（115）
Later Mahāyāna References to Book
Worship
Alexander James O’Neill
1 This
paper is an exploration of references to book worship in later Mahāyāna
literature, broadly after the eighth century. It will consider how textual prescriptions
within Mahāyāna sūtra literature may have matured into actual practice. Such
references will demonstrate how Mahāyāna sūtras were gradually incorporated into
a tantric ritual practice, with the Prajñāpāramitā at the fore, and saw inclusion into
maṇḍalas used in poṣadha rites.
Introduction
Much of what we know about pre-modern Mahāyāna book worship in South Asia is informed by
self-referential passages within the sūtras that are themselves being worshipped. Such passages
include encouragement to practice and propagate the text, to turn it into a book, to preserve it,
and elaborate ritual scenarios. 2 While it is difficult to infer how these textual prescriptions
manifested in actual practice, roughly from the eighth century and onwards, later Mahāyāna
literature (which for the sake of this paper is characterised as tantricised Mahāyāna in contrast to
pre-tantricised Mahāyāna) begins to give us a picture of how those prescriptions may have matured
into actual practice (or were continuations of practices which had, in fact, been engaged in from
an early period—for which the evidence we have is largely limited to sūtra literature). These
references also allow us to see how the sūtra literature gradually appears to have been incorporated
into a tantric worldview. In this brief overview, we shall see that despite the rise in the importance
of tantrism, the exoteric Mahāyāna literature always plays a role in broader Mahāyāna Buddhism
(within which we may include the Vajrayāna). We shall also demonstrate that within that
1 Invaluable assistance in preparing this paper was provided by (alphabetically) Junglan Bang, Christoph Emmrich,
Kazuo Kano, Jeffrey Kotyk, Kenichi Kuranishi, Marek Mejor, Wiesiek Mical, Iain Sinclair, Péter-Dániel Szántó, and
Ryugen Tanemura.
2 For a brief overview, see O’Neill, Alexander James, “Self-Reverential Passages in Mahāyāna Sutra Literature,” Pacific
World 1 (2020): 41–57.
（116）
O’Neill 2
development, the apparent prioritization of the Prajñāpāramitā (in its various forms) as the foremost
sūtra ritually.
In exploring this period of development, which as a survey by no means aims to be
exhaustive, we shall begin by looking at some of these later Mahāyāna sources in chronological
order, where we shall gradually observe an increasing inclusion of tantric elements in the worship
of sūtras otherwise not present in the earlier sūtra literature. We shall proceed with an exploration
of the more mature discussions of the worship in manuals from the 10th century onwards. These
include ādikarma, or preliminary/foundational, ritual texts, where developments make it apparent
that sūtra literature is beginning to be conceived of as suited for use in a maṇḍala. It is particularly
in the ritual literature of the poṣadha rites (which involve the ritual observance of ten precepts on
holy days) that we see the development of the conception of Mahāyāna sūtras as constituting a
maṇḍala with the Prajñāpāramitā as the central point.
Susiddhikārasūtra
In the context of general rules for worship for a tantric adept, the Susiddhikārasūtra,3 which was
transmitted to China in roughly the eighth century, suggests that while one is anticipating the
results of invoking a deity, one should “always recite three times [daily] the Mahāyāna
Prajñā[pāramitā] and other sūtras, make caityas, and paint maṇḍalas.”4 It appears that by at least
the time of the composition of the Susiddhikāra, around the late the seventh century, 5 the
Prajñāpāramitā was being viewed as, if not the most important of the exoteric Mahāyāna scriptures,
then the head of a set of important Mahāyāna scriptures. What is implied by “and other sūtras”
(等經) may be related to a set, headed by the Prajñāpāramitā, which we shall discuss in further detail
later. What this also tells us, first and foremost, is that even in the context of esoteric rites and
rituals, the recitation of exoteric scriptures is still considered effective—in fact, it is suggested in the
context of expecting the results of one’s supplication of a deity. The recitation of sūtras, in particular,
the Prajñāpāramitā, appears to have some bearing upon the efficacy of tantric ritual—at least at the
early phase of the Susiddhikāra.
Another important reference to sūtra recitation in the Susiddhikāra is given in the context of
rites for the retrieval of ritual articles that have been stolen. In such a situation, the tantric adept is
蘇悉地羯羅経 (T18.893).
T18.893.618c29–619a1. 三時常讀⼤乘般若等經。及作制多。塗漫茶羅。
5 On the dating of this text, see Kotyk, Jeffrey, “Early Tantric Hemerology in Chinese Buddhism: Timing of Rituals
According to Śubhakarasiṃha and Yixing,” Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies 13 (2018): 1–29, 6.
3
4
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
3
（117）
instructed to create a maṇḍala and perform various auxiliary rites to ensure that the stolen item is
retrieved, after which the adept must perform various additional rites in gratitude to one’s deities.
If, however, one is unsuccessful, additional rites are suggested including pilgrimage and “the
turning reading of the Mahāprajñā[pāramitā] Sūtra seven or even one hundred times.”6 Of note for
understanding the manner in which these rites may have been performed is the wording 轉讀,
literally “turning reading” (which may justifiably be translated simply as a form of recitation, but
which I chose to render literally here), which is distinguished from 眞讀, or “true reading.”
According to Enomoto, the former can refer to a number of different practices such as the chanting
of a sūtra (rather than reading for understanding), but also the recitation of the title of the text
followed by turning the pages, or reciting lines from the beginning, middle, and end of the scripture.
Moreover, “turning reading” almost exclusively refers to the ritual “recitation” of the
Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra.7 While this may hold true for the Sino-Japanese context, it is not clear to
what extent such practices prevailed in India (although modern Newar practices exist of similar
character),8 however the practicality of reading the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā thrice in one day (due
to its length) make it apparent that the practice being referred to cannot correspond to the modern
understanding of reading. As regards “true reading,” it may also be a mistake that this refers to
something other than another kind of ritualised reading. We may, rather, looking at the terms we
usually find in self-referential passages and commentarial materials, have a difference between
reading aloud for the purposes of recitation (pāṭha)9 and the reading aloud for the purposes of
exposition (vāc).10 Internalisation, or more likely, memorisation, on the other hand, may very well
be represented by the process indicated by the verb to bear (e.g. dhārayati).11 Regardless, it appears
T18.893.632c22–23. 轉讀⼤般若經。經七遍或⼀百。
Enomoto, Eiichi, “Kyōten no Tendoku ni Tsuite,” Tōyōgaku Kenkyū 27, 1992: 45–58.
