От вайдальи до сутр махаяны: опыт осмысления источников и эволюции пути бодхисатвы

Примечания

(1) I am not entirely at ease with ‘Vaidalya movement’, here a stopgap for ‘proto-Mahayana’. The idea of a ‘Vaidalya movement’, or better, ‘Vaidalya movements’, can, however, be justified by the use of ‘Vetulyavada’ in Lankan sources (I do not think that any combined forms with vdda are met with in Sanskrit sources). In any case, we need to recognize that the Vaidalya ideas and texts were produced and promoted by people, by social groups – that ideas do not just spring up in a vacuum. Ideas are not fortuitously arisen without any cause (ahetusamutpanna; cf. Pali adhiccasamuppanna).

(2) There is nothing new about this connection, as will be seen below.

(3) The one place that we do find the term is in the Visuddhimagga-nidanakatha, ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGINS OF THE PATH OF PURIFICATION. This modern Pali work was composed by a group of Burmese monastic scholars under Mahasi Sayadaw at Kaba Aye in Rangoon, Burma, in the 1950s, at the time of the ‘sixth council-cum- communal recitation’ (This text is on the digital Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka of the Vipassana Research Institute at http:// www.tipitaka.org). The collective composition discusses Vedalla/ Vetulla/Vepulla, and associates it with the Bodhisatta Pitaka, citing in addition to Pali sources the Abhidharmasamuccaya. (I am grateful to Mattia Salvini for making me aware of this work, and to D.C. Lammerts for information about its history.)

(4) See Oskar von Hinuber and Peter Skilling, ‘Two Buddhist Inscriptions from Deorkothar (Dist. Rewa, Madhya Pradesh)’, ARIRIAB XVI (2013), pp. 13-36 and pis. 4-11; Oskar von Hinuber, ‘A Second Inscription from Phanigiri (Andhrapradesh): Dhammasena’s Donation’, ARIRIAB XV (2012), pp. 3-10 and pis. 1-2; idem, ‘Again on the Donation made by the Vinayadhara Dhammasena and on Other Inscriptions from Phanigiri’, ARIRIAB XVI (2013), pp. 3-12 and pis. 1-3.

(5) Peter Skilling, ‘New Discoveries from South India: The life of the Buddha at Phanigiri, Andhra Pradesh’, Arts Asiatiques 63 (2008), pp. 96118; Oskar von Hinuber and Peter Skilling, ‘An Epigraphical Poem from Phanigiri (Andhrapradesh) from the Time of Rudrapurusadatta’, ARIRIAB XIV (2011), pp. 7-12 and pis. 3-6.

(6) We await the report forthcoming from the Archaeological Survey of India. See Monika Zin, ‘Mandhatar, the Universal Monarch, and the Meaning of the Representations of the Cakravartin in the Amaravati School, and of the Kings on the Kanaganahalli Stupa’, in Peter Skilling and Justin McDaniel (eds.), Buddhist Narrative in Asia and Beyond (Bangkok: Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 2012), pp. 149-164; Michael W. Meister, ‘Palaces, Kings, and Sages: World Rulers and World Renouncers in Early Buddhism’, in Eh Franco and Monika Zin (eds.), From Turfan to Ajanta: Festchrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Vol. II (Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, 2010), pp. 651-670.

(7) The most thorough and up-to-date survey of the status of a wide range of manuscript collections, including those of Siam and Lanka, is the collective volume edited by Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15-19 2009, forthcoming.

(8) These have mainly been published in Jens Braarvig (Gen. ed.), Manuscripts in the Scheyen Collection: Buddhist Manuscripts (Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 3 volumes to date); see also Jens Braarvig and Fredrik Liland, Traces of Gandharan Buddhism: An Exhibition of Ancient Buddhist Manuscripts in theScheyen Collection (Hermes Publishing, Oslo, Bangkok, 2010). A good survey is Mark Allon, ‘Recent Discoveries of Buddhist Manuscripts from Afghanistan and Pakistan and their Significance’, in Ken Parry (ed.), Art, Architecture and Religion Along the Silk Roads (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), pp. 153-178.

(9) See Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima, ‘A first-century Prajnaparamita manuscript from Gandhara – parivarta 1’, ARIRIAB XV (2012), pp. 19-61 with pis. 5-7 (Texts from the Split Collection 1); idem, ‘A first-century Prajnaparamita manuscript from Gandhara – parivarta 5’, ARIRIAB XVI (2013), pp. 97-169 with pis. 52-53 (Texts from the Split Collection 2). See also Seishi Karashima, ‘Was the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita compiled in Gandhara in Gandharl?’, ARIRIAB XVI, pp. 171-188. The Prajnaparamita manuscript belongs to a collection that is divided among several owners: see Harry Falk, ‘The “Split” Collection of KharosthI texts’, ARIRIAB XIV (2011), pp. 13-23.

(10) See Mark Allon and Richard Salomon, ‘New Evidence for Mahayana in Early Gandhara’, EB, New Series, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2010), pp. 1-22.

(11) The Bajaur manuscripts are currently under study by Ingo Strauch: see www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/indologie/bajaur/ and idem, ‘More Missing Pieces of Early Pure Land Buddhism: New Evidence for Aksobhya and Abhirati in an Early Mahayana Sutra from Gandhara’, EB 41 (2010), pp. 23-66.

(12) The same is true for some of the other Gandhari texts – they are precious survivors from a huge literature that has been lost in the turmoil of history. There must have been many more: this is another reason for being cautious in drawing broad conclusions about the development of Mahayana and even of Buddhism in general.

(13) Falk and Karashima, ‘A first-century Prajnaparamita, parivarta 5’ (2013), p. 100.

(14) The term kulaputta (not paired, though, with kuladhlta) does occur in Pali suttas, but rather rarely.

(15) For potthaka in Pali sources several centuries later, see Toshiichi Endo, ‘“Potthaka” (Book or Manuscript) in the Pali Commentaries’, in Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour of Professor Sodo Mori (Hamamatsu: Kokusai Bukkyoto Kyokai [International Buddhist Association], 2002), pp. 79-90.

(16) See Falk and Karashima, ‘A first-century Prajnaparamita manuscript’ (2012), p. 22. For Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit peydla, see BHSD, p. 354; the Pali spelling ispeyydla, PED 473.

(17) The immense importance of the ‘peydla principle’, which entails both contraction and expansion, for the understanding of Buddhist literature has unfortunately scarcely been recognized. We could learn a lot by analyzing the many uses of peydla (Pali peyydla). See Rupert Gethin, ‘What’s in a Repetition? On Counting the Suttas of the Samyutta-nikaya’, JPTS 29 (2007), pp. 365-387.

(18) For an overview of Chinese ‘canons’, see Christophe Kleine, ‘Kanonisierungsansatze im ostasiatischen Buddhismus: Von der Kanon Bibliothek zur buddhistischen Bibel?’, in Deeg et ah, Kanonisierung und Kanonbildung in der asiatischen Religionsgeschichte (2011), pp. 259-319.

(19) For an overview, see Analayo, ‘Agama/Nikaya’, forthcoming in Oskar von Hinuber (ed.), Brill’s Encyclopaedia of Buddhism (Leiden: Brill, 2013). For publications by Bhikkhu Analayo, see www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/analayo/ publications.htm.

(20) An outstanding example is the 1429-page long volume edited by Ulrich Timme Kragh, The Foundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogdcarabhumi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet (Cambridge, Mass.: The Department of South Asian Studies/ Harvard University 2013).

(21) tena ca samayena tasmih jambudvipe dvidhddrstih sattvanam abhut: kecin mahayanam abhisraddhayanti, kecit kutsayantv. Prods Oktor Skjarvo, The Most Excellent Shine of Gold, King of Kings of Sutras: The Khotanese Suvarnabhasottamasutra (Cambridge, Mass: The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 2004 [School of Oriental Languages and Literatures 60-61. Central Asian Sources V-VI]), Vol. I, pp. 316-317. Translation by R.E. Emmerick, The Sutra of Golden Light: Being a translation of the Suvarnabhasottamasutra (Third [revised] edition, Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 1996), p. 84.

(22) With the proviso that, when the term does occur in a specific text or context, that particular usage and its significance must certainly be addressed. For the term Hinayana, see Jan Nattier, A Tew Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha) (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), pp. 172-174 (reprinted as The Bodhisattva Path: Based on the Ugrapariprccha, a Mahayana Sutra, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2007).

(23) T.W. Rhys Davids, ‘Hinayana’, ERE VI (1913), p. 684 (full article, pp. 684-686) even stated that ‘the use of the term [Hinayana] in India, however, is exceedingly rare’ and he was most probably right. In a study of eleven early Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras, ‘produced in the second half of the second century CE, or shortly thereafter, by a small group of translators working in the Han capital of Luoyang’, Harrison found that xiaodao – ‘small way’, Hinayana – occurs only four times: Paul Harrison, ‘Who gets to ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-image and identity among the followers of the early Mahayana’, Chapter 37 in Paul Williams, Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Volume III, The Origins and Nature of Mahayana Buddhism; Some Mahayana Religious Topics (London and New York: Routledge, 2005). Nattier notes that ‘given the fact that all extant versions of the Ugra[-Pariprccha] use the term Mahayana, it is noteworthy that the corresponding term Hinayana … does not occur in any version of our text’ (A Pew Good Men, p. 172).

(24) I cannot say anything about East Asian historiography: I regret that I am unable to consult translations, or to benefit from research in the Chinese, Korean, or Japanese languages. For a recent example of the latter relevant to this essay, see Horiuchi Toshio, Vasubandhu’s Proof of the Authenticity of the Mahayana as Pound in the Fourth Chapter of his Vyakhydyukti (Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 2009), pp. 39-45.

(25) The first entry for Hlnayana in the Oxford Dictionary from 1868 is a comparison with Christianity, drawn from James Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship: or Illustrations of Mythology and Art in India in the First and Fourth Centuries after Christ from the Sculptures of the Buddhist Topes at Sanchi and Amravati, ([London: India Museum, 1873] Asian Educational Services, New Delhi and Chennai, 2004, p. 70): ‘Mahayana, or as M. Julien translates it, the “Grand Vehicule”, as opposed to Hinayana or the “Petit Vehicule”; the distinction between the two being in almost every respect identical with that which exists between Evangelical and Mediaeval Christianity’.

(26) In continental India, Buddhism also suffered periodic violence at the hands of militant Hinduism, especially Saivism: see Giovanni Verardi, Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India (New Delhi: Manohar, 2011). The reasons for this antagonism were many and complex; they included the Buddhist rejection of the authority of the Vedas and of the caste system. For the latter, see Vincent Eltschinger, Caste and Buddhist Philosophy: Continuity of Some Buddhist Arguments against the Realist Interpretation of Social Denominations (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 2012).

(27) Rhys Davids, ‘Hinayana’, ERE VI (1913), p. 684 (full article, pp. 684-686). This may be read fruitfully with Louis de La Vallee Poussin, ‘Mahayana’, ERE VIII (1915), pp. 330-336. The two articles present a good picture of the state of European knowledge of these two terms one hundred years ago. (I am curious to know the identity of Rhys Davids’ ‘one or two well-known Chinese and European writers’.)

(28) John D. Strong, ‘Hinayana’, EnB 1, p. 328. It will become clear that I do not consider ‘Mainstream Buddhism’ to be a useful concept, but the entry on ‘Mainstream Buddhist Schools’ by Collett Cox (EnB 2, pp. 501— 507) is excellent regardless. The translators of Die Philosophic des Buddhismus by pioneering Austrian Indologist Erich Frauwallner (1898— 1974) into English have changed the author’s ‘Hinayana’ to Sravakayana: see Erich Frauwallner, The Philosophy of Buddhism (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers), 2010, p. 65, n. 1.

