The Place of the Lotus SËtra in Indian Buddhism*

Jonathan A. SilkW

HAT do we really know about the Lotus SËtra in India? It hardly
needs stating that the Lotus SËtra is a prominent scripture in East
Asian Buddhism, particularly in traditions related to the Tiantai or
Tendai, and later on in Japan particularly for Nichiren-affiliated groups.
There is also no question that the scripture was highly valued in Central
Asia in the medieval period, although naturally our evidence here ismuch less clear and convincing than that we have for East Asia. However, in fact, it is not at all uncommon to encounter broad claims that
the Lotus is one of the most important, if not the uniquely most important, of Buddhist scriptures. While these claims are understandable
when made by devotees of the text, they are less understandable whenpresented as objective, concrete facts.
Almost every textbook or introduction to Buddhism discusses the
major scriptures of the Buddhist tradition. And almost invariably, alongwith the Perfection of Wisdom texts and the Pure Land sËtra, one finds
mention of the Lotus as one of the major texts of Mahåyåna Buddhism.
But there is something potentially very misleading with such a presentation, for nothing has importance or significance except to some person
or persons. Things are not important in the abstract, but only at sometime, in some place, and to some person. We should not ask thenwhether the Lotus is important as such, but rather to whom it is important. And then we must also ask ourselves what it is that makes the text
important. By this I do not intend a philosophical or theological question about what doctrines of the text are most profound, the answer towhich would tell us much about the investigator but little about theinvestigated. Rather I intend something more concrete: if we want toclaim that something is important for somebody, we must ask in what
way that importance is manifest. What is it that someone might say or
do which would indicate to us that he considers something important?
One answer is that something which one esteems and values, to which
he attributes some authority, he finds significant or important. If wewant to suggest then that what makes a text important or significant to87

88

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

some person or persons is that those persons hold it to be of value or
authoritative, we must look for signs of that esteem. Such signs are to
be found in the actions that people take with respect to the scripture,whether this involves copying it, producing art based upon or inspiredby it, lecturing about it, quoting it, and so on and so forth. Without reference to some manifestation of the significance being attributed to ascripture by some person or community, we are not justified in claiming
importance for that scripture.
With regard to the Lotus SËtra in India, the question we must ask iswhat importance this text may have had to Indian Buddhists. A full
treatment of this question would require a consideration of the Indian
manuscript evidence, a treatment of textual parallels in other scriptures,investigation of art historical evidence, and so on. We can dispense with
one of these items immediately. To the best of my knowledge, there
exists at present no known art historical or inscriptional evidence conclusively related to the Lotus in the Indian subcontinent. (I will discuss
the so-called a∑†abhaya images of Avalokiteßvara on another occasion.)
As for manuscript evidence, as is well known we have precious few
Buddhist manuscripts of any kind from ancient India,1 but what there iscomes mostly from Gilgit. There are at least six Lotus manuscripts from
Gilgit, as well as manuscripts from Central Asia which may have been
written in India, and while it is not possible here to treat them in any
detail, one of the interesting things about some of these manuscripts isthat they are written in a kind of ornamental script which suggests thatthey were intended more as objects than as texts to be read. Limitationsof space prevent any further consideration of the manuscript evidence
here, or the whole set of questions raised by possible parallel passages
in other texts, which may show influences from, or on, the Lotus.
Rather, I would like to concentrate on the degree to which the text was
taken into account by Indian ßåstric authors.
In the first place we must note that there is one commentary, extant
only in two Chinese translations—or better to say two recensions of one
and the same Chinese translation—which claims to be an Indian commentary on the Lotus. The authorship of this commentary, the Miaofa
lianhuajing youbotishe
or so-called *Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kopadeßa,2 is attributed to Vasubandhu. Setting aside the question of whether Vasubandhu may actually be the author, which is problematic, it is quite likely that the commentary is indeed Indian, and its
existence should be noted.3 This commentary has been the focus of relatively little attention from modern scholars—although the force of thisstatement may be blunted by the observation that the same is true ofPLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

89

almost every Indian Buddhist text, and it is worth mentioning only
because so much attention is lavished on certain other Lotus SËtra related materials. On the other hand, there is no trace of the more than 50
Indian commentaries which are said—in a seventh century Chinese reference, on the indirect authority of Paramårtha—to have at one time
existed, including works by Någårjuna, Sthiramati and so on.4 It may
well be that the quotations in the *Mahåprajñåpåramitopadeßa ofNågårjuna and the *Mahåyånåvatåra of Sthiramati (or Såramati) were
confused in this late Chinese tradition with the existence of independentcommentaries.
In any case, while all of this material certainly deserves our attention,
my central focus here is on another form of evidence, that provided to
us by unquestionably Indian authors who quote or refer to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka. If we are particularly interested in the status of thesËtra in India, the references to the text by Indian Buddhist authors provide a crucial set of hints for us. Of course, aside from the content of
the quotations, their mere existence may tell us very interesting things,
for example about the circulation and accessibility of the text. In addition, quotations are potentially useful for textual criticism. They provide
us a way to augment our knowledge of the textual transmission of thescripture, and indeed, as is well known, since most of the Indian Buddhist scriptural literature is lost in its original Indic language form,
often the only Sanskrit fragments we have of a work come from its quotations in the works of later authors.
Unfortunately, as is the case with Indian Buddhist literature as awhole, most of which exists only in Tibetan or Chinese translations,almost all of the texts which refer to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka are also
extant not in Sanskrit but only in translations. These translations are
obviously of correspondingly less utility for close text-critical comparison, especially since it is often the case that Tibetan and even Chinesetranslators of ßåstras made use of already existing scripture translations
when they ran across sËtra quotations in the works they were rendering.
To the best of my knowledge there are only three texts which quoteor refer to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka in Sanskrit: Órya-Vimuktisena’s
Abhisamayåla◊kårav¤tti, Íåntideva’s Íik∑åmuccaya and Haribhadra’s
Abhisamayåla◊kåråloka. Of these, the first appeals to the authority ofthe scripture in only a general way, regarding the nirvåˆa of the ßråvaka,without referring to any specific passage in the text.5
Haribhadra refers to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka twice, but quotes fromit only once, the famous phrase from chapter two, “There is but one
vehicle, no second.”6 In fact, this expression is quoted by a number of90

