja}pati “great treasurer” if the scribe dropped one
character as in anut(!)ajñåna° for anuttarajñåna°. The Iranian title(mahå)gaµjapati occurs occasionally in inscriptions on bronzes17.
Thus the assumed colophon of the manuscript containing group “A”
confirms the conclusions drawn from the colophon of group “C” that the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra was venerated by Buddhists from the Gilgit
area as first of all the Burushaski names indicate, and by devotees withan Iranian background, most likely from Central Asia. This Central
Asian connection is well known from other sources. Suffice it to recall
the Soghdian merchants writing their names on the rocks at Shatial18.
Moreover, it is well known that many fragmentary manuscripts and thevoluminous Kashgar (Khotan) manuscript of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka­
sËtra bear ample witness of the immense popularity of this text inparticular in the Khotan area 19. The predilection of one particular
Buddhist text shared by Buddhists in Gilgit and in Khotan is well known
also in the case of the Saµghå†asËtra. The Saµghå†asËtra is better
attested in Gilgit than any other text with traces of altogether eight
manuscripts preserved in the Gilgit library followed with fourmanuscripts each by the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka- and the Bhai∑ajyagurusËtras. This again underlines the exceptional importance of the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra for the Buddhists in ancient Gilgit, which canbe substantiated further in going beyond the evidence collected from themanuscripts of the Gilgit library alone and looking also at other
Buddhist documents from Gilgit.
Long ago the art historian Pran Gopal Paul drew attention to apossible connection between the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra and one of
the Gilgit bronzes in his thesis “Early Sculpture of Kashmir. 20” Paul
maintained that the Gilgit bronze donated by the Palola ›åhi
Nandivikramådityanandi in the (Laukika) year 80 on the eighth bright
day of the month Vaißåkha (= 20th April 714) can be interpreted asÍåkyamuni in the light of a paragraph found in the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka­
sËtra (plate 1)21. For it is said in the tenth chapter, the Dharmabhåˆakaparivarta:

60

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgittathågatapåˆiparimårjitamËrdhånaß ca te (sc. kulaputrå vå
kuladuhitaro vå) bhavi∑yanti ya imaµ dharmaparyåyaµ tathågatasyaparinirv®tasya ßraddadhi∑yanti våcayi∑yanti likhi∑yanti satkari∑yanti
gurukari∑yanti pare∑åµ ca saµßråvayi∑yanti, SP (ed. H. Kern 231,3-6)“The head of sons or daughters from good families, who after theNirvåˆa of the Tathågata, will put their faith into this exposition of theDharma (sc. the Lotus SËtra), have it recited, write it, honour it,
venerate it, and recite it to others will be touched by the hand of theTathågata.”

The text is even more explicit in the twenty-sixth chapter, the Samanta­bhadrotsåhanaparivarta, when it is said again in connection withdharmabhåˆakas and with Samantabhadra also referring to the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra:Íåkyamuninå ca tathågatena te∑åµ mËrdhni påˆi˙ prati∑†håpito
bhavi∑yati, SP (ed. H. Kern 480,5 foll.)“The hand will be placed upon the head of those (who venerate
Samantabhadra and hear the Lotus SËtra) by the Tathågata Íåkyamuni.”

It is not at all impossible that the artist(s), who created the bronze forKing Nandivikramådityanandi and, of course the donor himself, were
inspired by this paragraph in the Lotus SËtra. If so, the book carried by
the supposed Buddha Íåkyamuni might well be a copy of this text22. Itshould be kept in mind, however, that the iconography of the bronzes
cast for the Palola ›åhis is still poorly, if at all understood. At any rate
the idea that the very unusual gesture of the Buddha’s right hand was
inspired by reading the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra available in four
copies in the Gilgit library cannot be rejected from the very beginning,whether the donor had the Tathågata Íåkyamuni in mind or not.
We are on much safer ground, if an image discovered at the site of
Hodur a few years ago is compared (plate 2) 23. Here, we see two
Buddhas sitting on either side of a stËpa. This, of course, is a representa­tion of the Buddhas Íåkyamuni and PrabhËtaratna as described in theeleventh chapter of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Although it is said in
the text that PrabhËtaratna invites Íåkyamuni to share his seat inside thestËpa magically opened by the Buddha Íåkyamuni, it is usual in
Chinese art to show both Buddhas by the side of the stËpa. The
representation of this famous episode, popular as it was in China, wascompletely absent from Indian art so far. Consequently, the importanceof this drawing on a rock at Hodur is considerable.