(29) The earliest datable occurrences of the term ‘Hinayana’ seem to be in Chinese translations of the late second century CE: see Harrison, ‘Who gets to ride in the Great Vehicle?’ One hundred years ago, in 1913, T.W. Rhys Davids wrote that ‘the oldest datable mention of the word [Hinayana] is in the Record of the Buddhistic Kingdoms by Fa-Hian, written shortly after his return to China in A.D. 414’ (ERE VI, p. 684). Dating and datability have their ‘use by dates’.

(30) The use of the term Hinayana to disparage the ‘other’ might be fruitfully compared with that of words like ‘pagan’, ‘infidel’, or ‘idolater’ for Christians in general, or, for the English Protestants, ‘Romish’ or papist’, though all of these are perhaps more aggressive in their demonization.

(31) For a conspectus of ideas about Mahayana and vehicles, see J. Rahder, ‘Daijo’, Acta Orientalia XVII (Leiden, 1939), pp. 1-16, reprinted in Buddhist Poetry, Thought and Diffusion, Volume I (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, 2010), pp. 551-566. An important essay is Etienne Lamotte, ‘Sur la formation du Mahayana’, in Asiatica, Testschrift Triedrich Weller (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1954), pp. 377-396: an English version is available, but in a very much condensed form, in Heinz Bechert and Richard Gombrich (eds.), The World of Buddhism (London: Thames and Hudson, 1984, pp. 90-93). See especially the magisterial essay by Hubert Durt, ‘Daijo’, in Hobogirin: Dictionnaire encyclopedique du bouddhisme d’apres les sources chinoises et japonaises, Septieme volume: Daijo-Daishi (Paris-Kyoto, 1994), pp. 767-801.

(32) Seishi Karashima, ‘Who Composed the Lotus Sutra?’, ARIRIAB IV (2001), pp. 143-179. Karashima recently gave a detailed exposition of the theory in a talk entitled ‘What did the word mahayana originally mean?’, given at the Institute of Indology and Central Asian Studies, Leipzig University, in conjunction with his receiving the ‘Friedrich Weller Prize 2013’ at the Spring Session of the Saxon Academy of Sciences, Leipzig (April 12, 2013).

(33) See Analayo, ‘The Hlnayana Fallacy’ (forthcoming).

(34) For examples of the promotion of the term Mahayana in the negotiation of early Buddhist modernity at the great field of contestation that was the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions at Chicago, see Todd LeRoy Perreira, ‘Whence Theravada? The Modern Genealogy of an Ancient Term’, Chapter 12 in P. Skilling et ah, How Theravada is Theravada? Exploring Buddhist Identities (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2012). See also Judith Snodgrass, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003). For late nineteenth century Thai encounters with the terminology Hlnayana and Mahayana, see Arthid Sheravanichkul, ‘Thai Ideas about Hlnayana- Mahayana: Correspondence between King Chulalongkorn and Prince Narisanuvattivong’, Chapter 11 in Skilling et ah, How Theravada is Theravada?

(35) Early expositors of this paradigm include Japanese scholars like D.T. Suzuki, who wrote that ‘Buddhism was now split into two great systems, Mahayanism and Hinayanism’, and ‘the distinction of Mahayanists and Hinayanists became definite’ – quoted from Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism, 1907, pp. 2, 8, in The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989]), Vol. VII, p. 240, s.v. Hinayana.

(36) I will not tilt here at the spinning windmill of Vajrayana. I only note that Vajrayana, Mantrayana, Mantranaya, and so on, are presented in the sources as options or paths within Mahayana, not as a separate vehicle (admittedly, for didactic or polemical ends it may sometimes seem so, but still within broader contexts). See most recently Vesna A. Wallace, ‘A Brief Exploration of Late Indian Buddhist Exegeses of the “Mantrayana” and “Mantranaya”) Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, Third Series, no. 13 (Fall 2011), pp. 95-111; Christian K. Wedemeyer, Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, and Transgression in the Indian Traditions (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).

(37) Leon Feer (ed.), Samyutta-nikaya, Part II, Niddna-vagga (London: The Pali Text Society, [1888] 1970), pp. 155-157, abbreviated. The key module in the section is dhatuso bhikkhave satta samsandanti samenti, hinddhimuttika hinddhimuttikehi saddhim samsandanti samenti, kalyanadhimuttika kalyanadhimuttikehi saddhim samsandanti samenti (see also, with interesting variants, Itivuttaka (ed. Ernst Windisch, London: The Pali Text Soci- ety/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1975 [first publ. 1889]), pp. 70-71. The phrase takes on added significance when one reflects that the module is cited in the Prajhdpdramita: see Ryusho Hikata (ed.), Suvikrantavikrami-Pariprccha Prajhaparamita-Sutra (Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., 1983; first published 1958), p. 60.12, etac ca me Saradvatiputra samdhdya bhasitam: dhatusah satvah samsyandanti, hinadhimuktika hinadhimuktikair uddradhimuktika udaradhimuktikair iti. The understanding of the diverse natures of beings is one of the insights of the Tathagatas – cf. H. Kern and Bunyiu Nanjio, eds., Saddharmapurularika, ([1908-1912] Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 1992), p. 40.15, where the Fortunate One explains to Sariputra that the Tathagatas of the past, the future, and the present teach the Dharma after understanding the variety of the dispositions, temperaments, and aspirations of sentient beings (nanadhimuktanam sattvanam nanadhatvasayadnam asayam viditva dharmam desitavantah… desayisyanti… desayanti).

(38) It is difficult not to see in the Dhatusarnyutta prefigurations of the theories of ‘lineage’ (gotra) that became important in Abhidharma and Mahayana thought.

(39) The Agamas (Sanskrit and Pali, agama, received tradition, canonical text, scriptural authority) and the Nikayas (Sanskrit and Pali, nikaya, collection, corpus) are the collections of discourses handed down within the Sravaka schools. There may be four – the collections of Long, Middle Length, Connected, and Numerical Discourses – or five, with the addition of a collection of lesser or miscellaneous texts (Ksudraka-agama or Khuddaka-nikaya). The known Sanskrit traditions tend to prefer the name Agama. The use of ‘Nikaya’ for a collection of scriptures is generally restricted to Pali (but see Hartmann [ref. below], p. 11); the Pali commentarial tradition does sometimes use the word Agama, which in any case is a shared term in Indian religion for authoritative tradition or text. See Analayo, A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya (Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing, 2011), Vol. 2, p. 864, n. 45. For the Agamas see Lu Cheng, ‘Agama (1)’, in G.P. Malalasekera (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol. I fasc. 2 (1963), pp. 241-244; Shozen Kumoi, ‘Agama (2)’, ib., pp. 244-248; Jens-Uwe Hartmann, ‘Agama/Nikaya’, EnB 1, pp. 10-12.

(40) Assigning dates to the personalities and events of early Buddhist, or Indian, history is always problematic and tentative. The period of the formation of the school identities would have been a time of intellectual ferment, innovation, and reaction – but when was that? Before or after Asoka? For the alternative theories, see Hirakawa Akira, A History of Indian Buddhism from Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana (University of Hawaii Press, 1990 [Asian Studies at Hawaii, No. 36]), Chapters 8 and 9.

(41) Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule (Paris: Ecole frangaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1955), by Andre Bareau (1921-1993) is by far the most comprehensive work on the subject; outdated in many respects, it is nonetheless an invaluable reference. An English translation by Sarah Boin-Webb, edited by Andrew Skilton, is forthcoming as The Buddhist Schools of the Small Vehicle (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2013). The evolution of the schools is, to put it mildly, complicated. In addition to Bareau, one may consult Etienne Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism from the Origins to the Saka Era (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, Universite Catholique de Louvain, 1988 [first published in French in 1958]), Chapter Six, ‘The Buddhist Sects’, I, ‘Origin and Distribution of the Sects’; Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism, Chapter 8, ‘The Development of Nikaya Buddhism’.

(42) Bhiksu VlryasVldatta, in his commentary on the Arthaviniscayasutra, defines sravaka as bhagavato buddhasya parena sravyanta iti sravakah. N.H. Samtani (ed.), The Arthaviniscaya-sutra & Its Commentary (Nibandhana) (Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1971), p. 253.6; for a translation, see idem (tr.) Gathering the Meanings: The Compendium of Categories: The Arthaviniscaya sutra and its Commentary Nibandhana (Berkeley: Dharma Publishing, 2002), p. 182, ‘Sravakas are so called because they are subsequently (parena) brought to hear [the teaching] of the Buddha, the Blessed One’. I find the passage, and Samtani’s translation, problematic. Mattia Salvini suggests, ‘Of the Bhavagat, the Buddha, they are made to hear by someone else, thus they are ‘Sravakas’ (email, 23 April 2013). Samtani points out a definition of Sravakayana in the LOTUS SUTRA, kecit sattvah paraghosasravanugamanam akanksamana […] te ucyante sravakayanam akanksamanah (Kern and Nanjio, Saddharmapurularika, p. 80.5).

Buddhaghosa defines savaka as ‘they are ‘listeners’ because they listen attentively to the instructions and teachings of the Fortunate One’ (bhagavato ovddanusasanim sakkaccam sunanti ti savaka): Henry Clarke Warren (ed.), revised by Dharmananda Kosambi, Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosacariya ([1950] Repr. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1989) § 7.90.

(43) Sravakayana is a goal or an ideal, rather than a social or historical group: for this reason, I generally prefer to use ‘Sravaka’ rather than ‘Sravakayana’ for historical description.

(44) For tables of school affiliation, see Rupert Gethin, ‘Was Buddhaghosa a Theravadin? Buddhist Identity in the Pali Commentaries and Chronicles’, Chapter 1 in P. Skilling et all, How Theravada is Theravada?, p. 58; for earlier tables see Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule, pp. 16-30; Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 529546; Hirakawa, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 112-116. The choice of the figure eighteen, which became standard for the number of schools by at least the first centuries CE, may have been influenced by the common use of ‘eighteen’ as a standard or ideal number. For the figure eighteen in Sinhalese chronicles, see Gananath Obeyesekere, ‘Myth, History and Numerology in the Buddhist Chronicles’, in Heinz Bechert (ed.), The Dating of the Historical Buddha/Die Datierung des historischen Buddha, Part 1 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 152— 182 (especially pp. 154-157).

(45) Nikaya here means a monastic order and the system of practices and ideas that it transmits. The complication is that Mahayana systems and ideas developed within the monastic orders, although they do not seem to have been transmitted exclusively by any of the orders. Mahayana and Nikaya overlap and intersect. In general, the evolution of Nikayas is inaccurately presented according to a ‘schism model’, in which ‘sects’ break away from some kind of ‘central church’, from an enduring centre, rather than as a complex evolution over a widespread area.

(46) Some of the terms used in recent scholarship are especially unsatisfactory. These include ‘sectarian Buddhism’, ‘traditional Buddhism’, and ‘mainstream Buddhism’. ‘Sectarian Buddhism’ conflates the Buddhist monastic orders with Christian lay sects; this obscures the nature of religious affiliation and commitment and the nature of social change. If we propose to use ‘traditional Buddhism’ as our analytical category, then how do we define ‘tradition’? As centuries passed, Buddhism underwent continual diversification. New trends developed in monasticism, meditation, and philosophy, and the social and material forms of Buddhism were shaped and reshaped by regional, cultural, and ethnological conditions. Which tradition should we choose? Similar complications bedevil the notion of ‘mainstream Buddhism’ (for which see below). Other unsatisfactory terms include ‘primitive Buddhism’ and ‘orthodox Buddhism’.