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

authors, though perhaps not as often as we might have expected given
the apparent importance of the idea, even in India. The phrase also
appears, attributed to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka, in the SËtrasamuccaya,7 the Tarkajvålå of Bhåvaviveka,8 Kamalaß¥la’s Madhyamakåloka,9 and Asvabhava’s MahåyånasËtråla◊kåra†¥kå,10 and unattributed in the *Mahåyånåvatåra.11
Íåntideva’s Íikamuccaya is the only Sanskrit text to quote the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka at length. It contains several sections of verses fromthe sËtra, and one line of prose, from chapters 2 and 13, that is, theUpåyakaußalya or Skillful Means and Sukhavihåra or Ease in Practicechapters. As far as I have been able to judge, without access to the best
available textual collations, the recension quoted by Íåntideva is closest
to the Nepalese as basically represented in the edition of Kern and Nanjio, and generally not at all like the so-called Kashgar or Gilgit recensions. It is quite common for Íåntideva to quote somewhat selectively,
and so, while the readings of the Íik∑åsamuccaya are no doubt of significant text-critical value, it is very questionable whether the omissionof a prose passage amidst a series of verses allows us to hypothesize, as
did Kiyota Jakuun,12 that the passage not found in the Íik∑åsamuccaya
was actually missing from the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka available toÍåntideva. A careful comparison of the Íik∑åsamuccaya readings withthe collations of other known manuscripts may or may not allow us togain a good picture of exactly what sort of text Íåntideva actually had
before him. I have included below a preliminary edition of the threeÍik∑åsamuccaya passages, with their corresponding Tibetan and Chinese translations. Limitations of space prevent a detailed analysis ofthese passages, but it may be mentioned that in principle the Tibetan
and Chinese translations copy the canonical versions of the sËtra passages being quoted, those found in the Kanjur and Kumåraj¥va’s translation, respectively.
It is likewise not possible to detail in the space available here all thequotations and references to the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka heretofore identified in texts of Indian origin, but we may simply list the following texts
as containing such quotations and references: the SËtrasamuccaya
attributed (I think probably wrongly) to Någårjuna, Bhåvaviveka’s
Tarkajvålå, Candrak¥rti’s Catu˙ßataka†¥kå and Madhyamakåvatårabhå∑ya (along with Jayånanda’s Madhyamakåvatåra†¥kå),Jñånagarbha’s Anantamukhanirhåradhåraˆ¥†¥kå, Kamalaß¥la’s Madhyamakåloka, Asvabhava’s MahåyånasËtråla◊kåra†¥kå and Sthiramati’sSËtråla◊kårav¤ttibhå∑ya, Avalokitavrata’s Prajñåprad¥pa†¥kå, Dharmamitra’s Abhisamayåla∫kåra-prajñåpåramitopadeßa-ßåtra-†¥kå Pras-

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

91phu†¥apada, Abhayåkaragupta’s Munimatåla◊kåra, Jagaddalanivåsin’sA∑†asåhasrikå commentary Bhagavaty-Ómnåyånusåriˆi-nåma-vyåkhyå◊, and Atißa’s MahåsËtrasamuccaya, all available in Tibetan only,
along with the *Mahåyånåvatåra (Rudacheng-lun) extant onlyin Chinese but very certainly an Indian text. Among these, we may
point out that the Abhisamayåla◊kåråloka of Haribhadra and the Munimatåla◊kåra of Abhayåkaragupta mention the prophecy of Íåriputra’s
future Buddhahood as Padmaprabha, and the Íik∑åsamuccaya includes
the passage on a child’s play construction of a stËpa. On the other hand,with the exception of the *Mahåyånåvatåra which refers to the prodigalson story and an allusion in Kamalaß¥la’s Madhyamakåloka to the burning house and city of nirvåˆa, I have seen in Indian texts no quotationof, or even reference to, these striking parables for which the sËtra is sofamous in East Asia. Finally, I may note that although the Lotus is quoted a number of times in the *Mahåprajñåpåramitopadeßa (Da Zhidulun), since the actual sources of this text are very much in dispute, it would be incautious to accept it as an entirely genuine Indianwork, and so I do not bring its evidence into the discussion here.
It is often asserted that the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka is one of the fundamental texts of Mahåyåna Buddhism, and numerous discussions of theorigins of the Mahåyåna take as their point of departure this very sËtra.
Most unfortunately, we actually know nothing or next to nothing about
the origins of the Mahåyåna movement. What we are able to judge
about the significance of early Mahåyåna scriptures comes from the earliest translations of such works into Chinese, for example by
Lokak∑ema, and by the use to which the scriptures were put by later
authors. The Lotus was indeed translated relatively early, by
Dharmarak∑a, and as we have seen it is far from ignored by ßåstricauthors in India. On the other hand, it is hardly fair to say that it is amain scriptural source for later treatises, and it is in fact relatively rarelyreferred to. To bring into focus the relative position of the text withrespect to other comparable scriptures, we may contrast the degree of
quotation of the Lotus to the almost pervasive presence in the treatisesof quotations from the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures, and from texts
such as the Kåßyapaparivarta, the Samådhiråja, the Íålistamba, theTathågataguhyaka and so on. On the other extreme, there is for example absolutely no firm Indian evidence whatsoever for the so-called
Larger Sukhåvat¥vyËha-sËtra, so famous and influential in East Asia.
While we do have a commentary, extant in Chinese, which purports to
be Indian and, again, by Vasubandhu, the *Sukhåvat¥vyËhopadeßa(Wuliangshoujing youbotishe), its origins are question-