8 Gellner, David N., “‘The Perfection of Wisdom’—A Text and Its Uses in Kwā Bahā, Lalitpur,” in Change and
Continuity in the Nepalese Culture of the Kathmandu Valley, ed. Siegfried Lienhard, 223–40 (Turin: CESMEO, 1996).
Emmrich, Christoph A., “Emending perfection: Prescript, postscript, and practice in Newar Buddhist manuscript
culture” in Buddhist Manuscript Cultures: Knowledge, ritual, and art, eds. Stephen C. Berkwitz, Julian Schober, and Claudia
Brown, 140–156 (New York: Routledge, 2009).
Kim, Jinah, “Epilogue: Invoking a Goddess in a Book,” in Receptacle of the Sacred, 271–286 (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2013).
9 E.g. “paṭhitvā,” Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai, eds., “Advayavajrasaṅgraha—New Critical Edition with Japanese
translation,” Taishō Daigaku Sōgō Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Nenpō 10, 1988, 1–57, v. 25.
10 E.g. “vācayitavyā,” Wogihara, Unrai, ed., Abhisamayālaṃkār’ālokā Prajñāpāramitāvyākhyā: The Work of Haribhadra Together
with the Text Commented On, Tokyo: Sankibō Buddhist Bookstore, 1932 [1973], 41.
11 E.g. Wogihara, Abhisamayālaṃkār’ālokā Prajñāpāramitāvyākhyā, 41. Haribhadra’s understanding (p. 42) is “procuring by
effectuating its arising from thought” (bhāvanāmayena pratipattyā sampādanād), which, again being psychological
6
7
（118）
O’Neill 4
that some form of expedited ritual recitation was being practiced, or at least encouraged by the
precursors to tantric Buddhists, in the seventh century in Indian Buddhism—but this may have
precedents going back to the early Mahāyāna.
Considering, briefly, a later tantric text, the tenth or eleventh century Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra
suggests that the tantric practitioner of Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa’s practices, should practice or
accomplish (sādhayet) with a book of the Prajñāpāramitā among other requisites typical of a bhikṣu:
“Thus he should accomplish with cloth shoes, a sacred thread, vestments, a parasol, and a book of
the Prajñāpāramitā, a book of this tantra, and so forth.”12 The separation between sacred books and
other objects indicates a distinction between objects which are to be used in rituals and books which
are to be used in rituals—precisely how they are to be used, however, is not clear. Potentially an
essentially expeditated usage (i.e., probably more 轉讀 than 眞讀) may have been prioritised.
Śikṣāsamuccaya
The eighth century Śikṣāsamuccaya, or Compendium of Trainings, can probably be safely attributed to
Śāntideva.13 The Śikṣāsamuccaya itself is characterised by Saitō as a compendium of quotations from
130 Mahāyāna-sūtras, around the theme of 27 basic verses, organised by theme into nineteen
chapters. These themes are referred to as “vital points” (marmasthāna), summarised in verse as
“[t]he sacrifice, for the sake of all living beings, of one’s body, one’s possessions, and one’s merit
acquired in all three times, and the protection, purification, and increase of those [three things, i.e.,
one’s body, possessions, and merit].”14 The Śikṣāsamuccaya presents a variety of quotations from
Mahāyāna sūtras to which we are no longer privy due to the ravages of time and fortune. This is
and not very practical, seems to mean "procuring the Prajñāpāramitā by having it arise in one’s mind,” i.e., perhaps,
to “bear in mind.”
12 Mical, Wiesiek ed., “Appendix (half-critical, half-diplomatic ed.),” in Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra, on 84000: Translating
the Words of the Buddha, version 2.25.2 (2019), https://read.84000.co/translation/toh431.html. evaṃ
paṭapādukayajñopavītavastracchatraṃ ca prajñāpāramitāpustakatantrapustakādīn sādhayet, My thanks to Wiesiek
Mical for pointing out the following: that paṭapāduka indicates ritually pure shoes, rather than clothing and shoes. This
is in contrast to ritually impure leather shoes (carmapādukā), paṭa in this case likely refers to cloth such as wool or felt,
as in “paṭakuṭi.” The term also appears in the Mañjuśrīyamūlakalpa as part of two lists of things that are to be empowered,
with it being associated with things to be worn on the body: evaṃ śūlacakraśaraśaktiprabhṛtayaḥ sarve praharaṇāḥ
paṭapādukadaṇḍakāṣṭhayajñopavītādīni parakalpavidhānena sādhayitavyāni| sarveṣāṃ trividhā siddhiḥ||26.37||
Mical prepared this edition from the earliest available manuscripts, namely, Ekallavīranāmacaṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantram,
Royal Asiatic Society, London. Ref.: Cowell 46/31; Ekallavīranāmacaṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantram, National Archives of Nepal,
Kathmandu. Ref.: NGMPP 3/687, Reel no. A 994/4; Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantram, University of Göttingen Library,
Göttingen. Ref.: Bandurski Xc 14/43–45.
13 Saitō, Akira, “An Inquiry into the Relationship between the Śikṣāsamuccaya and the Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra,” ITBK 17,
2010, 17—24, and Akira Saitō, “Notes on the Interpretation of the Bodhi(sattva)caryāvatāra V.104—106,” in Gedenkschrift
J.W. de Jong edited by H.W. Bodewitz and M. Hara, International Institute for Buddhist Studies: Tokyo, 2004, 135—
147.
14 Saitō, “Śāntideva,” 395, insertions in original, translation by Saitō.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
5
（119）
also done in the context of śāstric material by a well-known author, and thus it presents us with an
ideal transition point from discussing sources regarding sūtra worship from the sūtric perspective,
to sources discussing it from a śāstric perspective.
Firstly, in discussion upon the topic of self-protection (ātmabhāvarakṣā) in the sixth chapter,
Śāntideva in his own voice suggests that:
Regarding diseases, apply medicine, water, and recite a mantra,
Or, one being composed, should offer forest-flowers to a caitya, an image, or to a
book of the True Dharma (saddharma).15
The apotropaic benefits of sūtra worship as claimed in the self-referential passages within the
Mahāyāna sūtra literature were clearly, thus, accepted by practicing Mahāyānists in India in the
eighth century. Moreover, we get a picture of how worship was done—albeit discussed in a brief
and cursory manner relevant, in particular, to the removal of diseases. This tells us a number of
things—one is that the worship of a sūtra in book form was considered as an alternative to offering
to the physical body of a buddha (i.e. as buried in a caitya) and to an image of a buddha. Moreover,
it is thus confirmable that sūtras were being set up for offering in the manner in which one would
set up an image for offering. The question we may ask here is how far does such a setting go back—
can we say that the passages in the early Mahāyāna literature were indicating that the same kind
of worship was either done, or at least conceived of as ideally done by the early Mahāyānists? We
also, however, see two somewhat different approaches to dealing with a problem. The usage of
mantras is associated with applying medicine and water whereas the usage of a book is associated
with worshipping other items, without mantras associated with such a practice. Could this suggest
that in some way we have a distinction between the worship of sūtras and the recitation of mantras?