(47) For the idea of ‘canon’, see Paul Harrison, ‘Canon’, EnB 1, pp. 111115. For the process of scripture formation, see Richard Salomon, ‘An Unwieldy Canon: Observations on Some Distinctive Features of Canon Formation in Buddhism’, in Max Deeg, Oliver Freiberger, and Christoph Kleine (eds.), Kanonisierung und Kanonbildung in der asiatischen Religionsgeschichte (Wien: Verlag der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2011), pp. 161-207; idem, ‘Recent Discoveries of Early Buddhist Manuscripts and Their Implications for the History of Buddhist Texts and Canons’, Chapter 14 in Patrick Olivelle (ed.), Between the Empires: Society in India 300 CE to 400 CE (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 349-382. For the Pali canon in particular, see Oliver Freiberger, ‘Was ist das Kanonische am Pali-Kanon?’, in ibid., pp. 209-232.

(48) The lives of texts as ideal corpora or ‘imaginary exemplars’ that circulate across aeons and throughout the universe is an extraordinary notion that is regularly exploited in Mahayana sutras.

(49) I.B. Horner (ed.), PaPali casudani Majjhimanikayatthakatha of Buddhaghosacariya, Part III (London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1976 [first published 1933]), 282.18 bodhisatta … tepitakam Buddhavacanam ugganhitva … vipassanam vaddhetva yava anulomam hanam ahacca titthanti.

(50) Atthaparikkhara-jataka, Birth story No. 18 in Padmanabh S. Jaini (ed.) Pali hasa-jataka or Zimme Pannasa, Vol. I (London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1983), p. 211.16, sabbam pi tepitakam buddhavacanam ugganhati, for a translation see I.B. Horner and Padmanabh S. Jaini (tr.) Apocryphal Birth-Stories (Pali hasa-jataka), Vol. I, London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1985), p. 227.

(51) For these see Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 148-149.

(52) Hartmann, ‘Agama/Nikaya’, p. 11.

(53) Rhys Davids (ERE VI, p. 685, n. 5) quotes Pischel [Richard Pischel, 1849-1908] (Leben und Lehre des Buddha, Leipzig, 1910, p. 6): ‘The Pali canon is only the canon of one sect’, and comments that ‘This is inaccurate in several ways. It implies that there were sects (like European sects); that each had a separate canon; and that each canon stood on a level in respect of age. Not one of these implications is supported by the evidence.’ This important observation remains valid.

In this essay, reference to Theravada is largely to the Mahavihara school (and Sarvastivada subsumes Mulasarvastivada). Yijing (writing at the end of the seventh century) and Vinltadeva (writing at the beginning of the ninth century) list three Sthavira lineages from Ceylon – Jeta- vanlya, Abhayagirivasin, and Mahaviharavasin: see Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule, pp. 24-25 and 205-244, and Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 544-546. For the problem of the emergence of the two or three nikayas in Ceylon, see most recently L.S. Cousins, ‘The Teachings of the Abhayagiri School’, Chapter 2 in Skilling et ah, How Theravada is Theravada?

For useful surveys of the Pali canon and Pali literature, see Russell Webb, An Analysis of the Pali Canon, and Bhikkhu Nyanatusita, A Reference Table of Pali Literature (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 2011); Oskar von Hintiber, A Handbook of Pali Literature (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996); Somapala Jayawardhana, Handbook of Pali Literature (Colombo: Karunaratne & Sons Ltd, 1994).

(54) For a recent survey of available Sravaka texts, see Thomas Oberlies, ‘Ein bibliographischer Uberblick liber die kanonischen Texte der Sravakayana-Schulen des Buddhism (ausgenommen der des Mahavihara- Theravada)’, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Siidasiens XLVII (2003), pp. 37-84.

(55) See Marcelle Lalou, ‘A la recherche du Vidyadharapitaka: le cycle du SubdhuPariprcchatantra’, in Studies in Indology and Buddhology Presented in Honour of Professor Susumu Yamaguchi on the Occasion ofHis Sixtieth Birthday (Kyoto: Hozokan, 1955), pp. 68-72.

(56) The BASKET OF CONDUCT of the Mahavihara MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTION contains thirty-five verse Jatakas which illustrate seven of the ten perfections. Its size shows that ‘Pitaka’ could be used for relatively short works.

(57) The author is also known as Bhavya or Bhavaviveka. See P. Skilling, ‘Citations from the Scriptures of the “Eighteen Schools” in the Tarkajvala’, in Petra Kieffer-Pulz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann (eds.), Bauddhavidydsudhdkarah: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of his 65 th Birthday (Swisttal-Odendorf, 1997), pp. 605-614. For the entire chapter, the Sravakatattva (Reality according to the Sravakas), see Malcolm David Eckel (ed., tr.), Bhaviveka and His Buddhist Opponents (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008).

(58) Li Rongxi (tr.), A Biography of the Tripitaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty, translated from the Chinese of Sramana Huili and Shi Yancong (Taisho, Volume 50, Number 2053) (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1995), p. 174. Regrettably, many or most of these were never translated, and the original Indian manuscripts were eventually lost. As far as I know, there is no comprehensive study of this list in terms of school affiliation and its relation to extant translations by Xuanzang or others.

(59) J. Takakusu (tr.), I-Tsing, A Record of the Buddhist Religion: As Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 671-695), ([Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1896]: reprint New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2005), pp. 7-8; Sramana Yijing, Buddhist Monastic Traditions of Southern Asia: A Record of the Inner Law Sent Home from the South Seas, translated from the Chinese (Taisho Volume 54, Number 2125) by Li Rongxi (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000), pp. 10-11.

(60) Chinese translations rarely specify the school of the texts, and much research remains to be done on the school affiliation of the ‘independent’ sutra and other translations.

(61) The Indic form is ill-attested, and it is not possible to decide whether the preferred form was ‘Sthavira’, ‘Sthavira’, or Sthaviriya.

(62) The origins of the four lineages go back much earlier, to before the Christian Era, but the explicit quadripartite model was probably only formulated in the early centuries CE. After the initial division into Sthavira and Mahasamghika, the Sammitfya (or, more accurately, its forerunner, the Vatsiputriya) and then the Sarvastivada developed within the Sthavira fold. Lines of affiliation of the ‘lesser schools’ – and were there no ‘unaffiliated schools’? – were no doubt more complex than later doxographers would have it. The four-school model can be read retrospectively, without violence, into several of the accounts of school evolution. See P. Skilling, ‘Theravada in History’, Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, Third Series, Number 11 (Fall 2009), pp. 61-93. All schools would have regarded themselves as legitimate descendents of the ‘original samgha’ through the first two Councils. How did the schools position themselves vis-a-vis their fellow monastic orders? To what degree did they claim exclusive legitimacy? Was the hardline stance of the Lankan Theravada exceptional? In what way has the very idea of Theravadin exclusivity been influenced by colonial and post-colonial preconceptions of religion and sectarianism? It is time to review these questions in the broader context of Indian Buddhism and religion. (Gethin, ‘Was Buddhaghosa a Theravadin?’, reexamines Theravadin self-definitions of identity to find that they may have been more inclusive than previously imagined.)

(63) See Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 536-538.

(64) At an early date, the Pratyekabuddha (a concept originally shared with at least the Jains) was thoroughly naturalized into the Buddhist scheme of things. Scholasticism ranked him second in the three-tiered model of spiritual paths. Since Pratyekabuddhas arise only in ages when there are no Buddhas, they enjoy a significant role in narrative, especially in the avadanas, as the field of merit in periods ‘empty of Buddhas’. For a recent study, with copious reference to earlier literature, see Analayo, ‘Paccekabuddhas in the Isigili-sutta and its Ekottarika- agama Parallel’, Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies No. 6 (2010), pp. 536. To aspire to Pratyekabodhi does not seem to have been a popular option (see Nattier, A Few Good Men, pp. 139-140), although there is occasional epigraphical or other evidence for this.

(65) Gandhari bosisatvadharma, bosisatvasiksa, samasabudhayana = Sanskrit *bodhisatvadharma, bodhisatvasiksa, samyaksambuddhayana. I am grateful to Ingo Strauch for this information (email, 11 June 2012).

(66) It is largely the advocates of the bodhisatva path who used the term ydna in their scholastic and narrative literature – the schools refer rather to Sravaka-bodhi, Pratyeka-bodhi, and Samyak-sambodhi. (There are, however, important exceptions, in a few places in the Vibhasa literature, for example: see e.g. KL Dhammajoti, ‘From Abhidharma to Mahayana: Remarks on the early Abhidharma doctine of the three ydna-s’, Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies Sri Lanka IX [2011], pp. 153-169.) See Analayo, ‘Yana’, in W.G. Weeraratne (Editor-in-Chief), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol, VIII, fasc. 3 (Sri Lanka: 2009), pp. 778-780. The complexities of the concepts of ydna – including further Ekayana, Mantrayana, and Vajrayana, etc. – and vada – Theravada, Vetullavada, Vijnanavada, etc. – await elucidation (as does the concept of nay a in for example Mantranaya).

(67) Important concepts I cannot go into here include bodhisatva-pratimoksa, bodhisatva-sila, bodhisatva-gana, and avaivartaka-bodhisatva – especially the degree to which the latter two might have been the chosen identities of historical social groups.

(68) I am not at all happy with ‘belief system’, which I use as a term of convenience. The shared values – both as social products and as social determinants – reach beyond Buddhism into Indian society, whether in the time of the Master himself or in much later periods, but this is not to say that the values were universal, self-explanatory, or unchanging.

(69) Arya-satya, ariya-sacca, here ‘truths of the noble ones’, is often translated as ‘noble truths’. However, the usage of the sutras and the commentaries make it clear that the meaning is ‘truths realized by the noble ones’. See Peter Harvey, ‘The Four Ariya-saccas as “True Realities for the Spiritually Ennobled’”- the Painful, its Origin, its Cessation, and the Way Going to This – Rather than “Noble Truths” Concerning These’, Buddhist Studies Review 26.2 (2009), pp. 197-227; K.R. Norman, ‘The Four Noble Truths: A Problem of Pali Syntax’, in L.A. Hercus (ed.), Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his 60th birthday (Delhi: Sri Satguru, 1984), pp. 377-391 (repr. as § 49 in K.R. Norman, Collected Papers (Volume II, Oxford: The Pah Text Society, 1991), pp. 210-223; Analayo, ‘The Ekottarika-agama Parallel to the Saccavibhanga-sutta and the Four (Noble) Truths’, Buddhist Studies Review 23.2 (2006), pp. 145-153.

(70) For an early epigraphic record of two lineages within the Bahusrutiva school in the eastern Vindhyas, see von Hinuber and Skilling, ‘Two Buddhist Inscriptions from Deorkothar’. For a network of inscribed reliquaries commemorating a Hemavata lineage in the central Vindhyas, see Michael Willis, Buddhist Reliquaries from Ancient India (London: British Museum Press, 2000); Michael Willis, ‘Buddhist Saints in Ancient Vedisa’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 11.2 (2001), pp. 219-228.

(71) This is equally true of Theravada.

(72) These insecurities lie behind some of the debates in our oldest Mahayana document, the Gandhari PERFECTION OF WISDOM.

(73) One is reminded here of the literary figure of the monk Indrasukha, who possessed great magical ability, who was an upholder of the True Dharma (*saddharmaparigrahaka) and a bearer of Vaipulya sutras (*vaipulya-sutra-dhara), who was respected by King As’oka, and took the Dharmaparyaya to the northern country – where it was not very successful (Derge Kanjur, Toh. No. 146, mdo sde, pa, 140bl, de’i tshe de’I dus na dge slong dbangpo bde zhes by a ba rdzu ‘phrul che ba, mthu che ba, dam pa ‘i chos yongs su ‘dzin pa, shin tu rgyas pa ‘i mdo sde ‘dzin pa, rgyal po’i rigs las rab tu byung ba … chos smra ba). The Dharmaparyaya is the Satyakaparivarta, otherwise known by the rather unwieldy tile Arya- bodhisatva-gocara-upayavisaya-vikurvana-nirdes’a: for a complete translation, see Lozang Jamspal (tr.), The Range of the Bodhisattva, A Mahayana Sutra (Arya-bodhisattva-gocara), The Teachings of Nirgrantha Satyaka (New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies/ Colombia University Center for Buddhist Studies/Tibet House US, 2010) (for the passage translated here, see pp. 120-121). However one may regard the historicity of the passage, it shows that the Theravadins were not the only ones to lay claim upon the great king as supporter.