92

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

able. The Sukhåvat¥vyËha is not even once quoted or alluded to in any
certainly Indian text yet discovered. Of course, this does not imply thatthe text was not written in India, but only that it was of no apparent
importance to Indian authors, at least in so far as we can judge fromtheir works. We must remark, however, that the failure of a text to beimportant to one group in one context, for example scholastic authors intheir treatises, does not by any means imply a general lack of importance. And it may very well be that texts such as the Sukhåvat¥vyËha
were important to persons, including scholars, who did not register theirregard for that scripture in forms which we can now recover. It is far
from impossible to imagine, then, the logician Dignåga starting eachmorning with reverential worship of a scripture to which, nevertheless,he never refers in his writings. Regarding this, we can say nothing at all,but it is essential to be aware of our ignorance, and the limits of ourpossible evaluations of importance.
In the remaining space, I would like to present the three Sanskrit quotations of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka-sËtra found in Íåntideva’sÍik∑åsamuccaya. I offer here the following materials for each of thethree passages:
1) A tentative transcription of the Cambridge manuscript Add. 1478
(MS), first edited by Cecil Bendall,13 with the passages correlated to
the Kern-Nanjio edition of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka (KN). Regardless of whether the text in the manuscript is correct—and often it is
not—I have tried to transcribe exactly what is found there. First letters of each line are printed in bold.
2) A transcription of the passage in the Tibetan translation of theÍik∑åsamuccaya (Derge and Peking editions), with the differencesfrom the Kanjur translation of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka, which isin principle quoted in the Íik∑åsamuccaya translation, underlined(noted as SP in notes). It is very regretable that we have no reliable
edition of the Tibetan text tradition of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka. In
the absence of anything better, I have referred to the edition ofNakamura ZuiryË,14 despite my grave doubts about the accuracy
with which it reports variant readings, even of the few editions uponwhich it relies.
3) The Chinese translation of the Íik∑åsamuccaya and the corresponding portions in the Chinese translation of Kumåraj¥va from whichthe Íik∑åsamuccaya translation quotes. Here I rely on the TaishØ
edition alone.
Although it is not possible to take advantage of this material here, wemust note that for the first unit of verses we now have the detailed col-

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

93

lation of H. Toda. We may note also that this same set of verses is quoted by Atißa in his MahåsËtrasamuccaya.16
I) Bendall (1897–1902): 47.13–49.4 = MS 29a1–6 = KN 278.10–
280.10 = verses XIII.2–5; 8–9; 11–13:
åryasaddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ke py ukta◊ ||åcåragocara◊ rak∑¥ asa◊s¤∑†a˙ ßucir bhavetc |varjayet sa◊stava◊ nitya◊ råjaputrebhi råja(bh)i[˙ ||] (2)ye cåpi råjñå◊ puru∑å˙ kuryåt tehi na sa◊stava◊ |caˆ∂ålapau∑kakai˙ ßauˆ∂ais t¥rthikaiß cåpi sarvvaßa˙ || (3)adhimån¥n na seveta ' vinaye cågame sthitånc |arhantasa◊matån bhik∑Ënc du˙ß¥lå◊ß caiva varjayetc || (4)bhik∑uˆ¥m varjayen nitya◊ håsyasa◊låpagocarå◊ |upåsikåñ ca varjeyå praka†im anavasthitåmc || (5)str¥paˆ∂akåß ca ye satvå˙ sa◊stava◊ tair vivarttayetc |kule∑u cåpi vadhukåh kumåryaß ca vivarjayetc || (8)na tå˙ sa◊modayej jåtu kaußalyå◊ sådhu p¤cchitu◊c |sa◊stava◊ ca vivarjeyåtc ßaukaraurabhrikai˙ saha || (9)str¥po∑akåß ca ye satvå varjayet tehi sa◊stava◊c |na†air jhallakair mallebhir ye cånyet tåd¤śā janå˙ || (11)våramukhyån na seveta ye cånye bhogav¤ttina˙ |pratisa◊modanån tebhi˙ sarvvaßå˙ parivarjayetc || (12)yadå ca dharma◊ deßeyå måt¤gråmasya paˆ∂ito |na caika˙ pravißet tatra nåpi håsyasthito bhaved iti || (13)I) Derge Tanjur 3940, dbu ma, khi 32a5–b3; Peking Tanjur 5336, dbu
ma, ki 39a8–b7:’phags pa dam pa’i chos pad ma1 dkar po las kyang ||cho ga spyod yul bsrung bya zhing || ’du ’dzi2 med la gtsang bar bya ||rgyal po dang ni rgyal pu dang || ’dris3 byed rtag tu spang par bya ||(2)rgyal po’i zhabs ’bring gang yin dang || gdol pa zol ba chang ’tshongdang ||4
mu stegs can ni de dag dang || rnam pa kun du ’dris mi bya || (3)dge slong ’dul dang lus gnas la5 || dgra bcom snyam du sems byedcing ||
nga rgyal can rnams bsten6 mi bya || tshul khrims ’chal rnams rnam
par spang || (4)rgod7 cing smra ba’i spyod yul can || dge slong ma rnams rtag tu
spang ||
mi brtan par ni mngon pa yi || dge bsnyen rnams kyang spang