Or could it indicate some kind of equivalence in efficacy between two kinds of practice?
Quoting the Trisamayarāja Tantra, which today is only available in Chinese,16 regarding how
one can purify sins, Śāntideva suggests that one method involves sūtra literature,
Also, in the Trisamayarāja, the procedure (ācāra) for the opposition of sin is declared:
“Having closed the eyes, with one’s mind clinging to the buddhas and bodhisattvas,
he should recite the hundred syllable [mantra] eight thousand times. Having closed
the eyes, as he sees the buddhas and bodhisattvas he is sin deprived. Otherwise,
15 Mahoney, Richard, ed., Śikṣāsamuccaya of Śāntideva: Sanskrit text, base ed., Cecil Bendall, base e-text, Jens Braarvig,
Indica et Buddhica: Oxford, North Canterbury, 2003, chapter 7. vyādhiṣu bhaiṣajyam udakaṃ
cābhimantryopayojyaṃ || vanakusumāni vā caitye pratimāyāṃ saddharmapustake vā samāhito nivedayet ||
16 底哩三昧耶不動尊威怒王使者念誦法 (T.21.1200).
（120）
O’Neill 6
doing circumambulations around a caitya, he should recite eight thousand times,
having placed one of the books of the True Dharma before the caitya-image. That
is the rule (vidhi).”17
While reliance upon the method of mantra recitation is not sufficient in and of itself—one must
also have visions of the buddhas and bodhisattvas—one can be assured of the removal of sin,
according to the Trisamayarāja by the placement of a sūtra before a caitya following extensive
circumambulation. In many ways, it appears that the power of sūtras allows the typical Mahāyāna
practitioner a far easier method of practice than were to rely upon their own powers—somewhat
reminiscent of the discussions of self-power and other-power in the Pure Land commentarial
literature in China and Japan.
Furthermore, in chapter ten, on the perfection of energy (vīryapāramitā), in regard to
applying effort in hearing the Dharma, Śāntideva quotes,
And here he makes a full recitation of the Jātaka of the Great Sage Uttara, and says,
“Indeed, O Vimalateja, to the bodhisattva mahāsattvas who love the Dharma, who
are dignified and respectful, the lord buddhas, even those who are in other world
systems, show their faces and proclaim the Dharma. O Vimalateja, for the
bodhisattva mahāsattvas who love the Dharma, Dharma treasures are deposited in
the midst of mountains, caves, and trees; endless Dharma doors are in books which
are in the palms of [their] hands. O Vimalateja, for the bodhisattvas who love the
Dharma, deities resembling past buddhas provide for them the eloquence of the
buddhas.18
Here we see another way in which sūtras manifest their power in the world—those who love the
Dharma and teach it will see the buddhas. We also see a potential justification for the later
revelation of scriptures—something which clearly was happening in the first millennium, and
something which also became prominent in the Tibetan conception of the gter ma, or hidden
treasure. While the idea of a gter ma finds precedent in stories about, for instance, Nāgārjuna’s
recovery and dissemination of Mahāyāna sūtras from mountains or the world of the nāgas,19 it
17 Mahoney, Śikṣāsamuccaya, chapter 8. trisamayarāje 'pi pāpapratipakṣasamudācāra uktaḥ || akṣiṇī nimīlya
buddhabodhisatvālambanacittaḥ śatākṣaram aṣṭasahasraṃ japet | nimīlitākṣa eva buddhabodhisatvān paśyati
vigatapāpo bhavati | athavā caityaṃ pradakṣiṇīkurvann aṣṭasahasraṃ japec caityapratimāyāḥ saddharmapustakānāṃ
caikatamaṃ puraḥkṛtyāyam eva vidhir iti ||
18 Mahoney, Śikṣāsamuccaya, chapter 10. atra ca maharṣer uttarasya jātakaṃ vistareṇa kṛtvāha | dharmakāmānāṃ hi
| vimalatejaḥ | bodhisatvānāṃ mahāsatvānāṃ sagauravāṇāṃ sapratīśānāṃ anyalokadhātusthitā api buddhā
bhagavanto mukham upadarśayanti dharmaṃ cānuśrāvayanti | dharmakāmānāṃ | vimalatejaḥ | bodhisatvānāṃ
mahāsatvānāṃ parvatakandaravṛkṣamadhyeṣu dharmanidhānāni nikṣiptāni | dharmamukhāny annantāni
pustakagatāni karatalagatāni bhavanti | dharmakāmānāṃ vimalatejaḥ bodhisatvānāṃ pūrvabuddhadarśinyo devatā
buddhapratibhānam upasaṃharanti ||
19 E.g. T50.2047.184b–c.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
7
（121）
appears to have developed more fully in Tibet around the cult of Padmasambhava, who was
believed to have buried countless treasure texts.20 This passage presents a similar picture in the
Indian context. Moreover, just as we saw in sūtric references the manner in which buddhas or
deities are said to benefit the worshipper or upholder of a Mahāyāna scripture, here we see the
presentation of sūtras by buddhas as a kind of act of gratitude for bodhisattvas’ love—something
which may not completely make sense within the logic of the self-less, but tiered, conception of
compassionate aiding of beings in the Mahāyāna buddhology.
Finally, in chapter seventeen, on worshipping (vandana), Śāntideva suggests that one can
obtain merit from seeing even an image of the Buddha: which also applies to manuscript
illuminations,
For it is said in the noble Śraddhābalādhānāvatāramudrā Sūtra, “O Mañjuśrī, whatever
son of good family or daughter of good family should give hundreds of tastes, food,
and divine vestments daily to pratyekabuddhas equal to the dusts of all world
systems, and who thus giving should give for aeons equal to the sands of the River
Ganges, and another son of good family or daughter of good family who should see
a buddha, either painted in a painting or illuminated in a book: that [latter] one
brings forth innumerably more merit. What more to say of him who should hold
forth his hands in añjali, or should give a flower, or should give incense, or scents,
or lamps? Such a one indeed brings forth innumerably more merit.21
While all of these cases have been self-referential passages in sūtra literature, that Śāntideva quotes
them in the context of his own recommendations regarding practice indicates that they were
conceived of as living suggestions for contemporary practitioners and it is safe to therefore assume
that they were either carried out, or idealised as being carried out. While it has been thoroughly
established that Mahāyāna sūtra books were conceived of as having divine power, it should also be
emphasised that a similar thesis could be written about the buddha image. That the power
conceived of as presiding in a buddha image is said to also function in the case of illuminations in
manuscripts may give us some idea about the reason why these images were painted into
manuscripts in the first place.