For Dharma-reciters, see Graeme MacQueen, ‘Inspired Speech in early Mahayana Buddhism’, Chapter 43 in Williams, Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, Volume III, pp. 312-343; Richard Nance, ‘Indian Buddhist Preachers Inside and Outside the Sutras’, Religion Compass 2.2 (2008), pp. 134-159; David Drewes, ‘Dharmabhanakas in Early Mahayana’, Indo-Iranian Journal 54 (2011), pp. 331-372; Natalie D. Gummer, ‘Listening to the Dharmabhanaka\The Buddhist Preacher in and of the Sutra of Utmost Golden Radiance’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80.1 (March 2012), pp. 137-160; Richard Nance, Speaking for Buddhas: Scriptural Commentary in Indian Buddhism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), pp. 45-80.1 do not think there are any early inscriptions explicitly mentioning dharma-bhanaka (there are other sorts of bhanakas, of course), but we meet with them in the Upper Indus: see Oskar von Hinuber, ‘The Saddharmapundarlkasutra at Gilgit: Manuscripts, Worshippers, and Artists’, The Journal of Oriental Studies Vol. 22 (2012), pp. 52-67; see also idem, Die Palola Sdhis: Ihre Steininschriften, Inschriften auf Bronzen, Handschriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber, Materialen zur Geschichte von Gilgit und Chilas (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2004), Verzeichnis der Namen und Titel, p. 207 s.v. Dharmabhanaka. For epigraphic and textual references to bhanakas and dharma-bhanakas, see Keisho Tsukamoto, Source Elements of the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Integration of Religion, Thought, and Culture (Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 2007), pp. 179-190.

(74) Over a century ago, Kern had already observed that where most (Nepalese) manuscripts read vaipulya, others (notably the ‘Kashgar manuscript’ of the Saddharmapundarika-sutra from Central Asia) read vaitulya-. H. Kern, ‘Vaitulya, Vetulla, Vetulyaka’, Verspreide Geschriften, Vol. Ill, ’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1915, pp. 99-104. Kern’s article was summarized by Louis de La Vallee Poussin in ‘Review of Books’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 39.2 (April 1907), pp. 432434. La Vallee Poussin opened with the statement that ‘This short but important article throws new light on the history of the two Vehicles of Buddhism’. Earlier on, Kern had offered a number of insights into the significations of Vaipulya, Vedalla, and Vaidalya in his ‘History of Buddhism in India’, where he concluded, ‘Whatever genre the Vaipulyas corresponding to the Vedallas actually designate, they have nothing in common with the Vaipulya sutras of the Mahayana’: H. Kern, Histoire du bouddhisme dans I’Inde, traduite du neerlandais par Gedeon Huet, Tome Deuxieme (Paris: Ernest Leroux, Editeur, 1903 [Annales du Musee Guimet, Bibliotheque d’Etudes, Tome Onzieme] pp. 402-403.

(75) S. Paranivatana, in H.C. Ray (Editor-in-Chief), University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, Volume I, Part I (Colombo: Ceylon University Press, 1959), p. 249, writes, ‘The Vetullavadins who disturbed the equanimity of the orthodox Church in Ceylon in the reign of Voharika Tissa must … be taken as Mahayanists’.

(76) At present we have insufficient information about the variant forms of the three terms in Pali manuscript traditions. For Vetulyavada at Mahavamsa 36.41a, Geiger records the variants Vetula°, Vetulla°, Vetullya°, and Vetulya°. The Commentary has Vetullavada, variant Vetulya°: G.P. Malalasekera (ed.), Vamsatthappakasini, Commentary on the Mahavamsa (London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Pail Ltd., 1977), Vol. II, p. 662.15. Note that the form Vetulya occurs in a Lotus Sutra manuscript from Central Asia: see below, n. 123.

(77) For Vedalla, see Etienne Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, p. 144. Regarding Vetullavada, K.R. Norman writes that ‘the only explanation for the variations of the sect’s name [that is, Vetullavada], lies in a Prakrit origin. Vaitulya and Vaipulya must be back-formations from Prakrit ve(y)ulla, and vevulla, which are presumably merely variants of the same word with -y-/-v- glide consonant alternation. There is no way of telling which, if either, of the forms with -t- or -p- is historically correct’: K.R. Norman, ‘The role of Pali in early Sinhalese Buddhism’, § 34 in Collected Papers (Volume II, Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 1991), pp. 43-45. The attested Gandhari forms, but in a different context, are vehula (< veulla < vevulla < vaipulya)-, vivula (< vipula) (Karashima, ‘Was the Astasahasrika Compiled in Gandhara?’, p. 176 and n. 12). Kalupahana remarks that ‘it would seem that by the time of Buddhaghosa the correct interpretation of the word [vedalla] had been forgotten’: D.J. Kalupahana, ‘Anga’, Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol. I, fasc. IV (1965), pp. 618-619. Warder suggests that Vaitulika had the sense of ‘Magicians’, from vaitalika, ‘able to raise the dead, etc.’, ‘but [it can] perhaps [be] also vaidalika, ‘destruction’: A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970), p. 414. The first is untenable, and the second should not be interpreted in the sense of ‘annihilationist’ applied here by Warder. For other interpretations of vedalla, see Analayo, Madhyama-agama Studies (Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Corporation, 2012), Vol. 1, pp. 60-61, and n. 54.

(78) Only the last-named is included in the Tibetan lexicon Madhyavyutpatti, compiled by Indian and Tibetan pandits circa 800: vaipulyam zhes bya ba ni vipulasya [bhdjva vaipulya zhes bya ste, shin tu rgyaspar bshadpas sam, mdo sde rgya chenpo’i nang nas sa dangpha rol tu phyin pa la sogs pa shin tu rgya che zhing yangs par bshad pa yin pas na shin tu rgyas pa’i sde zhes bya, Mie Ishikawa (ed.), A Critical Edition of the Sgra sbyor Bam po Gnyis pa, an Old and Basic Commentary on the Mahavyutpatti (Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1990), § 135, p. 54.

(79) So Dhammajoti: ‘vedalla (Skt. vaidalya): derived from √dal meaning to “crack”/ “open””: Bhikkhu KL Dhammajoti, Sarvastivada Abhidharma (Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong, Fourth revised edition, 2009), p. 3.

(80) For a lucid summary see Y. Kajiyama, 1989, pp. 132-133.

(81) The Pali tradition, however, explains Vedalla as veda + lla, connecting it with √vid. Robert Caesar Childers, in A Dictionary of the Pali Language (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London, 1874), p. 561b, s.v. vedalla) already noted that that the derivation from vidala + ya was preferable: ‘Vedallam: name of one of the nine angas or divisions of the Buddhist scriptures according to matter. Buddhaghosa says of this anga, Culavedala-mahavedalla- … Burnouf believes it to be vidala + ya (vaidalya), see Lot[us p.] 754, which is doubtless the true etymology, though Kaccayana makes it veda with an affix lya.

(82) The navanga-satthusasana or dvadasanga-buddhavacana: see Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 143-147; Lamotte, Le Traitede la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Ndgdrjuna (MahaPrajnaparamitasastra), Tome V (Louvain-la-Neuve, Universite de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1980), pp. 2281-2305; Hikata, Suvikrantavikrami- Pariprccha Prajnaparamita-Sutra. Introductory Essay, pp. 55-58; Akira Hirakawa, ‘The Rise of Mahayana Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas’, The Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko XXII (1963), pp. 61-65 (full article, pp. 57-106; idem, History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 74-75. One of the early scholars to discuss the angas and the Vaipulya as anga was Eugene Burnouf: see his Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism, translated by Katia Buffetrille and Donald S. Lopez Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 97-110 (for Vaipulya see pp. 106-107, 110). The classic modern study of the nine angas remains Oskar von Hinuber, ‘Die Neun Angas – Ein fruher Versuch zur Einteilung buddhistischer Texte’, Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Siidasiens, Band XXXVIII (1994), pp. 121-135. See, in Japanese, Egaku Mayeda, A History of the Formation of Original Buddhist Texts (Tokyo: Sankibo-Busshorin Publishing Co., Ltd., 1964), pp. 389428 (English summary, pp. (31)—(32)). Jan Nattier, ‘The Twelve Divisions of Scriptures in the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations’, ARIRIAB VII (2003), pp. 167-196, with tables giving ‘The Twelve Angas in Selected Chinese Sources’, pp. 191-194 and bibliography (pp. 195-196), does not discuss the Vaidalya genre separately; it appears that the sources consulted by Nattier all translate a form meaning Vaipulya.

(83) Translation from N.A. Jayawickrama (tr., ed.), The Inception of Discipline and the Vinaya Nidana, being a Translation and Edition of the Bdhiranidana of Buddhaghosa’s Samantapasadika, the Vinaya Commentary (London: Luzac and Company, 1962)’ § 31, English, p. 26, Pali p. 155, Cullavedalla-Mahavedalla-Sammdditthi-Sakkapanha-Sahkhdrabhdjamya- Mahapunnamasuttddayo sabbe pi vedam ca tutthim ca laddha laddha pucchitasuttanta vedallan ti veditabbam. In n. 31.9, p. 102, Jayawickrama discusses Vedalla: ‘To my mind vedalla means “subtle analysis” coming from an older vaiddrya from vi and root dr “to tear apart”; hence, “analyse or break down into fundamentals”. Hence Vedalla should be rendered as “Analyses”.’

(84) For a note on Vaipulya with further definitions and references, see Peter Skilling, Mahasutras: Great Discourses of the Buddha (Vol. II, Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 1997), pp. 31-42.

(85) This very hypothetical question depends in part on the nature of the two titles, Lesser Vedalla and Greater Vedalla. The Sanskrit counterparts have different titles – for example Mahakausthila-sutra for MN 43, Bhiksunidharmadinna-sutra for 44 – and we do not so far meet any other sutras with Vedalla/Vaidalya in their titles anywhere in the Agama/Nikaya literature. Why the two Pali suttas and no others bear these titles remains to be explained. Could the titles have been assigned to establish an official set of ‘orthodox’ Vedalla suttas?

(86) Anguttara-nikaya, Pahcaka-nipata, Yodhajiva-vagga, Anagatabhaya-sutta: E. Hardy (ed.) The Anguttara-nikaya, Part III, Pahcaka-nipata, and Chakka-nipata (London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 1976 [first published 1897]), p. 107; translation from Bhikkhu Bodhi (tr.), The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. A Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya (Bristol: The Pali Text Society/Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2012), p. 714.

(87) ‘Talk pertaining to Dhamma’, abhidhammakatha: Bhikkhu Bodhi (n. 1086, p. 1733) notes, ‘I take the word abhidhamma here to have a purely referential function, that is, to mean “pertaining to the Dhamma, relating to the Dhamma.” It does not denote the canonical collection of that name or its philosophy. See DOP sv abhidhamme [Margaret Cone, A Dictionary of Pali, Part I (Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 2001), p. 198]. Mp [Manorathapurani, the Anguttaranikaya commentary], too, appears to recognize that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is not relevant here, explaining abhidhammakatham in this passage as a discussion on “the supreme teaching concerned with virtuous behaviour, etc.” (siladiuttamadhammakatham)’. See also Dhammajoti, Sarvastivada Abhidharma, p. 3, ‘abhidhamma-katha – a solemn dialogue between two bhiksus concerning the spiritual path’. Nonetheless, I feel the term may indeed mean here discussions on Abhidhamma as a system of, or tendency in, Buddhist thought.