94

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

bar bya || (5)bud med ma ning8 sems can gang || de dang9 ’dris byed rnam parspang ||
khyim rnams su ni mna’ ma dang || gzhon nu ma rnams spang bar
bya10 || (8)khams dang legs par dri byed pa || de dag nam du’ang dga’ mi byed||11
phag ’tshong pa dang shan pa dang || ’dris par byed pa rnam parspang || (9)de bzhin du sbyar te ||gang dag bud med gso byed dang || gar mkhan gyad dang sil khrol ba||gang gzhan de dang ’dra ba yang12 ||de dag rnams dang ’dris byedspang || (11)res ma’i gtso mo13 bsten mi bya || ji snyed longs spyod ’tsho ba gzhan||
shin tu dga’ ba de dag kyang ||rnam pa kun du yongs su spang || (12)mkhas pas14 bud med rnams la yang || gang gi dus na chos ’chad pa ||der ni gcig pu mi ’gro ste || rgod15 cing ’dug par mi bya’o ||16 (13)zhes gsungs so ||1. P: padma 2. D: ’ji
3. D: ’dres
4. SP: gdol pa dang ni zol pa dang ||5. P: pa
6. D: brten 7. D: dgod 8. D: neng 9. SP: dag
10. SP: rnam par spang
11. SP: de la nam du ’ang dga’ mi byed || mkhas dang rgod pa ’dri ba
dang ||
12. D: spang 13. SP: bo 14. P, SP: pa
15. D: dgod 16. P: omits ||I) T. 1636 Dacheng jipusaxue–lun(XXXII) 84c12–23:

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

I) T. 262 Miaofa lianhua-jing

95(IX) 37b20–c7:

II) Bendall (1897–1902): 92.6–94.13 = MS 51b2–52a2 = KN 50.9–12= verses II.81–82; 51.3–7 = II.86.88a; 52.1–12 = II.92–97:
yasya tu niyatam eva bodhipråpticihnam asti tatra sutaråmavam anyanå
rak∑itavyå | yathoktam åryasaddharmmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtre
i∑†åmayån m¤ttikasañcitån vå pr¥tå˙ prakurvvanti jinånc stËpånc |uddißya ye på◊ßukaråßayo pi ' a†av¥∑u1 durge∑u ca kårayanti || (81)siktåmayå vå puna kË†a k¤två ye kecid uddißya jinånc stËpånc |kumårakå˙ kr¥∂i∑u tatra tatra ' te cåpi bodhåya abhË∑i låbhina˙ || (82)yåvatc ||ye citrabhitt¥∑u karonti vigraha◊c paripËrˆˆagåtrånc śatapuˆyalak∑aˆånc ||likhet svayañ cåpi likhåpayed vå ' te sarvvi bodhåya abhË∑i låbhina˙|| (86)ye cåpi kecit tarhi ßik∑amåˆåh kr¥∂åratiñ cåpi vinodayanti |nakhena kå∑†hena k¤tåsi vigrahånc | (87abc)
bhitt¥∑u puru∑åtha kumårakå vå || (88a)sarvve ca te bodhi abhË∑i låbhina˙ | (87d)pe |vådåpitå jhallaripo pi ye h¥ ' jalamaˆ∂akå våpy atha maˆ∂akå vå |sugatånam uddißyatha pËjanårtha◊ ' g¥tañ ca g¥ta◊ madhura◊
manojñamc || (92)sarvve ca buddhå abhË∑i loke ' k¤två (c)a tå◊ bahuvidharatnapËjå◊ |kim alpakamp¥ sugatåna dhåtu∑u ' ekam pi vådåyiya2 vådyabhåˆ∂amc|| (93)

96

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

pu∑peˆa caikena hi pËjayitvå ' anupËrvva drak∑yanti hi buddhako†ya˙| (94ab)yaiß cå[52a]ñjalis tatra k¤tåpi stË(p)e ' paripËrnˆa ekåtalaßaktikå vå |onåmita◊ ß¥r∑a bhaven muhËrtta◊ avanåmita◊ kåya tathaikavåra◊c |(95)namo stu buddhåya k¤taikavåcå ' ye h¥ tadå dhåtudhare∑u te∑u |vik∑iptacittair api yaikavåcå te sarvvi pråptå imam agrabodhimc | (96)sugatåna te∑å◊ tada tasmi kåle ' parinirv¤tånåm atha ti∑†hatåm vå |ye dharmanåmåpi ß¤ˆË∑u satvås | te3 sarvvi bodhåya abhË∑i låbhina(97)
iti ||
1. ∑u added in top margin
2. written vå ' då ' yi ' ya '3. written satvå | steII) Derge Tanjur 3940, dbu ma, khi 56b5–57a6; Peking Tanjur 5336,
dbu ma, ki 67b5–68a7:
gang la nges par byang chub ’thob pa’i mtshan ma yod pa de la brnyas
pa shin tu bsrung bar bya ste | dam pa’i chos pad ma1 dkar po’i mdo
las |sa dang so phag las ni brtsigs pa yi || rgyal ba’i mchod rten dga’bzhin2 byas pa dang ||de phyir sa rdul phung po dag las kyang || mya ngan3 dgon pa dag4 tu
byas pa dang || (81)byis pas5 rtsed mor de dang de dag tu || gang gis6 rgyal ba de phyirmchod rten dag |bye ma las ni phung por byas pa yang || de rnams kyis kyang byangchub thob par ’gyur ||7 (82)zhes bya ba nas |8
gang gis rtsig ngos gzugs kyi ri mo dag | bsod nams brgya mtshan
yongs su rdzogs pa’i sku ||bdag gis bris sam ’dri ru bcug kyang rung || de dag thams cad byangchub thob par ’gyur || (86)skyes bu dag gam9 ’on te gzhon nu’ang rung || gang dag la la de ni
slob pa’i tshe ||rtsed mo dga’ dang bsang10 ba byed pa na || rtsig ngos sen mo shingbus gzugs bris pa || (87)de dag thams cad byang chub thob par ’gyur ||11 (88a)zhes bya ba’i bar du’o || de bzhin du sbyar te ||12
bde bar gshegs pa rnams la mchod pa’i phyir || gang dag lcags kyi silkhrol brdung13 bcug dang ||chu la brdabs dang thal mos14 brdabs pa dang || yid du ’ong zhing