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

61This image was perhaps drawn by or for a traveller well known fromother inscriptions, although it is not certain to which of the two stËpas
the votive inscription written between the two images relates24:/line 1/ devaddharmo yaµ /2/ am®tendrå[laµkå]rasya“This is the pious gift of Am®tendrålaµkåra.”Even if his name is partly destroyed, it can be read with confidence,
because it is a rare name and it occurs written by the same hand morethan once. As we find inscriptions with the name Am®tendrålaµkåra inmore sites than that of any other traveller, it is possible to trace the routefollowed by Am®tendrålaµkåra along the Upper Indus for about 50 km
from Shing Nala via Gichi Nala and Hodur ending up at Thor.
Among the travellers tracking along the Upper Indus were also threedharmabhåˆakas, “Reciters of the Law” whom we meet in two inscrip­
tions found at the site of Oshibat25. Interestingly, all three reciters
emphasise the fact that they are travellers:
I. /line 1/ vicarati dharmavåˆaka ßËra /2/ carmavidakama+ /3/ vicarati
dharmabhåˆaka påla (11:4)
II. vicarati guˆasena dharmabhåˆa[ka] (15:9)
I. “The Reciter of the Law, ÍËra wanders about. Carmavidakama (??).
The Reciter of the Law Påla wanders about.”—II. “Guˆasena the
Reciter of the Law wanders about.”

This matches the evidence found in the colophons of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscript “A” where two dharmabhåˆakas participatedin the donation. Moreover, still another dharmabhåˆaka named
Narendradatta copied the manuscript of the Ajitasenavyåkaraˆa alsopreserved in the Gilgit Library.
Consequently, the presence of at least five persons, two of them asKalyåˆatråta and Dharmendramati, both mentioned in the colophon of
the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra, and both being monks, are classified as
dharmabhåˆakas. It is certainly not by chance that dharmabhåˆakas areconnected to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra, which praises those who
propagate the law not only in the tenth chapter, the Dharmabhåˆaka­
parivarta. Thus this text can also be seen as a reassurance of thedharmabhåˆakas living and preaching perhaps under the strain of partly
unfavourable conditions when they reached out from Buddhist Gilgit toother remote areas in the Karakorum. The author of the so-calledMahåyåna-MahåparinirvåˆasËtra or better MahåparinirvåˆamahåsËtra,might have had a similar situation in mind when he wrote the following