(88) ‘Questions-and-answers’, vedallakathd: in note 1086 (p. 1733), Bhikkhu Bodhi summarizes the gloss of the commentary: ‘It takes vedallakatham to be a “miscellaneous talk on knowledge connected with inspirational joy” (‘vedapatisamyuttam nanamissakakatham)… The “dark Dhamma” (kanhadhammam) is said to occur by way of fault-finding with a mind bent on criticizing others (randhagavesitdya uparambhapariyesanavasena).’’ See also Dhammajoti, Sarvastivada Abhidharma, p. 3, ‘vedalla … the extensive unravelling of the profound doctrinal meanings that have been hidden. In form, it consists of a question and answer session on doctrinal matters with a scope apparently broader than that in abhidhammakatha – either between the Buddha and the fourfold disciples (with others listening) or among the disciples themselves.’

(89) 107.4 abhidhammakatham vedallakatham kathenta kanham dhammam okkamamana na bujjhissanti. Pertinent here are the ‘five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma’: see Bhikkhu Bodhi (tr.), The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Vol I (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000), p. 681, from Samyutta-nikaya (PTS) II 224.29, pafica kho me kassapa okkamaniya dhamma saddhammassa sammosdya antradhdndya samvattanti. The five dhammas are to be disrespectful to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Samgha, the training, and concentration. The Commentary (p. 204.25) glosses okkamaniya as avakammaniya, meaning ‘going downwards’, that is, decline (tattha okkamaniya ti avakkamaniya hettha-gamanika ti attho).

(90) See Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, p. 235. With only a title – anagatabhayani, ‘future threats’, plural – to go on, it is impossible to know which of those mentioned, for example in the Group of Fives of the NUMERICAL DISCOURSES, Asoka might have had in mind.

(91) Gambhira, lokuttara, sunnatapatisamyutta, kavikata-. these are some of the terms used in dialogues on authenticity in the Pali Nikayas, in the PERFECTION OF WISDOM IN EIGHT THOUSAND STANZAS, in the SUTRA ON THE CONCENTRATION THAT DIRECTLY FACES THE BUDDHAS OF THE PRESENT TIME, and other texts. See P. Skilling, ‘Scriptural Authenticity and the Sravaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective’, EB Vol. 41, no. 2 (2010), pp. 1-47, especially pp. 16-17.

(92) Edward Conze (ed., tr.), The Gilgit Manuscript of the AstadasasahasrikaPrajnaparamita Chapters 70 to 82 corresponding to the 6th„ 7th and 8th abhisamayas (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1974, p. 8.22.

(93) Skilling, ‘Scriptural Authority’, p. 18.

(94) The closest apparent parallel is the ‘Mahabodhiyana’ of the COMMENTARY ON THE BASKET OF CONDUCT, but this is a term of restricted use and different application. See The Discourse on the All Embracing Net of Views, translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 2007), pp. 44, 243.

(95) For Vetullavada, see G.P. Malalasekera, Dictionary of Pali Proper Names ([1937] New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983), Vol. II, p. 918. The term is frequently spelt Vetulya°; here I standarize to Vetulla°.

(96) C.M. Fernando (tr.), The Nikaya Sangrahawa, revised and edited by Mudaliyar W.F. Gunawardhana (Colombo: H.C. Cottle, Government Printer, 1908)’ p. 9.

(97) See Padmanabh S. Jaini (ed.), Abhidharmadipa with Vibhasaprabhavrtti (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Insitute, 1977), Introduction, pp. 123-128.

(98) Summary after Walpola Rahula (tr.), Le Compendium de la Super Doctrine (Philosophic) (Abhidharmasamuccaya) d’Asanga (Paris: Ecole fraryaise d’Extreme-Orient, 1971), Introduction, p. xviii.

(99) Etienne Lamotte (ed., tr.), La somme du Grand Vehicule d’Asanga (Mahayanasamgraha) (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1973, II, 26 [Tibetan text, Tome I, pp. 37-38; translation, Tome II, pp. 120-122]). See also VI, 6 (Tibetan text, Tome I, p. 70; translation, Tome II, p. 217), which refers to the ’Dul ba bshad pa shin tu rgyas pa’i mdo, rendered by Lamotte as Vinayaghosavaipulyasutra (which I do not find very convincing). The sutra is so far unidentified.

(100) Lahkdvatdra-siitra, Sagdthakam, v. 142. For an English translation, see Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (tr.), The Lankavatara Sutra, A Mahayana Text, Translated for the first time from the original Sanskrit (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., [1932] 1973), p. 237.

(101) J. Takakusu and Makato Nagai (eds.), Samantapasadika, Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Vinaya Pitaka, Vol. IV (London: The Pali Text Society/Luzac & Company, Ltd., 1967 [first published 1934]), p. 742 ult. vedalhapitakddini pana abuddhavacanam yevd ti vuttam, with the variant vedalla°, as also given in the Thai-script printed edition, Samantapasadikaya nama vinayatthakathaya dutiyo bhago Mahavibhangavannana, Vajirananena Mahasamanena sodhita, Mahamakutarajavidyalaye ganthadhikarattherehi puna sodhita (Bangkok: Mahamakutarajavidyalaya, [Thai Buddhist Era] 2522 [1979], first published 2462 [1919]), p. 292 ult.

(102) Culavamsa 78:221-222.

(103) F.L. Woodward (ed.), Saratthappakasini, Buddhaghosa’s Commentary on the Samyutta-nikaya, Vol. II (London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1977 [first published 1932]), p. 202.1 vetullapitakan ti, idam abuddhavacanam pariyatti-saddhamma- patirupakam nama, with variant vedalla°. The PTS edition of the Sdrasangaha (ed. Genjun H. Sasaki, Oxford: The Pali Text Society, 1992), p. 45.29, reads vetullapitakadini.

(104) Samyutta-tika (Dutiyo bhdgo) (Marammarattha Buddhasasanasamiti, 1961), p. 171.4, vedallapitakan (variant ‘in some manuscripts vedalha) ti vetullapitakam. tam nagabhavanato anitan ti vadanti. vadabhdsitan ti apare. abuddhavacanam buddhavacanena virujjhanato. na hi sambuddho pubbaparaviruddham vadati. tattha sallam upatthapenti kilesavinayam na sandissati, annadatthu kilesuppattiyd paccayo hoti ti. I am indebted to Mattia Salvini for pointing out these passages.

(105) Li Rongxi, ‘The Life of Nagarjuna Bodhisattva’, in Lives of the Great Monks and Nuns (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2002), pp. 17-27. See also Roger Coreless, ‘The Chinese Life of Nagarjuna’, No. 41 in Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (ed.), Buddhism in Practice (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 525-531.

(106) E. Obermiller (tr.), History of Buddhism (Chos-hbyung) by Bu-ston, II. Part, The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet (Heidelberg, 1932), p. 124.

(107) M.V. Vassilief, Le bouddhisme: ses dogmes, son histoire et sa literature, Premiere partie, Apergu General, traduit du russe par M.G.A. La Comme (Paris: August Durand, l.ibrairie/Vvc Benj. Duprat, Librairie, 1863), p. 119; cited by Fergusson, Tree and Serpent Worship, pp. 69-70. For Nagarjuna, see Joseph Walser, Nagarjuna in Context: Mahayana Buddhism and Early Indian Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).

(108) See, for example, Edward Conze (tr.), The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines and its Verse Summary (Bolinas, California: Four Seasons Foundation, Second printing with corrections, 1975), pp. 139, 202.

(109) See, for example, Daniel Boucher (tr.), Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahayana: A Study and Translation of the RastrapalaPariprccha-sutra (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2008), p. 137, section subtitled ‘Reactions of Co-Religionists to This Teaching’.

(110) See Boucher, Bodhisattvas of the Forest, Introduction, pp. 71-72.

 (111) Internal titles – those embedded in the narrative or rhetoric of the sutra – generally give more reliable evidence of usage than do the concluding manuscript titles. Closing titles, including translation titles, were often added in later projects of bibliographic standardization. It does not seem that there are any broad-based studies of the selfrepresentation of Mahayana sutras through epithets and vocabularies of glorification. Such studies are needed to advance the general understanding of questions like these.

(112) For this anthology, see P. Skilling and Saerji, ‘The Circulation of the Buddhavatamsaka in India’, ARIRIAB XVI (2013), pp. 193-216.

(113) Tibetan translation done by Dharmasriprabha and Dpal gyi lhun po in about the early eighth century: Buddhapitakaduhsilanigrahi-nama- mahayanasutra, Sangs rgyas kyi sde snod tshul khrims ’chal ba tshargcodpa shes bya ba thegpa chenpo’i mdo, Otani Catalogue No. 886, Reprint Vol. 35, mdo, tshu, 81b2, mdo sde rab tu mam par ’byedpa zhes bya ba dang, mam par ’thagpa thegpa chenpo’i mdo zhes bya ba dang, sangs rgyas kyi sde snod ces bya ba dang, tshul khrims ’chal ba ’tshar gcod pa zhes bya ba rdzogs so. The list of titles is effectively a colophon. A Chinese translation in three juans is ascribed to Kumarajiva, CE 405: Lewis R. Lancaster in collaboration with Sung-bae Park, The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979) § 529, Fo zang jing, *Buddhapitaka-sutra (= Taisho 653).

(114) Mdo sde rab tu mam par ’byed pa. In technical literature, rab tu mam par ’byed translates the noun pravicaya or the verb pravicinoti: see J.S. Negi, Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary, Vol. 14 (Sarnath, Varanasi: Dictionary Unit, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2004), pp. 6249-6250.

(115) Or.15010/43: see Seishi Karashima (ed.), ‘The Sanskrit Fragments Or.15010 in the Hoernle Collection’, in Seishi Karashima and Klaus Wille (Editors-in-chief), The British Library Sanskrit Fragments, Vol. II.1, Texts (Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2009), pp. 399-402; Vol. II.2, Facsimiles, PI. 245.

(116) Tohoku Cat. No. 227, mdo sde, dza, 177a.3-188b7.

(117) Cecil Bendall (ed.), Qikshasamuccaya-. A Compendium of Buddhist Teaching compiled by (fantideva chiefly from earlier Mahayana-sutras (St. Petersbourg: Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1897-1902; repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.), pp. 95.11-97.15. For translation, see Cecil Bendall and W.H.D. Rouse (tr.), Sikshd-samuccaya, a Compendium of Buddhist Doctrine (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971), pp. 96-99. For the author Santideva, see recently, with references to earlier literature, Paul Harrison, ‘The Case of the Vanishing Poet. New Light on Santideva and the Siksa-samuccaya,’ in Konrad Klaus and Jens- Uwe Hartmann (eds.), Indica et Tibetica: Festschrift fur Michael Hahn: zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schulern uberreicht (Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universitat Wien, 2007), pp. 215-248.

(118) First Bhavanakrama, in Giuseppe Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Parts One and Two ([Rome 1956, 1958], repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986), p. 505.18 [original pagination, Part II, p. 195] yat sarvadharmasamgrahavaipulye coktam (addressed to Manjus’ri); Bhavanakrama III (Tucci) p. 26.9 tathacoktam sarvadharmavaipulye (addressed to Maitreya). The Tibetan has Chos thams cad shin tu rgyas par bsdus pa = °vaipulya°. The abbreviated quotation is probably derived directly from the Siksasamuccaya.

(119) Together with Mattia Salvini, I am preparing a study and translation of this sutra.

(120) Schoyen collection, MS number 2378/1, in BMSC I: Kazunobu Matsuda, ‘Srimaladevisimhanadaniraes’, p. 74.6, samdpta(m) srimaladevisimha [nada]nirde [sa] (sutram |) [e] (kayana) m [ma] (h) [opa] yavaitulye abhijha [tarn] sri[ma] la [sutra] m etat \ \. The Tibetan title is embedded in a stock formula used for sutra titles in the Kanjur HEAP OF PRECIOUS JEWELS collection and does not correspond. Regarding the Chinese, Matsuda’s n. 23 states that ‘Although there are many tentative points in the first line, if my reconstruction is correct, the title of this sutra given here is practically identical with the title used by Gunabhadra in his Chinese translation’, done in 436.