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

97

snyan pa’i glu dbyangs15 dang || (92)ring bsrel de dag rnam mang mchod byas pa || de dag thams cad ’jigrten sangs rgyas ’gyur ||bde gshegs ring bsrel la ni chung16 zad dang ||17 sil snyan gcig brdungs
pa yi sgra phyung ngam || (93)me18 tog gcig tsam gyis ni mchod pa dang || bde gshegs gzugs dangrtsig ngos bris pa la ||’khrug bzhin pa yi sems kyis mchod na19 yang || de dag rim gyissangs rgyas bye ba mthong || (94)mchod rten de20 la gang gis thal mo sbyar || yongs su tshangs pa’am
thal mo ya gcig gam ||yang na mgo bo skad cig btud pa dang || de bzhin lan cig lus kyang
btud pa dang || (95)gang gis21 ring bsrel gnas pa de dag la || g-yeng22 ba’i sems kyis phyag’tshal sangs rgyas zhes ||tshig gcig lan ’ga’ brjod par byas pa yang || de dag kun gyis23 byangchub mchog ’di thob || (96)de tshe bde bar gshegs pa de dag ni || mya ngan ’das sam yang nabzhugs kyang rung ||sems can gang gis chos ’di’i24 ming thos pa || de dag thams cad byangchub thob par ’gyur ||25 (97)zhes ji skad gsungs pa bzhin no ||1. P: padma
2. SP: zhing
4. SP’s D: dag; others gang
7. P: omits ||8. P: omits |11. P: omits || 12. P: |15. SP: blangs 16. P, SP: cung
19. P: pa
20. SP: dag
23. P: gyi
24. P, SP: ’di
II) T. 1636 (XXXII) 94a12–b1:

3. SP’s P: ngan; NDCL: ngam
5. SP: pa
6. P: gi
9. D: rgan nam 10. SP: gsang
13. SP: rdung
14. SP: mo
17. P: |18. P: mi
21. P: gi
22. SP: g-yengs
25. P: omits ||98

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

II) T. 262 (IX) 8c21–9a27:

III) Bendall (1897–1902): 352.7–354.3 = MS 160b6–161b2 = KN
282.5–6; 283.6–13; 284.3-10 = XIII. 24, 26–29, 32–35; 286.3–4:
kathan dharmmadåna◊ dåtavya◊c | yathåryasaddharmmapuˆ∂ar¥kebhihita◊c ||kålena (v?)o cintayamå[161a]nu paˆ∂ita˙ ' pravißya layanan tathagha††ayitvå |vipaßya dharmma◊ imi sarvva yonißo ' utthåya deßeta al¥nacitta˙ |(24)sukhasthito bhoti sadå vicak∑aˆo ' sukha◊ ni∑aˆˆas tatha dharmmabhåsate |(u)dåraprajñapta karitva åsana◊ ' cauk∑e manojñe p¤thiv¥pradeße 'PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

99

(26)
cauk∑añ ca so c¥vara pråvaritvå1 ' suraktara∫gañ ca prasannara∫gair |2åsevakamc k¤∑ˆa tathå daditvå | mahåpramåˆañ ca nivåsayitvå | (27)sapådap¥†hasmi ni∑adya åsane | vicitradu∑yehi susa◊st¤te ’sminc |sudhautapådaß ca upåruhitvå | snigdhena ß¥r∑eˆa mukhena cāpi | (28)dharmmåsane tatra ni∑¥diyåna˙ | ekågrasatve∑u samam vipaßyanc |upasa◊harec citrakathå◊ bahË◊ß ca || bhik∑Ënatho bhik∑uˆikåstathaiva (29)kilåsitå◊ß cåpi vivarjay¥ta || na cåpi utpådayi khedasa◊jñå◊aratiñ ca sarvvå◊ visaheta paˆ∂ita˙ | maitr¥bala◊ par∑adi bhåvayec
ca ' (32)bhå∑ec ca råtrindivam agradharmmånc | d¤∑tåntako†¥niyutai˙ sapaˆ∂ita˙
3·samhar∑ayet
tåñ ca tathaiva to∑ayetc | na cåpi kiñcit tanu jån sa4prårthayetc ' (33)khådyañ ca bhojyañ ca tathånnapåna◊c | vastråˆi ßayyåsanac¥varåˆi ' 5gilånabhai∑ajya na cintayet sa˙ | na vijñape[161b]t par∑adi kiñcid
anyad6 (34)anyatra cinteya sadå vicak∑aˆa˙ | bhaveya buddho ham ime ca satvå
etac ca me sarvvasukhaupadhåna◊ | ya◊ dharmma ßråvemi ' hitåya
loke || (35)atraivåha ||na ca kasyad antaßo dharmmaprimˆåpy adhikataram anugraha◊karoti ||1. Here MS adds erroneously: mahåpramåˆañ ca nivåsayitvå |4. ma?
2. written ˚ai | rå˚
3. r∑a added below line
5. Marginal note at bottom of leaf: åsanopari vastra◊
6. d anya added in top margin
III) Derge Tanjur 3940, dbu ma, khi 190a3–b3; Peking Tanjur 5336, dbu
ma, ki 220a4–b6:
chos kyi sbyin pa ji ltar sbyin par bya zhe na | ’phags pa dam pa’i chospadma dkar po’i mdo las gsungs pa |mkhas pa dus su sems par byed pa na || khang bur zhugs te de bzhin
sgo bcad nas ||chos ’di thams cad la ni tshul bzhin blta || langs nas zhum pa med pa’isems kyis shod || (24)mkhas pa bde la rtag tu gnas par ’gyur || bde1 la ’dug nas de bzhinchos kyang ston ||gtsang zhing yid du ’ong ba’i sa phyogs su || yangs2 pa’i stan3 ni rab