62

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

sentences quoted from the English summary added to his book by M.
Shimoda26: “The dharmakathikas (or dharmabhåˆakas) allow laymen toarm themselves in order to protect the åcårya without accepting the five
precepts. They wander through dangerous areas and over mountains
accompanied by lay people including Caˆ∂ålas.” This almost reads likea description of a journey along the Indus and demonstrates, howinscriptions and literature shed light upon each other.
From another Gilgit manuscript we learn that the dharmabhåˆakas
also sought magical protection. For, there is a special Dhåraˆ¥ in the
Ratnaketuparivarta27, which does not only protect dharmabhåˆakas
against all sort of diseases, but in particular against ill health(dhåtusaµk∑obha) resulting from bad karma and leading to a “distur­bance of the articulation” (svarasaµk∑obha) thus destroying their ability
to recite the teaching of the Buddha properly.
Of course bhåˆakas are mentioned frequently in Buddhist literature28.
To quote only one more example from Gilgit:
bhagavån åha. dharmabhåˆaka˙ sarvasËra tathågatasamo jñåtavya˙.
sarvasËra åha. katamo dharmabhåˆaka˙. bhagavån åha. ya˙saµghå†aµ sËtraµ ßråvayati sa dharmabhåˆaka˙, Saµghå†asutra § 4529
“The Lord said: ‘A reciter of the Law (dharmabhåˆaka), SarvaßËra,must be regarded like a Tathågata.’ SarvaßËra said: ‘Which reciter of the
Law?’ The Lord said: ‘Who ever recites the Saµghå†asËtra.’”In the same way all sËtras, which mention dharmabhåˆakas praise thereciter of that very text, of course. Still the fact remains remarkable thattwo dharmabhåˆakas are mentioned in the colophon of the Saddha­
rmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra which devotes a whole chapter to the reciters of the
Law and that three additional dharmabhåˆakas occur in inscriptions of
the area.
All these observations around the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manu­
scripts demonstrate that this text was firmly embedded in the Buddhist
culture of Gilgit during the reign of the Palola ›åhis from the late sixth
to the early eighth centuries. The literary tradition of the text wascultivated by copying manuscripts of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. As
far it is possible to draw conclusions from the colophons, thesemanuscripts were used in worship. Furthermore, the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra most likely served as a source of inspiration when the Palola›åhi Nandivikramådityanandi conceived the unusual iconography of his
bronze dedicated in the year AD 714 a few days before the important
date of the VißåkhapËjå, the full-moon of the month Vißåkha,the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

63

traditionally the date of the Buddha’s birth, enlightenment and Nirvåˆa.
Lastly, two dharmabhåˆakas, Buddhist monks who propagated the Law
organized one of the extant Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscripts to becopied for the benefit and merit of a large group of laypeople with awidely varied ethnic background. This shows the universal veneration of
the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra across many different nationalities far
beyond Gilgit.
Consequently, the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra manuscripts recoveredfrom the Gilgit Library not only preserve for the first time, without
being complete however, large parts of the text. For the presence of the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra is, moreover, felt in many areas of Buddhist
religion and Buddhist culture in ancient Gilgit. This is by far more thanany other find of manuscripts from ancient India can tell about theimmediate impact of the Lotus SËtra.
NotesGérard Fussman: Dans quel type de bâtiment furent trouvés les manuscrits deGilgit? Journal Asiatique 292. 2004, p. 101-150; Gregory Schopen: On the absence ofUrtext and Otiose Ócåryas: Books, Buildings, and Lay Buddhist Ritual at Gilgit, in:Gérard Colas et Gerdi Gerschheimer (Édd.): Écrire et transmettre en Inde classique.
(École française d’Extrême-Orient. Études thématiques 23) Paris 2009 [rev.: Jean-Pierre
Filliozat, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus des séances del’année 2009 [2011], p. 1754-1760; L. Rocher, Journal of the American Oriental Society131. 2011, p. 133–135; O. v. Hinüber, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft (in press)], p. 189-219. For more details see also O. v. Hinüber: The Gilgit
Manuscripts. An Ancient Buddhist Library in Modern Research: Introduction (in press).
—Images from Gandhåra showing the type of a building as reconstructed by G.
Fussman can be seen in Isao Kurita: Gandharan Art. Vol. I. Tokyo 22003, p. 260f. and in
Giuseppe de Marco: The stËpa as a funerary monument. New iconographic evidence.
East and West New Series 37. 1987, p. 191-246, particularly p. 203 fig. 6 with p. 202
note 23: The image reproduced by de Marco was seen in the market at Karachi in 1974.
The present whereabouts of the piece seem to be unknown.
2
Images showing the site at the time of the discovery of the Gilgit manuscripts canbe found in Willy Baruch: Beiträge zum Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra. Leiden 1938, II.
Beilage, 3 plates.
	3
Some texts are embedded in other texts, such as the Någakumåra-avadåna in the
Pravrajyåvastu of the Vinayavastu.
4
Lokesh Chandra: Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts (Facsimile Edition). Íata-Pi†aka
Series Vol. 10, 1-10. Delhi 1959-1974 (abbreviated here as “FE”), reprinted in threeparts as: Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts, revised and enlarged compact facsimile edition.
Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 150, 151, 152. Delhi 1995.
	5
The new facsimile edition planned by the International Research Institute forAdvanced Buddhology at Soka University giving for the first time the measurements ofeach folio, could also be very helpful for reassembling the manuscripts in their original
form.
1