(121) MS number 2378/1, in BMSC I: Jens Braarvig, ‘Sarvadharma-pravrttinirdesa, p. 103, 3 lines from bottom, vaitulyasutramtanam ca varnam samprakasayisyamti sarvadharma ca vaitulya jnasyamti, Tibetan p. 104.15 shin tu rgyas pa’i mdo mams kyi bsngags pa yang rjod la, chos thams cad shin tu rgyas pa yang ’tshal bar ’gyur.

(122) Hiromi Habata (ed.), Die Zentralasiatischen Sanskrit-Fragmente des Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra: Kritische Ausgabe des Sanskrittextes und seiner tibetischen Ubertragung im Vergleich mit den chinesischen Ubersetzungen (Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 2007), § 16.2, pp. 81-82. Habata discusses Vaitulya (Vaipulya) in her Einleitung, § 24. See also Hiromi Habata, ‘The Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra Manuscripts in the Stein and Hoernle Collections’, in Karashima and Wille, The British Library Sanskrit Fragments, Vol. II. 1, Texts, p. 567.

(123) The The ‘Kashgar manuscript’ reads, with some variants, Saddharmapundarike mahavaitulyasutraratne, while the Farhad-Beg manuscript has Saddharmapundarike mahavaitulyasutraratnai (Chapter 11), Saddharmapundarike mahavetulyasutraratne (Chapter 12), etc. Where the Kashgar manuscript describes future bodhivatvas as ‘bearers of the Vaitulya sutrantas’, the Nepalese manuscripts and the Tibetan translation have ‘bearers of the Vaipulya sutrantas’:

(124) Bhikshu Dharmamitra (tr.), Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Bodhisattva Vow: A Discourse on the Bodhisattva’s Vow and the Practices Leading to Buddhahood, Treatise on the Generating the Bodhi Resolve Sutra by Vasubandhu Bodhisattva (circa 300 CE) (Seattle: Kalavinka Press, 2009), pp. 17 (‘the mahavaipulya teachings’), 143 (‘the vaipulya Mahayana’s treasury of bodhisattva scriptures’). The contexts of usages like this in Chinese sources need to be scrutinized in future to complete our understanding of Vaidalya/Vaipulya, but that is beyond the scope of this essay.

(125) Mahayanavaipulyasutra, Bodhisattvapitakdvatamsaka, Tib. Theg pa chen po’i mdo sde shin tu rgyas pa Byang chub sems dpa’i sde snodphalpo che: for discussions of these epithets, see Louis Renou and Jean Filliozat (eds.), UInde classique: Manuel des etudes indiennes, Tome II (Paris: Payot, 1953), § 2015, and Ariane Macdonald, LeMandala du Mahjusrimulakalpa (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1962, pp. 3-10.

(126) Rolf W. Giebel (tr.), The Vairocanabhisambodhi Sutra (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2005), p. 228, ‘the Broad (Vaipulya) Vehicle’ (twice), p. 271, ‘the Vaipulya scriptures of the Great Vehicle’.

(127) For an edition of the Tibetan, see Y. Kajiyama, ‘The Vaidalya- prakarana of Nagarjuna’, reprinted in Y. Kajiyama, Studies in Buddhist Philosophy (Selected Papers) (Kyoto: Rinsen Book Co., Ltd., 1989), pp. 361— 387; for an English translation, see Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti, Nagarjuna’s Refutation of Logic (Nydya) Vaidalyaprakarana (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995 [Buddhist Tradition Series, Vol 24]). See also Chr. Lindtner, Nagarjuniana: Studies in the writings and philosophy of Nagarjuna (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982), Chapter IV (reprinted in Chr. Lindtner, Master of Wisdom: Writings of the Buddhist Master Nagarjuna, Oakland: Dharma Publishing, 1986, pp. 273-278).

(128) rtogge shespa’i nga rgyalgyis /gang shigrtsodpar mgon ’dodpa/deyi nga rgyal spongpa’iphyir /zhib mo mam ’thag bshadpar bya.

(129) A classic source is Walpola Rahula, History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anuradhapura Period, 3rd Century BC-lOth Century AC (Colombo: M.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd., [1956] Second edition, 1966), Chapters 6 and 7, especially pp. 87-111. Sodo Mori, Mahayana Buddhism in Sri Lanka (Nagoya, March, 1999), addresses his topic from several fronts.

(130) I have been unable to check the use of ‘the word “Vaitulyavada”’ in a ‘fragmentary slab-inscription in Sinhala from Jetavanarama’ mentioned, according to Mori, by Mudiyanse (Mori, Mahayana Buddhism, pp. 17-18.

(131) The best source for iconographic evidence, with well-informed commentary, is Ulrich von Schroeder, Buddhist Sculptures of Sri Lanka (Hong Kong: Visual Dharma Publications Ltd., 1990), especially pp. 209-307. For earlier surveys, see Nandasena Mudiyanse, Mahayana Monuments in Ceylon (Colombo: M.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd., 1967) and Diran Kavork Dohanian, The Mahayana Buddhist Sculpture of Ceylon (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1977).

(132) The chronological table published by Bhikkhu Nanamoli in The Path of Purification [Visuddhimagga] by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1975) pp. x-xii, gives a good conspectus of Abhayagiri and Vetulya activities, or rather, royal efforts to suppress the Vetulya, up to the third century CE (reign of Mahasena, 277-304).

(133) Wilhelm Geiger (ed.), The Mahavamsa (London: The Pali Text Society/Luzac & Company, Ltd., 1958 [first published 1908]), 36:111, Vetulyavadino bhikkhu abhayagirinivasino … jinasasanakantake. See also 78:21, and Wilhelm Geiger (ed.), Culavamsa, being the more recent part of the Mahavamsa, Vols. I, II, London: The Pali Text Society/Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1980, 78:21.

(134) Lance Cousins, ‘The Teachings of the Abhayagiri School’, in Skilling et ah, How Theravada is Theravada?

(135) Translation by Red Pine, The Lankavatara Sutra (Berkeley: Counterpoint, 2012), p. 26.

(136) Definition from Robert E. Buswell, ‘Icchantika’, EnB 1, p. 351.

(137) Chapter 2, § XXII, in Bunyiu Nanjio (ed.), The Lankavatara Sutra (Kyoto: The Otani University Press, 1923), p. 66.2, tatra sarvakusalamulotsargah katamo? yaduta bodhisattvapitakaniksepo ’bhyakhydnam ca naite sutrantavinayamoksanukula iti bruvatah sarvakusalamulaotsargatvan na nirvayati. This seems to be the only reference to Bodhisatvapitaka in the sutra. For Suzuki’s translation from Sanskrit, see The Lankavatara Sutra, pp. 58-59, ‘What is meant by abandoning all the stock of merit? It refers to [those Buddhists] who have abandoned the Bodhisattva collection [of the canonical texts], making the false accusation that they are not in conformity with the sutras, the codes of morality, and the emancipation. By this they have forsaken all the stock of merit, and will not enter into Nirvana.’

(138) For the Buddha’s visits to Lanka from the viewpoint of Theravadin sources, see Frank Perera, The Early Buddhist Historiography of Ceylon (Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorsgrades der Philosophischen Fakultat der Georg-August-Universitat zu Gottingen, 1979), pp. 115-124.

(139) S. Paranavitana, ‘Indikatusaya Copper Plaques’, Epigraphia Zeylanica III (1933), no. 20 (pp. 199-212); idem, ‘A Note on the Indikatusaya Copper Plaques’, Epigraphia Zeylanica IV (1939), no. 30 (pp. 238-246). For a survey of these and other ‘Mahayanist’ epigraphic materials, see Mudiyanse, Mahayana Monuments in Ceylon, pp. 79-105. A new study of these materials in the light of recent advances in Buddhist studies is a desideratum.

(140) Oskar von Hinuber, Sieben Goldbldtter einer Pancavimsatisdhasrikd Prajnaparamita aus Anurddhapura (Gottingen: Verlag Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983 [Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1983, Nr. 7]).

(141) See Gregory Schopen, ‘The Text of the “DharanI Stones from Abhayagiriya”: A Minor Contribution to the Study of Mahayana Literature in Ceylon’, JIABS 5.1 (1982), pp. 100-108, with reference to earlier literature.

(142) I now hesitate to follow the Tibetan tradition that ascribes the Gdthdsamgrahdrthasastra to Vasubandhu the Kos’akara, as I had done earlier in P. Skilling, ‘A Survey of the Vydkhydyukti Literature’, JIABS 23.2 (2000), pp. 305-307 (full article, pp. 297-350).

(143)  U. Wogihara (ed.), Bodhisattvabhumi (Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, [1936] 1971), p. 96.6, tatra dvadas’dngdd vaco-gatdd yad vai- pulyam. tad bodhisattva-pitakam. avasistam srdvaka-pitakam veditavyam.

(144) Nance, Speaking for Buddhas, Appendix C, p. 182. The original Sanskrit title is not attested so far. Nance uses the reconstructed title *Vivaranasamgrahani. I use the title *Vydkhydsamgrahani, which is preferred in recent research.

(145) abhidharmmo nama navavidho sutranto sutrarn geyam vydkaranam … vaipulyadbhutddharmmd-. Die Abhisamacarika Dharmah: Verhaltensregeln fur buddhistische Monche der Mahasamghika-Lokottaravadins, herausgege- ben, mit der chinesischen Parallelversion verglichen, libersetzt und kom- mentiert von Seishi Karashima unter Mitwirkung von Oskar von Hiniiber, Band I (Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2012 [Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica XIII, 1]), § 7.5. As Karashima points out (§ 7.5, fn. 2), the same definition of Abhidharma (without listing the nine components) is given in the Nun’s Vinaya (Bhiksunivinaya) of the same school. It is also given in the Mahasamghika Nun’s Vinaya preserved in Chinese translation: see Hirakawa (tr.), Monastic Discipline of the Buddhist Nuns, p. 314. These are commentaries on specific passages (in the first, abhidharm- mena va abhivinayena va). Commentarial interpretations are context- and usage-bound, and not necessarily meant to be independent or universal statements about the words upon which they comment. How far the statement might be taken as a general definition of Abhidharma needs to be investigated.

(146) Pralhad Pradhan (ed.), Abhidharma Samuccaya of Asanga (Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati, 1950 [Visva-Bharati Studies 12]), p. 79.1; Rahula, Le Compendium de la Super-Doctrine, p. 132. Note that only about forty percent of the Sanskrit is preserved – Pradhan translated the rest back into Sanskrit from the Tibetan and Chinese parallels in comparison with the commentary (Bhdsya), with the result is that his edition is at best only an approximation of the original. Unfortunately, this includes the sections discussed here, for which I have consulted the Tibetan.

(147) sarvavarana-vidalanatah, Tib. ci’i phyir mam par ’thag pa zhes bya zhe na? sgribpa thams cad mam par ’thagpa’iphyir ro.

(148) Walpola Rahula, writing in the 1950s, states that ‘The term Vetulla or Vaitulya literally means “dissenting” or “different” (secondary derivative form from vi + tulya)\ History of Buddhism in Ceylon, p. 90, n. 1. Mori (Mahayana Buddhism, p. 14) gives a similar interpretation, ‘… vi- tulya, that is, “not the same as oneself”, “diverse”, “heretics”.

(149) Vasubandhu in Jong Cheol Lee (ed.), The Tibetan Text of the Vydkhydyukti of Vasubandhu, critically edited from the Cone, Derge, Narthang and Peking Editions (Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 2001 [Bibliotheca Indologica et Buddhologica 8]), p. 161.12.

(150) Translation from Samghabhadra, T 29, 595a-b by KL Dhammajoti, Sarvastivadin Abhidharma, pp. 3-4. See also KL Dhammajoti, ‘ Abhidharma and UpadesV, Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka, Vol. Ill (August, 2005), pp. 112-113.