20 Lewis Doney, “Padmasambhava in Tibetan Buddhism,” in Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Volume II: Lives, edited by
Jonathan A. Silk, Leiden: Brill, 2019, 1197–1212, 1199.
21 Mahoney, Śikṣāsamuccaya, chapter 17. uktaṃ hy āryaśraddhābalādhānāvatāramudrāsūtre | yaḥ kaścin mañjuśrīḥ
kulaputraḥ kuladuhitā vā sarvalokadhāturajopamānāṃ pratyekabuddhānāṃ dine dine śatarasam āhāraṃ dadyāt
divyāni ca vastrāṇi | evaṃ dadad gaṅgānadīvālukopamān kalpān dadyāt | yaś cānyo mañjuśrīḥ kulaputraḥ kuladuhitā
vā citrakarmalikhitaṃ vā pustakakarmakṛtaṃ vā buddhaṃ paśyed | ayaṃ tato 'saṃkhyeyataraṃ puṇyaṃ prasavati |
kaḥ punar vādo yo 'ñjalipragrahaṃ vā kuryāt puṣpaṃ vā dadyāt dhūpaṃ vā gandhaṃ vā dīpaṃ vā dadyād | ayam
eva tato 'saṃkhyeyataraṃ puṇyaṃ prasavatīti ||
（122）
O’Neill 8
Pustakapāṭhopāya
According to Ronald Davidson, the translator Dānaśīla flourished during the reign of Ye shes ’Od,
the second king of Guge in south-western Tibet, who reigned circa 959–1040. 22 The text,
Pustakapāṭhopāya, whose translation into English is given as follows, has a context which is unknown
to us, but which contains clearly tantric elements for the relatively exoteric practice of the recitation
of a book:
In the Indian language: Pustakapāṭhopāya. In the Tibetan language: The Method of
Reading a Scripture (Glegs bam klag pa’i thabs). Homage to the Triple Gem. First,
visualising oneself as Vairocana, one should visualise, abiding on a moon and multicoloured lotus in front of oneself, whatever is suitable for the sake of oneself and
others. One should then visualise what is to be accomplished (sādhya, bsgrub bya)
on the moon. Then, in one’s own heart, upon a moon, from the syllable BRŪṂ,
many buddhalocanā devīs, golden in form, spread out. Visualise their vases
completely full of the nectar of wisdom, and that these are performing abhiṣeka [on
that which is to be accomplished]. Then one should read the book.23
In the foregoing translation, “what is to be accomplished,” or sādhya (bsgrub bya), is a typical
tantric term referring to the object of practice—be it a deity or more specific object of practice. In
this case, it is reasonable to suppose that the sādhya is the book that one intends to read. That this
prescription appears to be the only entirely tantric suggestion regarding how one begins to read a
book is somewhat unusual—it is also rather simple in comparison with the ritual that appears to
have developed in Nepal. Nonetheless, at least as far as Dānaśīla’s source base (probably from
north-western India) is concerned, this was a method that apparently gained some traction in being
seen as important enough to translate into Tibetan. This method of reading, however, appears to
not have gained much traction in the Indian and Nepalese context and Sanskrit equivalents for
such a formula cannot be found.
Vimalaprabhā
The eleventh century Vimalaprabhā (c. 102724), a commentary on the Kālacakra Tantra, presents us
with a number of interesting insights. On the one hand, it allows us to see the attitude of Buddhists
22 Davidson, Ronald M., Tibetan Renaissance: Tibetan Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture, Columbia University Press:
New York, 2005, 12.
23 Tōh. no. 4252. rgya gar skad du | pusta ka pa ṭho pa ya | bod skad du | glegs bam klag pa’i thabs | dkon mchog
gsum la phyag ’tshal lo || dang por rang nyid rnam par snang mdzad sku mdog dkar po sna tshogs padma zla ba la
gnas pa bsams te | de’i mdun du rang gi ’am gzhan gyi ched gang yin yang rung ste | zla ba la gnas pa’i bsgrub bya
bsam par bya’o || de nas rang gi snying gar zla ba la gnas pa’i bhrūṃ las lha mo sangs rgyas spyan ma ser mo mang
po spros te | rin po che’i bum pa ye shes kyi bdud rtsis gang bas bsgrub bya la dbang bskur bar bsams la | de nas glegs
bam klag par bya’o ||
24 Newman, John, The Wheel of Time: The Kālacakra in Context, Shambala: Boulder, 1985, 85–87.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
9
（123）
at that time towards non-Buddhist textual traditions of the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gītā, siddhānta,
and the purāṇas, but also an attitude towards the worship of sacred texts which mirrors that which
we find in the early Mahāyāna self-referential passages:
If here, among mortals in the world, all humans, śūdras and so forth, know the
Vedas, the Gītā, siddhānta, and logical treatises, then those who are respected will
be as the brahmins; because of knowledge equal to their knowledge of the Dharma
and vidyās, and because they would not have the particular qualities of all those
who dwell at home and who are unable to enjoy saṃsāra. Having known this, the
Dharmas of the Gītā, siddhānta, purāṇas, and so forth were written in book[s] in
the Sanskrit language by corrupt ṛṣis with greedy nature; and the Vedas and those
things which are to be read with the mouth were made limited, and [creating] a
great confused progeny of foolish beings was the intention of not teaching allknowledge. In this case, in past times the dharmas of the Vedas, the Gītā, siddhānta,
and the purāṇas were not written in books; they only existed in mouths; then,
because of the sway of the time of the five degradations,25 they were written in
books because of the deficiency in wisdom by as many [brahmins] as there were.