100

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

tu bshams bting ste || (26)bzang po’i tshon gyis legs par kha bsgyur4 ba || chos gos gtsang ma
de ni rab bgos nas ||rdul gzan5 nag po de bzhin bshams byas la || sham thabs che6 tshad
legs par rab bgos nas || (27)bcos bu’i ras rnams sna tshogs legs bting ba || rkang rten bcas pa’ikhri la rab ’dug cing |rkang pa legs par bkrus te steng ’dzegs nas || gdong7 dang bzhin gyi
mdangs ni rab snum zhing || (28)chos kyi stan de la ni rab ’dug nas || sems can lhags8 pa rtse gcig gyur
rnams la ||gtam mang sna tshogs mang po smra ba dang9 || dge slong dag dangdge slong ma rnams dang || (29)dge bsnyen rnams dang dge bsnyen ma dag dang || rgyal po dag dangrgyal bu rnams la yang ||mkhas de10 rtag tu phrag dog med par ni || sna tshogs don ldan snyan
pa’i gtam yang ston || (30)*le lo dag kyang rnam par rab spangs nas || skyo ba yi ni ’du shesbskyed mi bya11 ||mkhas pas mi dga’ thams cad rnam par spang || byams pa’i stobs ni’khor la bsgom par bya || (32)nyin mtshan du yang chos mchog rab tu bsgom12 || mkhas pa de13 ni
bye ba khrag khrig dpes ||’khor rnams mgu zhing de bzhin dga’ bar byed || de la nam yang ’dodpa chung14 zad med || (33)
zas dang skom dang bza’ dang bca’ ba dang || gos dang mal cha chosgos rnams dang ni ||na ba’i gsos sman dag kyang mi bsam ste || ’khor rnams la ni ci yangmi bslang ngo || (34)gzhan du mkhas pa rtag tu bdag nyid dang || sems can ’di dag sangs
rgyas ’grub15 par shog |phan phyir ’jig rten chos gang bstan pa de || bdag gi bde ba’i yo byadkun snyam sems ||16 (35)zhes bya’o ||yang de nyid las | chos kyi rnam grangs ’di rab tu ston17 pa na |18 choskyi dga’ ba snyoms pa19 byed de |20 tha na ’ga’ tsam la yang choskyi dga’ bas lhag par phan ’dogs par mi byed do zhes gsungs so ||*Note that this entire verse is not found in the Sanskrit text, or Chinese translation!
1. SP: de2. P: yang
3. P: bstan

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

101

4. P: hard to read, but kha sgyur?
5. SP: zan
6. P: tshe
7. SP: mgo
8. P: lhag
9. SP: gtam mang rnam pa sna tshogs nye bar ston
10. P: te
12. P: sgom
11. SP: skyo ba snyam pa’i ’du shes bskyed mi bya
13. SP: des 14. SP: cung 15. P: grub
16. P: omits ||17. SP: bstan 18. SP’s D: |; P: ||19. SP: par
20. D: omits |III) T. 1636 (XXXII) 142c6–20:

III) T. 262 (IX) 37c22–38a24:

38b13:

102

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

Notes* This paper represents a presentation I made at the 36th International Congress ofAsian and North African Studies in Montreal, August 2000, augmented by materials notsuitable for presentation in lecture format. I very much regret that a severe lack of thenecessary time, inadequate access to materials, and page restrictions on this publication
have prevented me from developing the paper as much as I would have wished, and as
the topic deserves. I plan to collect together all the relevant materials and present themcomprehensively at a later time. I should note and emphasize here at the outset myenormous debt in the very first place to the excellent work of Mochizuki Kaie, without
which many aspects of this work would hardly have been possible. The present paper
will have proven worthwhile even if it does nothing more than introduce Mochizuki’s
research and bring his study, apparently largely unknown even in Japan, the attention it
deserves. See Mochizuki Kaie
, “ChËganha Bunken ni mirareru HokekyØ no
JuyØ”[The reception of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka in Madhyamaka Literature]. In Taga RyËgen
, ed., HokekyØ no JuyØ toTenkai(HokekyØ KenkyËXII) (Kyoto: Heirakuji
Shoten, 1993): 539–569.
I should further note that this paper may be said to constitute one of the first fruits ofa joint project of Jens Braarvig (Oslo) and myself to re-edit the Íik∑åsamuccaya in Sanskrit, along with its Tibetan and Chinese translations, and identifications of all citations.
1
For the present purposes I leave out of consideration the very much later Nepaleseevidence.
2
T. 1519, a translation attributed to Bodhiruci; also T. 1520, the Miaofa lianhuajinglun youbotishe, a translation attributed to Ratnamati.
3
Note also that there is an apparent reference to this commentary in Bu ston’s 14th
century catalogue in his Chos ’byung, but nothing else is known of this translation. See
Nishioka SoshË
, “‘Putun BukkyØ-shi’ Mokurokubu Sakuin II”[An Index to the Catalogue Portion of Bu ston’s History of Buddhism].
TØkyØ Daigaku Bungakubu Bunka KØryË Shisetsu KenkyË KiyØ5 (1981): 43–94. See #667: pad ma dkar po’i ’grel pa dbying
gnyen gyis mdzad pa. See also #664: pad ma dkar po’i don bsdus pa 100 ßloka. It is not
impossible that these represent translations from Chinese.
4
See the Fahua chuanji
of Sengxiang, T. 2068 (LI) 52c25–53a2.
5
Corrado Pensa, L’Abhisamayåla◊kårav¤tti di Órya-Vimuktisena. Primo
Abhisamaya. Testo e note critiche. Serie Orientale Roma 37 (Rome: Istituto Italiano peril Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1967): 35.6–9.
6Unrai Wogihara, Abhisamayåla◊kåråloka Prajñåpåramitåvyåkhyå. TØyØ Bunko
Publications Series D, 2 (Tokyo: The TØyØ Bunko, 1932–1935. Reprint:,1973): 52.21–53.2; 133.23–134.1.
7
Bhikkhu Påsådika, Någårjuna’s SËtrasamuccaya: A Critical Edition of the Mdo
kun las btus pa. Fontes Tibetici Havnienses 2 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1989):
126.1–24.
8
Derge Tanjur 3856, dbu ma, dza 173b5–6.
9Derge Tanjur 3887, dbu ma, sa 146b6, 238b7, 239a1–2.
10Derge Tanjur 4029, sems tsam, bi 108b1–4.
11
T. 1634 (XXXII) 45c24–26.
12, “Çik∑åsamuccaya ni okeru HokekyØ no In’yØbun” Çik∑åsamuccaya[Quotations of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka in the Íik∑åsamuccaya].

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

103

Indogaku BukkyØgaku KenkyË
19/1 (1970): 217–220. He refers to theprose at KN 282.9–283.4. According to Kiyota, p. 219, this passage is missing in the six
Nepalese manuscripts consulted by Nanjio, but was inserted in KN by Kern on the basisof Central Asian manuscripts. However, see Hirofumi Toda’s memorandum at the endof this article. Almost certainly Íåntideva simply abbreviated the passage.
13
Cecil Bendall, Çik∑åsamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching Compiledby Çåntideva, Chiefly from Earlier Mahåtåna-sËtras. Bibliotheca Buddhica 1 (St.
Pétersbourg: Imperial Academy, 1897–1902. Reprint: Osnabrück, Biblio Verlag, 1970).
14
Nakamura ZuiryË
, “Chibetto-yaku HokekyØ”. HokkeBunka KenkyË
2 (1976–) and following.
15
Hirofumi Toda, “Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra: Romanized Text.” Tokushima
Daigaku SØgØ Kagakubu KenkyË HØkokusho
7 (2000):
1-49, with the relevant section at 27–38.
16
Derge Tanjur 3961, dbu ma, gi 102a1–b3. This quotes verses XIII. 1–18ab. See
now Mochizuki Kaie
, “D¥pankarashur¥jyunyåna no DaikyØshË ni in’yØ sareru
HokekyØ”[The
Lotus SËtra quoted in Atißa’s MahåsËtrasamuccaya]. In Suguro ShinjØ
and SasakiKØken, eds., HokekyØ no ShisØ to Tenkai. HokekyØ KenkyË
XIII (Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 2001): 295–324.

Memorandum by Hirofumi Toda
Concerning this prose portion (KN 282.9–283.4), there are two possibilities: (1) Hendrik Kern prepared the prose. (2) Bunyiu Nanjio newly prepared the prose after he hadfinished the first handwritten text for the KN edition. Nanjio and Hokei Izumi used it as
the original text for their Japanese translation of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka (published in1913), in which the prose portion is not included, making reference to a MS Ekai
Kawaguchi had brought from Nepal (K).
1.

Kern’s “Composition”?

If we take up the possibility of Kern's editing and addition, it gives rise to a question:
What manuscripts did he have or keep when he made the final version of the KN edition? It is clear that he had O (Petrovsky MS) and Ca (Cambridge Add. 1683).1 (Add.
1683 was used for his English translation (published in 1884).)
However, the following portions do not appear in O and, with the exception of 2, inCa.
1. (282.10)
paßcimåyåµ pañcåßatyåµ = A (Royal Asiatic Society)2. (282.11)
bhå∑ate = A, Ca, B (British Library); bhå∑ati = Cb (note 12)
3. (282.13)
nißcårayati = B, A
4. (282.13–283.1) nåma g®h¥två ’varˆaµ bhå∑ate na câvarˆaµ cårayati = B
It is surmised that Nanjio prepared the first handwritten Sanskrit text skipping this prose
portion. The prose portion is omitted in his Japanese translation,2 which is based on thisSanskrit text. Therefore, these facts support the inference that Kern might have supplemented the prose text.
It can be confirmed that Kern had Ca (Add. 1683) as he used it for his English translation along with Add. 1682. But, there is no proof that he had A, B and Cb (Add.
1684). However, unless one assumes that he had these three MSS, the reason why three
portions of the above-mentioned texts (1, 3, 4) are adopted in the KN edition and Cb’s
variant (2) is referred to in a note cannot be clarified.
One possibility is that Kern “composed” the prose portion utilizing O, Cb and other

104

PLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

MSS, based on the fact that A, B and Cb have been kept in Britain. But I think this ishighly improbable.
Collation with O
One cannot find complete accordance between the texts in the KN edition and in O.
Therefore, the prose portion is not based on O. Some other Nepalese MSS were used.
2.