64

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

The numbers refer to The Gilgit Manuscripts, as note 1, where the numbers
introduced by the National Archives and used in the Facsimile Edition are kept, butpartly split up into sub-numbers, where ever this seemed useful and appropriate. This—
hopefully—helps to avoid confusion, although the original numbering is neither
adequate nor very practical.
7
This book was reviewed by H. Bechert: Journal of Religious Studies (Patiala) 11.
1983, p. 118-120; G. Fussman, Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 73. 1984,
p. 384 foll.; H. - O. Feistel, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesell­schaft
134. 1984, p. 387; P. Williams, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1984, p. 156 foll.;
D. Seyfort-Ruegg, Journal of the American Oriental Society 106. 1986, p. 879; H.
Eimer, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 81. 1986, columns 393foll.
8
The Gilgit Manuscript of the Íayanåsanavastu and the Adhikaraˆavastu edited byRaniero Gnoli. Serie Orientale Roma L. Rome 1978, p. 38,6–8.
9
For details cf. O. v. Hinüber: Aus der Welt der Kolophone von Gilgit bis Lån2 Nå (toappear in “On Colophons” [Conference organized by the research group “Manuscript
Cultures in Asia and Africa” in Hamburg from 3rd to 5th December 2009].
10
O. v. Hinüber: Die Palola Íåhis. Ihre Steininschriften, Inschriften auf Bronzen,
Handschriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber. (Antiquities of Northern Pakistan 5). Mainz
2004 [rev.: Adam Nayyar, Journal of Asian Studies 65. 2006, p. 453 foll.; R. Salomon,
Bulletin of the Asia Institute 17. 2003, p. 183-185; Harry Falk, Orientalistische Literatur­
zeitung 100. 2005, columns 696-698; Gérard Fussman, Journal Asiatique 293. 2005, p.
734-742; R. Schmitt, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 157.
2007, p. 500-502; Alberto M. Cacopardo, East and West New Series 58. 2008, p. 475477] with supplements: Three New Bronzes from Gilgit. Annual Report of theInternational Research Institute of Advanced Buddhology (at Soka University) 10. 2007,
p. 39-43; More Gilgit Bronzes and Some Additions to “Die Palola ›åhis.” ibidem 12.
2009, p. 3-6; An Inscribed Incense Burner from the MacLean Collection in Chicago,
ibidem 13. 2010, p. 3-88 and Four Donations Made by Ma∫galahaµsikå, Queen of
Palola (Gilgit), ibidem 14. 2011, p. 3-6.
11
In spite of the fact that the scribe wrote °sigha throughout there can be little doubtthat °si∫gha is meant, which occurs very frequently elsewhere in names in inscriptions
along the Upper Indus.
12O. v. Hinüber: Die Kolophone der Gilgit-Handschriften. StII 5/6. 1980, p. 49-83 =Kleine Schriften. Wiesbaden 2009, p. 688-721, particularly p. 66-69 on IX Saddharma-­puˆ∂ar¥kasËtra, cf. also the index to this article under the individual names.
13
For Parthian pwhr, cf. Rüdiger Schmitt: Die mitteliranischen Sprachen im Über­blick, in: Rüdiger Schmitt (Ed): Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden 1989,
p. 99, and for Bactrian poora or poura, i.e. puhra, cf. Ivan Michajlovitch SteblinKamenskij: Baktrijskij jazyk, in: Vera Sergeevna Rastorgueva (Ed.): Osnovy iranskogo
jazykoznanija. Sredneiranskie jazyki. Moscow 1981, p. 338.—The reading pukhrena
follows Sylvain Lévi, who recognized the Iranian word pukhra, which was most likely
not represented by hra in Indian script, because Indian h is voiced in contrast to thevoiceless h in Parthian: Werner Sundermann: Parthisch, in: Compendium, as above, p.
122. The rare ak∑ara interpreted as khra does not normally occur in Indian languages.
14
Perhaps it might be assumed, if the reading krayådhara is correct, that krayådhara
either stands for *k®yådhara = kriyådhara (for ® : ra cf. p®h®∑†o : prah®∑†o, Sanskrithand­schriften aus den Turfanfunden Teil IV. Wiesbaden 1980, p. 237, K 466, b Blatt 12 R 2),
or it is a writing mistake for *kriyådhara. However, *kriyådhara “practitioner (??)”or	6