Therein, the preceding Dharma teaching of Hari-Hara26 was not to be approved
by the Buddhists, was without pity for all beings, devoid, productive of the
suffering of saṃsāra, creating incorrect egotism, and conceiting the doctrines of
castes. Here, in the triple world, those Dharmas which are taught with allknowledge and the language of all-knowledge are written in book[s] with songs
and translations into the languages of many beings, are explained with meanings
from worldly knowledge and so forth, explained with the meanings of the three
vehicles, and are taught with worldly truth and ultimate truth, and for the
recitation and listening of all beings, that beings with faith, to these teachings on
all-knowledge—which are an assemblage of eighty-four thousand Dharmas and
which are explained with both worldly and other-worldly meanings—listen, recite,
speak, bear, illuminate and introduce them, worship them with many flowers,
many perfumes, much incense, many aromatic powders, many robes, many bells,
many banners, many cowries, many parasols, many canopies, many strings of
pearls, many jewels, many lamps, and many ornaments made of jewels, and,
having worshipped them, do a five-pointed prostration. Thus, those Dharmas
taught with all-knowledge, which assist others, because of the power of faith for
the benefit of others, and for the sake of those with caste and without caste, no one
whatsoever is warded off by the Tathāgata. Even now, [those Dharmas] have not
disappeared.27
The degradation of lifespan, views, defilements, beings, and the aeon, “āyuḥ-, dṛṣti-, kleśa-, sattva-, kalpa-kº,”
Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit,174.
26 Viṣṇu and Śiva.
27 Upadhyaya, Jagannatha, ed., Vimalaprabhāṭikā of Kalkin Śrī Puṇḍarika on Śrīlaghukālacakratantrarāja by Śrī Mañjuśrīyaśas,
Vol. 1, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 11, Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1986, 40–41. iha
martye loke yadi sarve manuṣyā vedagītāsiddhāntatarkaśāstravido bhavanti śūdrādayaḥ, tadā brāhmaṇānāṃ ko
gauravaṃ kariṣyati; vidyādharmajñānasādhāraṇaparijñānāt, sarveṣāṃ gṛhavāsināṃ saṃsārabhogāsaktānāṃ
viśeṣaguṇābhāvāt| iti jñātvā duṣṭarṣibhir dravyalubdhaiḥ saṃskṛtabhāṣayā gītāsiddhāntapurāṇādayo dharmāḥ
pustake likhitāḥ; vedāś ca mukhapāṭhenādhyayanīyā iti niyamaḥ kṛto bālajanānāṃ mahāmohajanaka iti
asarvajñadeśanābhiprāyaḥ| iha pūrvakāle vedagītāsiddhāntapurāṇadharmā na pustake likhitāḥ santi; yatīnāṃ mukhe
25
（124）
O’Neill 10
The main problem identified by the author(s) of the Vimalaprabhā towards non-Buddhist literature
appears to be that they are exclusive and that they are not accessible to all—but were designed to
be the intellectual monopoly of the brahmin caste, which caste system is also said to be reinforced
by that literature. Moreover, another complaint appears to be the attempt by the brahmins at
keeping that literature exclusively oral—something which they were incapable of maintaining due
to degradation over time. The teachings of the Buddhists, on the other hand, are presented as open
to all, regardless of language or caste, and conducive to worship in the manner prescribed within
the sūtra literature. This highly sectarian document does allow us at least to know potentially what
a contemporary opinion might have been towards non-Buddhist literature and practice, but also,
that the worship as prescribed within the sūtra literature was largely still accepted as part of sūtra
worship. As usual, it is not possible to know with certainty what was done in practice, but it is not
unlikely that we are presented with at least a normative picture of what was practiced in the
preceding excerpt. While we have essentially treated these later sources as more descriptive of
practice, and the earlier sūtric sources as more prescriptive, we cannot avoid understanding that
to a certain extent the later sources are also prescriptive—we can only truly approach knowledge
of description of practice and actual practice when we consider contemporary cases.
Kuḍṛṣṭinirghātana
We now move to one of two examples from literature dealing with prescriptions for beginner
bodhisattvas, or ādikarmika bodhisattvas. The first is from the eleventh century Kudṛṣṭinirghātana
composed by Advayavajra (c. 1007-1085).28 Glenn Wallis argues that Advayavajra attempts to use
this manual to reconcile institutional monasticism with antinomian tantrism, and also that he is
attempting to show that the beginning practices, or “ādikarma” are not only “‘preliminary,’ as is
generally the case, but … ‘primary,’ in the sense of a continuously constituted foundation. In doing
tiṣṭhanti; tataḥ pañcakaṣāyakālavaśāt pustake likhitāḥ, prajñāhīnatvād yatibhir iti| iha prādeśikī hariharādīnāṃ
dharmadeśanā bauddhair nānumodanīyā sarvasattvakṛpayā rahitā saṃsāraduḥkhadāyikī(nī) mithyāhaṃkārakāriṇī
jātivādābhimāninīti| iha traidhātuke ye sarvajñena sarvajñabhāṣayā deśitā dharmā nānāsattvabhāṣāntareṇa
saṃgītikārakaiḥ pustake likhitāḥ, vedādilaukikārthapratipādikāḥ, yānatrayārthapratipādakāḥ, lokasaṃvṛtisatyena
paramārthasatyena deśitāḥ, sarvasattvānāṃ śravaṇāyādhyayanāya ca, tadadhimuktikāḥ sattvās tān sarvajñadeśitān
caturaśītisahasradharmaskandhān laukikalokottarārthapratipādakān śṛṇvanti paṭhanti vācayanti dhārayanti
parebhyaś ca vistareṇa saṃprakāśayanti pratiṣṭhāpayanti, pūjayanti nānāpuṣpair nānāgandhair nānādhūpair
nānācūrṇair nānāvastrair nānāghaṇṭābhir nānāpatākābhir nānācāmarair nānāchatrair nānāvitānair
nānāmuktāhārair nānāratnair nānāpradīpair nānāratnābharaṇaiḥ pūjayitvā tebhyaḥ pañcāṅgapraṇāmaṃ kurvanti|
evaṃ te sarvajñadeśitā dharmāḥ paropakāriṇaḥ adhimuktivaśāt paropakārāya na kasyacij jātyajātivaśāt te vihitāḥ
pratiṣedhitā tathāgaten ety” adyāpi nāntardhānaṃ gatāḥ|
28 Wallis, Glenn, “Advayavajra’s Instructions on the ādikarma,” Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies, Fall
2003, 1.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
11
（125）
so, Advayavajra presents what he holds to be the necessary conditions for ritual efficacy.” 29
Advayavajra deals with the worship of texts in his method (vidhi) for the worship of images and
books as follows:
Having recited the Prajñāpāramitā, he should worship,
according to rule, the entire maṇḍala and so forth,
Always immersing in their meaning.
The Ekagāthā, the Caturgāthā, the Gāthādvayadhāraṇī,30
The Ṣaṇmukhī, or the Bhadracaryā, thrice, three times a day,
Or a single syllable up to a hundred thousand:
A wise one with unbroken concentration should recite as it profits.