Nanjio’s New Addition?
—His Copying of MSS and the Publication of the KN Edition

Nanjio’s efforts at copying Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka manuscripts in order to make a collated handwritten Sanskrit text started in the period after 1879 and ended up with his
returning to Japan in 1884. Junjiro Takakusu wrote a letter to Kern in 1905, proposing
the publication of the SP text prepared by Nanjio. Then Nanjio made a fair copy of thewhole text he had completed and sent it to Kern.3 There is a possibility that the prose
portion was added at some point either while writing the fair copy or in the period after
completing the handwritten copy, including the period after he returned to Japan.
The KN edition was published in four fascicles:
fasc. I (1908), (i), pp. 1–96
fascs. II/III (1909), pp. 97–192/193–288
fasc. IV (1910), pp. 289–384
fasc. V (1912), pp. 385–508, pp. I–XII, 1 pl.4
3.

Chronology of Nanjio-Izumi’s Japanese Translation

A chronological description of Nanjio-Izumi’s Japanese translation is as follows:
Feb. 1903
Nanjio starts a serial publication of the translation in themagazine Mujinto (Never-ending Light).
May 1903
Ekai Kawaguchi returns to Japan with Sanskrit MSS including K.
Oct. 1907
Nanjio transfers the handwritten Sanskrit text he had prepared to Izumi. Hereafter Izumi takes over Nanjio’s task oftranslation. (The portion from p. 248, line 6, onward was
prepared by Izumi.)
Aug. 1912
The translation is completed by Izumi.
Sept. 10, 1913
Izumi writes the preface.
Sept. 25, 1913
The translation is published.
Izumi’s Japanese translation was rendered wholly based on Nanjio’s handwritten Sanskrit text and Kern’s English translation.
4.

Most Probable Presumption

My general impression and most probable presumption is that Nanjio hurriedly prepared the prose portion which was lacking in the first handwritten draft in the process ofmaking a fair copy. There were only three notes to the prose portion. See p. 282, note
12; p. 283, notes 1, 2.5 Kern must have added other notes based on O. This may reasonably explain the problem of why there are few variants in the notes. My idea leans tothe supposition that Nanjio prepared the prose text. Incidentally, the prose portion
appears in five MSS: A, K (University of Tokyo Library, no. 414), B, Ca and Cb.
Notes:
1

The KN edition’s preliminary notice refers to MSS with the abbreviations: CaPLACE IN INDIAN BUDDHISM

105(Add. 1682), Cb (Add. 1683). Actually however, it should read Ca (Add. 1683), Cb(Add. 1684).
See Akira Yuyama, A Bibliography of the Sanskrit Texts of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra, Canberra 1970, p. 12, note 9, p. 13, note 10.
2
Bunyiu Nanjio and Hokei Izumi (), Bonkan TaishØ Shinyaku
HokekyØ (; A New [Japanese] Translation of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra in Collation of Sanskrit and Chinese Texts), Kyoto 1913, p. 316, footnote.
3
Yensho Kanakura (), “Indogaku yori mataru hokekyØ,” HokekyØ noseiritsu to tenkai, HokekyØ KenkyË III (III,“Publications of the Sanskrit Texts of the Lotus Sutra,” The
Lotus Sutra and the Development of Buddhist Thought, Lotus Sutra Studies III), second
printing, Kyoto 1974, p. 506.
See Nanjio’s preface in the KN edition, p. II, lines 11–14.
4
Akira Yuyama, Eugène Burnouf: The Background to His Research into the Lotus
Sutra, Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica, vol. 3, Tokyo, 2000, p. 134.
5
P. 282, note 12, “ti Cb” and p. 283, note 1, “All but O”: Here must have existed
more detailed variants, which Kern shortened.
P. 283, note 2, “the rest”: There must also have been some detailed variants, which
Kern shortened.
Postscript
Concerning transliterated texts of the prose portion appearing in MSS, see the following:(1) Nepalese MSS:
Hirofumi Toda
, ed., KenkyË HØkokusho VIII (2001), Tokushima DaigakuSØgØkagakubu (, Report on Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra Manuscripts VIII (2001), Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, University ofTokushima), pp. 14–18.
(2) Gilgit MSS, Group A:
Shoko Watanabe, ed., Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka Manuscripts Found in Gilgit, Part Two,Romanized Text, Tokyo 1975, p. 254, line 28–p. 255, line 8.
(3) Gilgit MSS, Group C:
Toda, ed., “Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra Gilgit Manuscripts (Groups B and C),” Tokushima Daigaku KyØyØbu KiyØ, Jinbun shakai kagaku () , Journal of Cultural and Social Science, College of General Education, Universityof Tokushima), vol. 14 (1979), p. 276, 3172.2–9 (= Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts (Fascsimile Edition), Íata-pi†aka Series vol. 10, part 10, New Delhi 1974, no. 3172).
(4) Kashgar MS (= O):
Toda, ed., Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra: Central Asian Manuscripts, Romanized Text,
Tokushima 1981, pp. 137–138, 269a3–270a2.
Klaus Wille, ed., Fragments of a Manuscript of the Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥kasËtra fromKhådaliq, Lotus Sutra Manuscripts series 3, Tokyo 2000, p. 176.
(5) Farhād-Bēg MS:
Ibid., p. 241, 18b2–19a1.