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

65“decision maker (??)” is not attested otherwise.
15
In no. 7 lera-nihela-pati seems to be a title rather than a name; on Khotanesenihela-pati cf. Ronald Eric Emmerick: Two Indian loanwords in Khotanese., in: Studien
zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf. Alt- und NeuIndische Studien 23. Wiesbaden 1981, p. 79-82, particularly p. 81, where the meanwhile
outdated reading nihela-mati is repeated.
16
I am obliged to Prof. Dr. Seishi Karashima and Dr. Noriyuki Kudo for granting
access to these as yet unpublished materials.
17
Cf. Die Palola ›åhis, as above note 10, p. 141 with note 181.
18
Ditte König, Gérard Fussman (Edd.): Die Felsbildstation Shatial. Materialien zur
Archäologie von Nord-Pakistan 2. Mainz 1997.
19
In contrast to the Saµghå†asËtra, which was translated into Khotanese Saka, there is
only a single line of the text of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra preserved in Khotanesetranslation in the Book of Zambasta VI 3 and a brief metrical summary of the
Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra in Khotanese, cf. Mauro Maggi: Khotanese Literature, in: The
Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran. Companion Volume I to A History of Persian Literature
ed. by Ronald Eric Emmerick and Maria Macuch. A History of Persian Literature
Volume XVII. London 2009, p. 375.
20This thesis was printed in Enschede (Holland) in 1986 as a “Proefschrift” (thesis),see p. 204-209.
21
The inscription on this bronze is edited and discussed in “Die Palola ›åhis,” as note
10, no. 14, p. 38 foll.
22
There are also quite different and contradictory interpretations of this bronze, first as
the Palola ›åhi “as an initiate under the guidance of the great master Mañjußr¥”“exploiting Sudhana’s model” (??) by Anna Filigenzi: The Dåna, the Påtra and the
Cakravartin-ship: Archaeological and Art Historical Evidence for a Social History of
Early Medieval Buddhism, in: Claudine Bautze-Picron (Ed.): Miscellanies about the
Buddha Image. South Asian Archaeology 2007. Special Sessions 1. BAR International
Series 1888. Oxford 2008, p. 11–24, particularly p. 21, and again very recently without
referring to neither P. G. Paul nor to A. Filigenzi by Rebecca L. Twist: The Patola Shahi
Dynasty. A Buddhological Study of their Patronage, Devotion and Politics. Saarbrücken
2011, p. 146 foll. with figure A.1, who tries—very wisely hesitatingly—to establish thisimage as a representation of Vairocana/Mañjußr¥ (whatever that is), without, however,even mentioning the gesture of the right hand of the Buddha or being able to interpretthe image as a whole limiting herself to erratic and mostly extremely vague connectionsof iconographical details to representations of both, Vairocanan and Mañjußr¥, which israther unhelpful. Moreover, attention should be paid to the simple fact that the name
Vairocana is conspicuous by absence among the (quite a few) names of Buddhas foundin the inscriptions along the Upper Indus.
23
The drawing was published in the catalogue “Gandhåra. Das buddhistische Erbe
Pakistans. Legenden, Klöster und Paradiese. 21. Novermber 2008 bis 15. März 2009 inder Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Bonn”, p. 353, cf.
357a. I am obliged to Prof. Dr. Harald Hauptmann, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen­
schaften, for the permission to publish this image.
24
Above this inscription there are some clumsily written ak∑aras probably signifying
nothing. There seem to be two characters below the devaddharma line dhi + of uncertain
meaning.—By the side of the second stËpa there is one line in small ak∑aras readingsårddhaµ yaßa(bha∂a)sya “together with Yaßa[” and in large characters candrasenasya