(151) Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche, Gateway to Knowledge: The treatise entitled the Gate for Entering the Way of a Pandita, tr. James Gentry and Erik Pema Kunsang (Kathmandu: Rangjung Yeshe Publications, Volume IV, 2012), pp. 68-69.

(152) Rhys Davids (‘Hlnayana’, p. 684) gives ‘Hina means ‘abandoned’, ‘low’, ‘mean’, ‘miserable’; ydna means ‘carriage’, ‘means of progression’, ‘vehicle’; the compound word Hlnayana, as used of religious opinions, means a wretched, bad method, or system, for progress on the way to salvation.’

(153) Nathmal Tatia (ed.), Abhidharmasamuccaya-Bhasyam (Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1976), p. 96.3. Seven similar reasons are given in the Mahayana-Sutralamkara (ed. Sylvain Levi, Paris, 1907), p. 171.10 (translation by same, Paris, 1911, p. 280); another seven in Vasubandhu’s Vydkhydyukti (Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking edition, Otani Catalogue No. 5562, Reprint Vol. 113, Sems-tsam, Si, 97b6 = Jong Cheol Lee (ed.), The Tibetan Text of the Vydkhydyukti, pp. 160-161), cited by Bu ston in Bu ston chos ’byung (Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1988), p. 21 = E. Obermiller (tr.), History of Buddhism (Chos-hbyung) by Bu-ston, Part I, The Jewelry of Scripture (Heidelberg, 1931), pp. 38-39. One is tempted to add a further gloss, the ‘greatness of hyperbole’.

(154) The concept of ‘resourcefulness’ or ‘skilled means’ is not uniquely Mahayanist – it is the application and interpretation of the term that determines its ideological status. For a Pali example, see Peter Skilling, (ed.), Past Lives of the Buddha. Wat Si Chum – Art, Architecture and Inscriptions (Bangkok: River Books, 2008), translation p. 119 and p. 118, n. 2. In general, see Michael Pye, Skilful Means: A Concept in Mahayana Buddhism ([London: Duckworth, 1978] Second edition, Routledge, London: 2003); Bhikkhu Pasadika, ‘Upayakaus’alya’, W.G. Weeraratne (Editor-in-Chief), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Vol VIII, fasc. 2 (Sri Lanka: 2008), pp. 439-442.

(155) I use the past because I am writing about Indian Buddhism. Needless to say, the Mahayana continues to exist and is active around the world today, and many of the points still hold.

(156) I do not find it very fruitful to compare the Mahayana to the ‘new religious movements’ (NRMs), one of the current categories of Religious Studies. The new religions of the modern period are lay movements that have formed around charismatic lay leaders in urban, salaried societies, and have been built up into mass organizations with their own property, institutions, and liturgies. It is hard to see much resemblance to the growth of the Mahayana as a congeries of ideas and practices within the monastic traditions of India during periods of growth and decline in urbanization. Although our information about how the Mahayana worked is skimpy at best, it seems to have been characterized by an absence of settled institutional bases – that is, its practitioners and advocates were largely based in established monasteries throughout the entire course of its development in India. The agricultural support base of the monasteries was in part based on land grants, rather than the voluntary financial donations of individual and family units characteristic of NRMs. This is not to say that in India Mahayana adherents did not participate in and influence the life of the monasteries: that is another question. If there is any resonance it with NRMs it might lie in rhetorical constructions of group or community identity.

(157) See, for example, Peter Skilling, ‘Unsettling Boundaries: Verses shared by Sravaka and Mahayana texts’, Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies IX (2005), pp. 99-112. In general, see Masahiro Shimoda, ‘The State of Research on Mahayana Buddhism: The Mahayana as Seen in Developments in the Study of Mahayana Sutras’, in Acta Asiatica: Bulletin of the Institute of Eastern Culture 96: Mahayana Buddhism: Its Origins and Reality (Tokyo: The Toho Gakkai, 2009), pp. 1-23.

(158) See P. Skilling, ‘Nets of Intertextuality: Embedded Scriptural Citations in the Yogacarabhumi’, in Ulrich Timme Kragh (ed.), The Toundation for Yoga Practitioners: The Buddhist Yogacarabhumi Treatise and Its Adaptation in India, East Asia, and Tibet (Cambridge, Mass.: The Department of South Asian Studies / Harvard University 2013), pp. 772-790.

(159) Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Vehicule, p. 37; Lamotte, History of Indian Buddhism, p. 540 (271 Mahayana-Sthavira monasteries with over 24,800 monks; over 200 of the monasteries and over 20,000 of the monks being in Ceylon, which he did not visit); Hirakawa, A History of Indian Buddhism, pp. 256-258. Most recently, see Max Deeg, ‘Sthavira, Thera, and “;:’Sthaviravada” in Chinese Buddhist Sources’, in Skilling et ah, How Theravdda is Theravdda?, pp. 150-156 (full chapter, pp. 129-163).

There is no epigraphic reference to Mahayana-Sthavira in India. The sole lithic record is from central Thailand, about four centuries after Xuanzang, in the eleventh century. According to a Khmer-lan- guage stele from Bang Pa In or Lopburi, in Saka 944 (CE 1022) King Suryavarman (I) ordered the ‘bhiksu Mahayana-Sthavira’ to offer the fruit of their ascetic practice (papas) to him: George Coedes (ed., tr.), Recueil des inscriptions du Siam, Deuxieme Partie: Inscriptions de Dvara- vati, de Qrlvijaya et de Lavo (Deuxieme edition, Bangkok: The Fine Arts Department, 2504 [1961]), Inscription XIX, ‘Stele khmere du Sal Sun’, pp. 10-12 and PI. V. We cannot say with certainty whether Xuanzang and Suryavarman I used the compound in the same sense, but in any case Coedes’ translation of the term as a dvandva – ‘ceux qui ont pris les ordres commes moines (bhiksu) dans (la secte) Mahayana ou (dans la secte) Sthavira’ – is incorrect, given that there is no such thing as a Mahayana bhiksu ordination. See Prapod Assavavirulhakarn, The Ascendancy of Theravdda Buddhism in Southeast Asia (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 2010), p. 88.

(160) For lay and monastic bodhisatvas and other relevant points see Nattier, A Pew Good Men, Chapter 4, ‘The Institutional Setting’.

(161) See Gareth Sparham, ‘Asanga’s Bodhisattvabhumv. The Morality Chapter’, Chapter 34 in William Edelglass and Jay E. Garfield (eds.), Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); see also William Edelglass, ‘The Bodhisattva Path: Santideva’s Bodhicarydvatdra’, Chapter 33 in ibid.

(162) See Romila Thapar, ‘Perceiving the Forest: Early India,’ in Mahesh Rangarajan and K. Sivaramakrishnan (eds.), India’s Environmental

History, Vol. 1, From Ancient Times to the Colonial Period: A Reader (Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2012), pp. 105-126; Aloka Parasher-Sen, ‘Of Tribes, Hunters, and Barbarians: Forest Dwellers in the Mauryan Period’, in ibid., pp. 127-151.

(163) Here we may also mention the Jains, who, whether or not they were numerically significant – and the impression is that usually they were not – have made enormous and enduring contributions to Indian literature, philosophy, art, and architecture. Or, to turn to Europe, consider the following: ‘The Enlightenment has also been accused of being the exclusive concern of a small coterie of intellectuals scattered across Europe. … But if the coterie was relatively small, the diffusion of its works was immense ….’ Anthony Pagden, The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013), p. xii.

(164) A thesaurus gives the synonyms ‘normal, conventional, ordinary, orthodox, conformist, accepted, established, recognized, common, usual, prevailing, popular’, and the antonym ‘fringe’.

(165) For this school of thought, see Leonard Priestley, Pudgalavada Buddhism: The Reality of the Indeterminate Self (Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto, 1999); Dan Lusthaus, ‘Pudgalavada Doctrines of the Person’, Chapter 24 in Edelglass and Garfield, Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings.

(166) A major, problem with ‘mainstream’ is that it cannot be adequately translated into even major European languages – several of which use ‘Mainstream Buddhism’ as a loanword in translations of English- language books on Buddhism – let alone into Thai, Korean, Japanese, or Chinese. Surely something is wrong.

(167) D. Seyfort Ruegg, ‘Aspects of the Study of the (Earlier) Indian Mahayana’, JIABS 27.1 (2004), p. 11 (full article, pp. 3-62).

(168) Dana, slla, bhavana-, slla, samadhi, prajha.

(169) And not a few of the ideologies are shared, or at least have structural counterparts, in other Indian religions.

(170) Majjhima-nikaya, Sutta No. 22: see Analayo, A Comparative Study, I, p. 152.

(171) Anguttara-nikaya (PTS) III 350.4, V 140.18, tasma ti h’ananda ma puggalesu pamanika ahuvattha, ma puggalesu pamanam ganhittha. khahhati h’ananda puggalesu pamanam ganhanto. aham va ananda puggalesu pamanam ganheyyam yo vapan’ assa madiso: for translation see Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, pp. 913, 1434.

(172) Braarvig, ‘ SarvadInarmapra vrtt i n i rdesa’, BMSC I, p. 132.

(173) Nattier, A Few Good Men, pp. 263-264.

(174) E. Lamotte (tr.), Suramgamasamadhisutra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress, an early Mahayana Buddhist Scripture translated and annotated by Etienne Lamotte, English translation by Sara Boin-Webb (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press in association with the Buddhist Society, 1998), § 103, p. 184. This passage is cited in Siksasamuccaya (Cecil Bendall ed., (fikshasamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhist Teaching, p. 92.1).

(175) P. Harrison and J.U. Hartmann, ‘Ajatas’atrukaukrtyavinodana’, BMSC I,pp. 211-212.

(176) See P. Skilling, ‘Redaction, Recitation, and Writing: Transmission of the Buddha’s Teachings in India in the Early Period’, Chapter 4 in Stephen C. Berkwitz, Juliane Schober, and Claudia Brown (eds.), Buddhist Manuscript Cultures: Knowledge, Ritual, and Art (London: Routledge, 2009), pp. 60-63.

(177) For Buddhaghosa, see Gethin, ‘Was Buddhaghosa a Theravadin?’. For the theory of momentariness, see Y. Karunadasa, The Theravada Abhidhamma: Its Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality (Hong Kong: Centre for Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong, 2010), Chapter 17. For Dharma and dharmas, see Rupert Gethin, ‘He Who Sees Dhamma sees Dhammas: Dhamma in Early Buddhism’, in Patrick Olivelle (ed.), Dharma: Studies in Its Semantic, Cultural and Religious History (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd., 2004), pp. 91-120; for the dharma theory, see Noa Ronkin, Early Buddhist Metaphysics: The Making of a Philosophical Tradition (London & New York, RoutledgeCurzon, 2005).

(178) DharanI had been integrated into the Sutras and Vinayas of the North Indian (Gilgit) and Central Asian (Mula-)Sarvastivada by the middle centuries CE. The Mantra genre has been significant in Theravadin liturgical practice for centuries, but in our present state of ignorance it is impossible even to suggest when or where Theravada samghas developed the genre and its attendant practices. Some of the elements belong to a pool of liturgical modules shared with other schools, or better, beyond school boundaries (for example, the incantatory module hulu hulu hulu). Others, grounded in Pali and Theravadin doctrinal categories, are unique to the Theravadin traditions. See Rangama Chandawimala, ‘Tantric Buddhist Influence on Sri Lankan Pirit (Parittaf, in KL Dhammajoti and Y. Karunadasa (eds.), Buddhist and Pali Studies in Honour of The Venerable Professor Kakkapalliye Anuruddha (Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2009), pp. 591-602.

(179) See Peter Skilling, ‘Cutting across categories: The ideology of relics in Buddhism’, ARIRIAB VIII (2005), pp. 269-322.

(180) These assertions go against the modern notion of a ‘non-ritualistic’ Theravada.