He should worship a scroll of a buddha or bodhisattva, a book, or an image, and so forth.31
As with previous examples, here we see the worship of the book equated with the worship of
buddha images and other items. While the much earlier Susiddhikāra was the first to hint at a
primacy of the Prajñāpāramitā among Mahāyāna sūtras, this was not an overwhelming theme in the
other examples at which we have looked. Here, however, we see a return of this theme, which shall
continue hereafter—particularly in the context of the beginner bodhisattva (ādikarma bodhisattva)
and training. If, as Wallis suggests, ādikarma prescriptions are not just about what is important for
beginners, but rather, what is considered foundational to monastic and tantric education, then
apparently the Prajñāpāramitā begins to take pride of place in that context.
Dharma Maṇḍalas
Ādikarmapradīpa
Further ādikarma literature continues such themes and appears to begin to introduce themes that
become prominent in later mentions of sūtras in a ritual context. In particular, we might consider
Anupamavajra’s 10th or 11th century Ādikarmapradīpa. This suggests that a bodhisattva should, after
purificatory rites, recite the Nāmasaṅgīti and Bhadracaryā Then, after offerings to Jambhala and
pretas, caityas, and the Buddha, the disciple should offer the guru maṇḍala, the maṇḍala of one’s
ritually chosen deity (sveṣṭadeva), and then perform a recitation, pāṭha, of the Prajñāpāramitā.32 The
Wallis, “Advayavajra’s Instructions on the ādikarma,” 2.
On these three texts, with edition, see Kano, Kazuo, “Ekagāthā, Caturgāthā, Gāthādvayadhāraṇī: A Set of Reciting Sūtras
in 11th century India,” The Mikkyo Bunka (Journal of Esoteric Buddhism) 227 (2011): 80–107.
31 Mikkyō-seiten-kenkyūkai, eds., “Kudṛṣṭinirghātana by Advayavajra,” Taishō Daigaku Sōgō Bukkyō Kenkyūjo Nenpō 10,
1989: 255–198. prajñāpāramitāṃ samyag maṇḍalādividhānataḥ| paṭhitvā pūjayed nityaṃ tadartham
avagāhanam||25|| ekagāthāṃ caturgāthāṃ gāthādvitayadhāraṇīṃ| ṣaṇmukhīṃ bhadracaryāṃ ca triṣkālaṃ ca
trikālataḥ||26|| ekākṣaram upādāya lakṣam yāvat samāhitaḥ| akaṇḍitasamādāno yathālābhaṃ paṭhet
sudhīḥ||27|| buddhabodhisattvapaṭapustakapratimādīṃś ca pūjayet|
32 Takahashi, Hisao, ed., “Ādikarmapradīpa,” in Indogaku Mikkyōgaku Kenkyū: Miyasaka Yūshō hakase koki kinenn ronbunshū,
Vol. 2, Hōzōkan: Kyōto, 1993, 132.
29
30
（126）
O’Neill 12
preliminary rites prior to recitation appear somewhat similar to the preliminary rites in
contemporary recitation in Newar Buddhism, called pāṭha yākegu.33 While, today, the recitation
of the Nāmasaṅgīti and Bhadracaryā are themselves practiced as individual recitation rites, rather than
as preliminaries to the recitation of sūtras, the offerings to deities, Jambhala, caityas, the Buddha,
guru maṇḍala, and the maṇḍala of one’s lineage deity are still performed—leading us to suspect
that this instruction is part of the continuum of practice up to the present day.
Also, of note is that Anupamavajra uses the wording “prajñāpāramitādīnāṃ pāṭhaṃ
kuryād yathepsitam.” Ādi, or etc. implies that after the Prajñāpāramitā, there are other sūtras.
What is implied by this? Moreover, “yathepsitam” implies that which is wished for; does this mean
it is one’s choice? These matters are not elucidated in Anupamavajra’s autocommentary.34 For
further clues, we might consider the presence of a similar formula in Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṅgrahapañjikā
where in chapter three we find the suggestion that after vessels used in consecrating a monastery
have been prepared and placed in the four directions, the officiating monk should recite the
Prajñāpāramitā and other Mahāyāna sūtras, presumably three others, echoing the Susiddhikāra with
the wording “prajñāpāramitādimahāyānasūtrāṇi pāṭhayitavyāni.” 35 While Kuladatta does not
gloss this term, the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa chapter two suggests that the Mahāyāna sūtras associated
with the four directions are the Prajñāpāramitā in the south, the Samādhirāja in the west, the
Gaṇḍavyūha in the north, and the Suvarṇaprabhāsottama in the east.36
As regards these four sūtras in this context, they are equal in standing, and we do not see
the primacy of the Prajñāpāramitā. Doctrinally, we may have reasons to consider the Prajñāpāramitā
the best candidate for placement at the centre of a maṇḍala, if one needs a central point, and there
may be some connection to this reasoning behind the placement of the Prajñāpāramitā at the head
of this formula. However, the ādikarma literature appears to suggest, to an extent, that a familiarity
with the Prajñāpāramitā, and then the other Mahāyāna sūtras, was considered an important part of
a monk’s preliminary training. In such a training, the most essential points appear to come first,
and the more contingent practices, requiring a foundation, are added later. Thus, there is a
theoretical sūtra hierarchy that may be supposed to exist wherein the Prajñāpāramitā gets pride of
The details of this rite will be fully fleshed out in my dissertation, but will also be briefly explicated in a forthcoming
publication: O’Neill, Alexander James, “Textual Manifestations: The Use and Significance of the Mahāyāna
33
Literature in Newar Buddhism,” European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 53 (2019/2020)
34
35
36
Takahashi, ed., “Ādikarmapradīpa,” 149.
Tanemura, Ryugen, ed., Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañikā, Egbert Forsten: Groningen, 2004, 136–7.
Vaidya, P.L., ed., Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, The Mithila Institute: Darbhanga, 1964, 26.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
13
（127）
place. Another example of such a formula is in the 11th century Mṛtasugatiniyojana, which suggests
that the Prajñāpāramitā and other Mahāyāna sūtras should be recited, as a preliminary to the homa,
as part of a funerary rite.37 In this manner, and the afore-mentioned case of the sūtra maṇḍala, it
appears evident that recitation was being developed in the context of a larger tantric and nontantric South Asian milieu. This is the same milieu in which we saw Buddhists and Hindus
commonly beginning to refer to their texts as vidyās, in the sense of powerful speech acts, in
addition to requiring worship on a mound of rice, representing the vedī altar in the Pañcarātra
case (a practice which we see in modern worship in Nepal), and to requiring a text to undergo
pratiṣṭhā in order for it to be allowed to be worshipped.38 While direct causal relation cannot be
established in cases like this, thematic similarities cannot be dismissed as meaningless.