66

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit“of Candrasena” and again below this name candrasenavihåre. The last three characters
are clearly readable once the image is enlarged.—The wording “together with Yaßa[”
seems to indicate that Yaßa[ might be the donor or participated in the donation of thesmaller stËpa, which is most likely later than the PrabhËtaratna scene given the way inwhich the available space on the rock is used. The relation of the name Candrasena to
the stËpas is as obscure as the meaning of “in the Candrasena Monastery.” Perhaps
Candrasena was a traveller who visited the site and wrote down his name after the twostËpas were drawn.
25
Martin Bemmann und Ditte König (Edd.): Die Felsbildstation Oshibat. Materialien
zur Archäologie von Nord-Pakistan 1. Mainz 1994.
26
Masahiro Shimoda: A Study of the MahåparinirvåˆasËtra with a Focus on Method­
ology of the Study of MahåyånasËtras. Tokyo 1997, p. 15. The MahåparinirvåˆasËtra
actually uses the word dharmakathika, cf. Seishi Karashima and Klaus Wille: The
British Library Sanskrit Fragments. Buddhist Manuscripts from Central Asia. Vol. II.1
Texts, Tokyo 2009, p. 554: [bha]yårditånåµ dharmakathi‹kathi›kånåm dharmanaitr¥[ …]/line 2/ … ] kåntare vå a†av¥kåntåre vå nad¥kåntåre[ … .
27dharmabhåˆakarak∑åyai, Ratnaketuparivarta ed. by Yenshu Kurumiya. Kyoto 1978,
p. 137,2* “for the protection of dharmabhåˆakas.”
28
On dharmabhåˆakas see Graeme MacQueen: Inspired Speech in Early Mahåyåna
Buddhism II. Religion 12. 1982, p. 49–65, particularly p. 53 foll.; Keisho Tsukamoto:Source Elements of the Lotus SËtra, Buddhist Integration of Religion, Thought, andCulture. Tokyo 2007, p. 179 foll. for references also from inscriptions and Davis
Drewes: Dharmabhåˆakas in Early Mahåyåna. Indo-Iranian Journal 54. 2011, 331-372.
—Richard Nance: The dharmabhåˆaka inside and outside the sËtras. Religion Compass
2. 2008, p. 134-159 is not accessible to me. In later texts such as the Nepalese version of
the Kåraˆ∂avyËha, the dharmabhåˆaka is also seen as a tantric yog¥, cf. Adelheid Mette,
Indo-Iranian Journal 47. 2004, p. 325 note 11; for evidence from Khotan cf. O. v.
Hinüber, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 157. 2007, p. 390
note 14.
29
Giotto Canevascini: The Khotanese Sa∫ghå†asËtra. A critical edition. Beiträge zur
Iranistik Band 14. Wiesbaden 1993.

the saddharmapun. d. arÁkasÚtra at gilgit

Platesplate 1-aplate 1plate 2plate 1-b

67