(181) For Dharma orators, see above.

(182) Translation by Jens Braarvig, in ‘Rhetoric of Emptiness’, in Zen Rhetoric and Doctrine – Indian Origins and East Asian Developments (Brill Academic Publishers, 2011), p. 110. With the author’s permission, I have made a few small changes and dropped the parenthetical Sanskrit. See also idem, ‘The practice of the bodhisattvas: negative dialectics and provocative arguments: edition of the Tibetan text of the Bodhisattvacaryanirdesa with a translation and introduction’, Acta Orientalia, 55 (1994), pp. 112-160. For the Tibetan and Chinese texts and English summary, see Bibliotheca Polyglotta, www2.hf.uio.no/ polyglotta/index.php?page = library &bid = 2. For reflections on the notion of emptiness in sutra and s’astra see P. Skilling, ‘Mrgara’s Mother’s Mansion: Emptiness and the Sunyata Sutras’, Journal of Indian and Tibetan Studies 11 (2007), pp. 225-247.

(183) Many of these categories correspond to those of the early Summaries; they played an important role in structuring Buddhist metaphysics, not only in the Abhidharma but also in the Sutra genres, including the Vaidalya sutras.

(184) One example is the Samghata-dharmaparydya: see Giotto Canevascini, The Khotanese Sanghatasutra: A critical edition (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1993), which was widely copied in Gilgit and Central Asia.

(185) See e.g. the many sutras cited by Dolpopa in Jeffrey Hopkins (tr.), Kevin Vose (ed.), Mountain Doctrine: Tibet’s Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix by Dol-Bo-Ba Shay-Rap-Gyel-Tsen (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2006).

(186) In general, modern scholarship on Buddhist narrative is still in an embryonic stage. See P. Skilling, ‘Thoughts on Buddhist Narrative’, in Peter Skilling and Justin McDaniel (eds.), Buddhist Narrative in Asia and Beyond (Bangkok: Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 2012), pp. ix-xi, and the essays collected in the volume.

(187) We still need, however, more precise understandings of the significance of the elements Nirdesa, Pariprccha, Samadhi, Vyuha, etc., that are often affixed to the titles of Mahayana sutras. We do not even understand the sutra genre itself – for example, the stages of its journey from relatively short ‘Dharma teaching’ (Dharmaparyaya) to voluminous Vaipulya-sutra.

(188) No early palm-leaf manuscripts survive in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. The rich Pali manuscript collections date to the second millennium, mostly to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although we have solid epigraphic evidence for the circulation of Pali texts in Southeast Asia from the fifth or sixth century on, we have no manuscripts. Nor do any of the Mahayana manuscripts of any period survive.

(189) See P. Skilling, ‘Commentary at Nalanda in the Age of Dharmapala: Viryas’ridatta’s Nibandhana on the Arthavinis’caya-dharmaparydya’, in Martin Straube, Roland Steiner, Jayandra Soni, Michael Hahn and Mitsuyo Demoto (eds.), Pasadikaddnam: Festschrift fur Bhikkhu Pdsddika (Indica et Tibetica Verlag Marburg, 2009), pp. 399-447.

(190) The modern exegetical enterprise enlists footnotes, tables, graphic and typographic conventions, bibliographies, indexes, and so on.

(191) For a study of the Chinese Madhyamdgama version, see Bhikkhu Analayo, A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikaya (Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing, 2011), pp. 276-286. For a translation of the Tibetan version with a comparison to the Pali Culavedalla-sutta, see Bhikkhu Analayo, ‘Chos sbyin gyi mdo, BhiksunI Dharmadinna Proves Her Wisdom’, Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal, Vol 24 (2011), pp. 3-33 (reprinted in Analayo, Madhyama-agama Studies, pp. 39-66). Remember that this is one of the two Pali Vedalla or Vaidalya suttas (the known counterparts of other schools have different titles and do not use V edalla/V aidalya).

(192) Samyutta-nikaya, Saldyatana-vagga, Chapter 51, Citta-samyutta.

(193) P. Skilling, ‘Sariputra and ;:’Jambuchhayaka: Three Citations from the Tibetan Tanjur with Parallels in the Jambukhddaka-samyutta,, The Indian International Journal ofBuddhist Studies No. 14 (2013), pp. 119-133.

(194) The Abhidharmikas are, as Yas’omitra and others note, Idksanikas.

(195) In India there were several traditions regarding the authorship of the six or seven books of the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma; they were generally held to have been composed or compiled by named individuals – the Buddha’s close disciples or others.

(196) See the invaluable articles of Stefano Zacchetti: ‘An early Chinese translation corresponding to Chapter 6 of the Petakopadesa: An Shigao’s Yin chi ru jing T 603 and its Indian original: a preliminary survey’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 65,1 (2002), pp. 7498; ‘Some Remarks on the Petaka Passages in the Da zhidu lun and their

Relation to the Pali Petakopadesa’, ARIRIAB V (2002), pp. 67-85.

(197) See Stefan Baums, A Gandhdri Commentary on Early Buddhist Verses: British Library Kharosthi Fragments 7, 9, 13 and 18 (PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 2009).

(198) I prefer to use this convention to describe many other texts: they do not belong to this or that school, but have come to us as transmitted by this or that school.

(199) See Yang-Gyu An, ‘Buddhaghosa’s View of the Buddha’s Lifespan’, Buddhist Studies (Bukkyo Kenkyu) XXIX (March, 2000: Special Issue in Celebration of Kogen Mizuno’s 99th Year), pp. 129-147.

(200) On aspects of the relationship between sutra and s’astra, see Skilling, ‘Mrgara’s Mother’s Mansion’.

(201) See David Seyfort Ruegg, The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), pp. 101-103 and 87-100, respectively.

(202) For a recently published example of a fifteenth-/early sixteenth- century Tibetan master’s reconciliations of the schools of Indian Buddhist philosophy, see Yaroslav Komarovski (tr.), Visions of Unity: The Golden Pandita Shakya Chokden’s New Interpretation ofYogacara and Madhyamaka (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2012).

(203) See especially Analayo, The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal (Hamburg: Hamburg University Press, 2010). For the state of the art a century ago, see Louis de La Vallee Poussin, ‘Bodhisattva’, ERE II (1909), pp. 739-753.

(204) See Peter Skilling, ‘Jataka and Pannasa-jataka in South-East Asia’, JPTS XXVIII, pp. 113-173, reprinted in Claudio Cicuzza (ed.), Peter Skilling. Buddhism and Buddhist Literature of South-East Asia: Selected Papers (Bangkok and Lumbini: Fragile Palm Leaves Foundation, 2009), pp. 161-217.

(205) See Louis de La Vallee Poussin (tr.), L’Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu, Tome IV (Brussels: Institut beige des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1971), pp. 245-249 (ad VI: 54cd); Gelong Lodro Sangpo (tr.), Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya of Vasubandhu: The Treasury of the Abhidharma and its (Auto) commentary, Vol III (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 2012), pp. 1978-1979.

(206) See for example Conze, the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, p. 150.

(207) For the Lalitavistara, see Chapter 26, Dharmacakrapravartana- parivarta-, for English see The Voice of the Buddha: The Beauty of Compassion, translated into English from the French by Gwendolyn Bays (Berkeley, Dharma Publishing, 1983), Vol. II, pp. 635-663.

(208) buddhavamsanupaccheda, triratnavamsanupaccheda.

(209) Li Rongxi (tr.), Sramana Yijing, Buddhist Monastic Traditions of Southern Asia: A Record of the Inner Law Sent Home from the South Seas (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2000, p. 14. For an early translation, see J. Takakusu, A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay Archipelago (AD 671-695) ([Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1896] New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982), pp. 14-15. See also Bangwei Wang, ‘Buddhist Nikayas through Ancient Chinese Eyes’, in Heinz Bechert (ed.), Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur, Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 5 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), p. 181, and Deeg, ‘Sthavira, Thera, and “;:’Sthaviravada” in Chinese Buddhist Sources’, in How Theravada is Theravada?, p. 154.

(210) My description of the paths is necessarily an over-simplification. The scholastic literature of different schools of thought elaborates much more complex options and classifications, with a growing trend towards subordination and synthesis.

(211) Mdo snags Bstan pa’i nyi ma, Bod pa Sprul sku, 1898-1959: translation from Botrlil, Distinguishing the Views and Philosophies: Illuminating Emptiness in a Twentieth-Century Buddhist Classic, translated, annotated, and introduced by Douglas Samuel Duckworth (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2011), pp. 92-93.

(212) Tibetan Ratnakuta collection Sutra nos. 19, 24, 33, 4, respectively. See further Pierre Python, ‘Le rituel du culte mahayanique et le traite tibetain ’phags pa Phuh po gsum pa (sanscrit: Arya-Triskandhakaf, Asiatische Studein/Etudes Asiatiques XXXV.2 (1981) pp. 169-183; Nattier, A Few Good Men, pp. 117-121, 259-260; Paul Harrison, ‘Mediums and Messages: Reflections on the Production of Mahayana Sutras’, EB XXXV, New Series, nos. 1 & 2 (2003), pp. 115-151, p. 137.

(213) Anavataptandgardja-Pariprccha: Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking edition, Otani Cat. No. 823, Repr. Vol. 33, mdo,pu, 217b3.

(214) Summaries, Matrka, were early lists, schedules, and digests of dharmas that developed into the Abhidharma systems. See Rupert Gethin, ‘The Matikas: Memorization, Mindfulness, and the List’, in Janet Gyatso (ed.), In the Mirror of Memory: Reflections on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 149-172.

(215) The Buddhological elaborations and the stages of apotheosis seem to have followed similar trajectories, without, however, being either uniform or universal.

(216) Parami, upa-parami, paramattha-paramv. see the Commentary on the Basket of Conduct in Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Discourse on the AllEmbracing Net of Views, pp. 298-300 (where they are translated as ‘basic parami, intermediate parami, and ultimate parami).

(217) See Peter Skilling, ‘Three Types of Bodhisatta in Theravadin Tradition: A Bibliographical Excursion’, in Buddhist and Indian Studies in Honour of Professor Sodo Mori (Hamamatsu: Kokusai Bukkyoto Kyokai [International Buddhist Association], 2002), pp. 91-102.

(218) The current general studies are Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Poundations (Routledge, Second edition, 2009); Paul Williams, Anthony Tribe, and Alexander Wynne, Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition (Routledge, 2012).

(219) For multiple but successive or sequential Buddhas, see P. Skilling, ‘The Sambuddhe Verses and Later Theravadin Buddhology’, JPTS XXII (1996), pp. 151-183, reprinted in Claudio Cicuzza (ed.), Peter Skilling. Buddhism and Buddhist Literature of South-East Asia: Selected Papers (Bangkok and Lumbini: Fragile Palm Leaves Foundation, 2009), pp. 128-154.

(220) For this genre, see P. Skilling, ‘The Place of South-East Asia in Buddhist Studies’, p. 58 in Cicuzza (ed.), op. cit., pp. 46-68; pp. 136, 140, 147 in ‘The Sambuddhe verses and later Theravadin Buddhology’.

(221) See for example Arthid Sheravanichkul, ‘Thai Ideas about Hlnayana-Mahayana: Correspondence between King Chulalongkorn and Prince Narisanuvattivong’, Chapter 11 in Skilling et ah, How Theravada is Theravada?

(222) See Todd LeRoy Perreira, ‘Whence Theravada? The Modern Genealogy of an Ancient Term’, Chapter 12 in Skilling et ah, How Theravada is Theravada?

(223) For Tamil Buddhism, see Peter Schalk, ‘Canon Rejected: The Case of Pauttam among Tamils in Pre-Colonial Tamilakam and Ilam’, in Deeg et al, Kanonisierung und Kanonbildung, pp. 233-257.

Rahula, History of Buddhism in Ceylon, p. 90, n. 1.Appendix I.