Kriyāsamuccaya
A Nepalese source for understanding the development of the importance of the Prajñāpāramitā
ritually is the Kriyāsamuccaya of Jagaddarpaṇa, writing around the 11th or 12th century. While the
term appears in texts such as the Guhyasamāja, Jagaddarpaṇa’s is the first mention of a Dharma
maṇḍala in a ritual context, which accompanies a Buddha and Saṅgha maṇḍala, containing
buddhas and bodhisattvas respectively. As regards the Dharma maṇḍala, his “Poṣadhavidhi” states,
“The Dharma maṇḍala is headed by the Yoginīniruttara Tantras, surrounded by the Kriyā, Caryā,
Yoga, and Yoginī Tantras.”39 This Dharma maṇḍala thus has the Yoginīniruttara Tantras in the
centre, with some arrangement of the other classes of tantra surrounding it. Later texts, which we
shall discuss, instead feature the Prajñāpāramitā and other non-tantric sūtras in the maṇḍala. Why
is this the case? This section of the Kriyāsamuccaya is followed by one dealing with tantric abhiṣeka.
The section in question is a poṣadhavidhi, which is a ritual manual for the taking of poṣadha
precepts. The eight precepts are thus a preliminary to abhiṣeka, and it appears that in the case of
a tantric adept, or ācārya, they are to hold the eight precepts during the time of abhiṣeka, at least
according to Jagaddarpaṇa. What this also tells us is that abhiṣeka may not have required monastic
37 Tanemura, Ryugen, ed., “Śūnyasamādhivajra's Mṛtasugatiniyojana: A Critical Edition and Notes,” Tōyō Bunka
Kenkyūsho Kiyō, 163, 110–136. 130.
38 De Simini, Florinda, Of Gods and Books: Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India,
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2016, 339
39 Lokesh Chandra, ed., 1977, Kriya-samuccaya: A Sanskrit Manuscript from Nepal Containing a Collection of Tantric Ritual by
Jagaddarpaṇa, part 2, Sharada Rani: New Delhi, 318. kriyācaryāyogayoginītantraparivṛtayoginīniruttaratantranāyakaṃ dharmamaṇḍalaḥ.
（128）
O’Neill 14
ordination, so even in the 11th century, prospective vajrācāryas, or tantric priests, were permitted
to be non-celibates.
Poṣadhānuśaṃsā
What, then, did the Dharma maṇḍala look like in the case of laity who were not undertaking tantric
abhiṣeka at the time of poṣadha? If tantric abhiṣeka required the presence of tantric texts, it seems
natural that the presence of non-tantric Mahāyāna sūtras would be required for the laity. An early
witness to this non-tantric Dharma maṇḍala cannot be found, but if we were to guess its structure,
based upon preceding patterns, it would be difficult to expect the central element to be none other
than the Prajñāpāramitā.
The 16th or 17th century Poṣadhānuśaṃsā features an explicit expression of the navagrantha
or navasūtra, the nine texts that form the contemporary Dharma maṇḍala: this appears to be its
first appearance in writing. Here we see a Dharma maṇḍala for use in poṣadha rites, but it differs
from the contemporary list. This manuscript reads, “Oṃ, to noble Prajñāpāramitā, you receive this
vajra flower, svāhā! Middle. [… Same formula for:] Pañcārakṣā, […] Nāmasaṃgīti, […] Gaṇḍavyūha,
[…] Daśabhūmīśvara, […] Samādhirāja, […] Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, […] Lalitavistara, [… and]
Laṃkāvatāra,”40 followed by instructions for worshipping the maṇḍala. While one might suggest
that there is a development from the tantric to non-tantric in terms of elements of this maṇḍala, it
seems apparent that in the case of the Poṣadhānuśaṃsā, we are dealing with an entirely non-tantric
context—which is not the case with the Kriyāsamuccaya. That being said, the verses used to praise
the three jewels are direct quotes from the Guhyasamāja Tantra,41 perhaps complicating this attempt
at a clear distinction. Moreover, the worship of sūtras and other exoteric Mahāyāna practices in
Nepal, show signs of a great deal of influence from ritual literature such as the Ādikarmapradīpa. For
instance, the practice of creating clay maṇḍalas on the occasion of poṣadha observance in the
Poṣadhānuśaṃsā utilises the formula suggested in the Ādikarmapradīpa,42 which other than sūtra pāṭha,
40
Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project (NGMPP), Poṣadhānuśaṃsā, B23/33. [7v]oṃ
āryaprajñāpā[8r]ramitāyai vajrapuṣpaṃ pra[tī]ccha svāhā|| madhye || oṃ ārya pañcārakṣayai vajrapuṣpa[ṃ]
pratīccha svāhā| oṃ āryanāmasaṃgītaye vajrapuṣpaṃ pratīccha svahā| oṃ āryagaṇḍavyūhāya vajrapuṣpa[ṃ]
pratīccha svāhā| [insertion from above the first line] oṃ āryadaśabhūmīśvarāya vajrapuṣpaṃ pratīccha svāhā|| oṃ
āryasamādhirājāya vajrapuṣpaṃ pratīccha svāhā|| oṃ āryasa[d]dharmapuṇḍa(l)[r]īkāya vajrapuṣpaṃ pratīccha
svāhā| oṃ āryalālitāvistar(a)[ā]ya vajrapuṣpaṃ pratīccha svāhā| oṃ āryalaṃkāvatārāya vajrapuṣpaṃ pratīccha
svāhā|
41 NGMPP, Poṣadhānuśaṃsā, 7r1-2, 5, 8v2.
42 NGMPP, Poṣadhānuśaṃsā, 13r–v.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
15
（129）
bears no relevance to poṣadha rites. It is possible that at one time these two practices were
associated, and that their relation carried forth into poṣadha practices.
Later Formulae
Modern rites follow the set that would be found in, for instance, an Aṣṭamīvratavidhi manuscript
dating to 1915, which instead reads “Oṃ, to noble Prajñāpāramitā, you receive this vajra flower,
svāhā! Middle. [… Same formula for:] Gaṇḍavyūhā, […] East. […] Daśabhūmika, […] South. […]
Samādhirāja, […] West. […] Laṅkāvatāra, […] North. […] Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, […] South-east. […]
Tathāgata[guhyaka], […] South-west. […] Lalitavistara, […] North-east. […] Suvarṇaprabhāsa, […]
North-west.”43 Occasionally the ordering may vary, but invariably the Prajñāpāramitā is placed in
the centre. Here we begin to see the inclusion, also, of the Tathāgataguhyaka—while the Sanskrit text
exists in fragmentary form and in Tibetan and Chinese, 44 personal communications in Nepal
appear to present the general impression that this text was “lost when Nālandā was destroyed,”
and that since its name is similar, today it is substituted by the Guhyasamāja. It makes sense that this
text was not originally the tantric Guhyasamāja, but rather a non-tantric scripture, but considering
its absence from the earlier Poṣadhānuśaṃsā formula. This text is an exoteric Mahāyāna sūtra, which
appears to deal with a variety of topics related to the life and qualities of the Buddha.45 While there
is little evidence that it was ever a text of great popularity, something evident by its lack of
widespread circulation in the manuscript copying situation in medieval Nepal, it is likely that the
inclusion of this text can give us some insights about why certain texts were considered for inclusion
into the Dharma maṇḍala. The contents of this sūtra appear to provide some interesting
perspectives on the nature of the Buddha and buddhahood in a manner similar to the other eight
43 NGMPP, Aṣṭamīvratavidhi, E46/47. The manuscript in question is a bound codex, and is a mixture of Newar and
Sanskrit, and the Sanskrit text is quite corrupt. It is represented here diplomatically without emendations (they will be
obvious to those familiar with Sanskrit). Codex pages 97–107, vaṃ [=oṃ] āryyaprajñā[10]pāramitāyai vajrapūṣpaṃ
praticcha [=pratīccha] svāhā|| madhya|| vaṃ āryagandavyūhāya vajrapuṣpaṃ praticcha svāhā|| pūrva|| vaṃ
āryādaśābhūmikāya vajrapūṣpaṃ praticcha svāhā|| dakṣiṃ|| vaṃ āryyasamādhirājāya vajrapuṣpaṃ praticcha
svāhā|| paścima|| vaṃ āryyalaṃkāvatārāya vajrapūṣpaṃ praticcha svāhā|| uttara|| vaṃ
āryyasaddharmapūṇḍarīkāya vajrapūṣpaṃ praticcha svāhā|| agne|| vaṃ āryyatathāgatakāya vajrapūṣpaṃ
praticcha svāhā|| naiṛtya|| vaṃ āryyalalitavistarāya vajrapuṣpaṃ praticcha svāhā|| īśāna|| [insert from bottom of
page] vāyuvya|| vaṃ āryyasūvarṇaprabhāya [pratīccha svāhā||]
This manuscript, the countless others like it, and the contemporary practice of poṣadha rites essentially have expanded
the medieval practice and essentially involve extensive maṇḍala practices undertaken by both the officiating vajrācāryas
and the lay community—the offering to the three jewel maṇḍalas, in a way, is today a prelude to many practices, but
the poṣadha involves more than just the taking of precepts, but rather the creation of the maṇḍala of the deity to whom
the rite is dedicated (usually Amoghapāśa, but also often Tārā or Mañjuśrī).
44 A critical edition of this text with a translation from Tibetan and Sanskrit is forthcoming by Péter-Daniel Szántó.
45 Discussed by Étienne Lamotte in “Vajrapāṇi in India,” Buddhist Studies Review 20 (2), 2003, 119–144.
（130）
O’Neill 16
sūtras. Thus, this formula may be based upon consideration of the contents of sūtras—something
which the later substitution with the Guhyasamāja appears to disregard.
Conclusion
If expedited reading was a practice with precedent in the latter half of the first millennium, then
this is not as unique a practice as one may suppose and informs us about the nature of sūtras as
conceived within the Vajrayāna practitioner’s worldview. Other historical conclusions are hard to
precisely pin down with the scanty textual evidence that we have, but ritual continuity is evident
based upon the sources we discussed. The later Mahāyāna in India almost certainly worshipped
sūtras in a manner similar to that depicted within the sūtras’ self-referential passages (as they do
today), and it is not unrealistic to infer that to a certain extent a similar rite was performed in the
early Mahāyāna. What this investigation into the later Mahāyāna literature regarding sūtra
worship showed us is how this worship developed in light of developments within the Mahāyāna
towards tantricised ritual, even when the books involved were not themselves tantras.
One trend which preceded this tantricisation was the prioritisation of the Prajñāpāramitā
literature as the head, if not the most important, of the exoteric Mahāyāna literature, as seen, for
instance, in the Susiddhikāra Sūtra. Śāntideva’s selection of passages related to the worship of sūtras
allows us to infer the acceptance of the power of sūtra literature in the latter half of the first
millennium, as well as how sūtras were conceived of not necessarily as (or not only as) vessels for
doctrine, but also as ritual devices. While we see some fully tantric prescriptions for recitation,
essentially the recitation of the exoteric scriptures appears to be generally beneficial in an exoteric
context, as well as a preliminary and underlying general necessity for general Mahāyāna and
Vajrayāna practice. The development of Dharma maṇḍalas for the worship of the Dharma as a
whole, as represented by sūtras, marks a significant shift in the employment of sūtras, and allows
for their iconographic representation to change as well as their general conceptualization to evolve.
This forms a part, but not a full part, of the shift that we see from the employment of sūtras at an
early period to the way in which they are employed in a later period.
After the Ādikarmapradīpa, many of the elements of the contemporary pūjā employed before
the recitation (pāṭha) of a sūtra are without textual precedent. William Tuladhar-Douglas46 and
46 Tuladhar-Douglas, Will, Remaking Buddhism for Medieval Nepal: The Fifteenth-Century Reformation of Newar Buddhism,
Routledge: London, 2007.
Later Mahåyåna References to Book Worship
O’Neill
17
（131）
Jinah Kim47 both discuss the manner in which, during the 15th to 18th century, Newar Buddhism
appeared to remake itself in terms of literature and art respectively. It is possible that during this
period ritual practice also developed in different directions. The rituals of the vajrācāryas, in
combination with the development of new conceptions of what the Dharma consisted (due to the
development of the model of the Dharma maṇḍalas), may well have laid the groundwork for the
development of a more tantric form of sūtra pāṭha, which also took into account the model of
dharma maṇḍalas as found in the poṣadha rites. On the basis of the material available to us now,
it is impossible to fully trace this development, but the lack of earlier precedent allows us to imagine
that its development, along with some of the liturgical elements that are utilized in it, took part
within Nepal as part of this local development of a distinct Newar Buddhism.
Kim, Jinah, “Performing Texts, Engendering Merits: Manuscripts and Paubhas as Ritual Objects,” in Dharma and
Puṇya: Buddhist Ritual Art of Nepal, Hotei Publishing: Leiden and Boston, 2019, 88–99.
47
Alexander James O'Neill