Bulletin of the Asia Institute Evo ṣuyadi Essays in Honor of Richard Salomon’s 65th Birthday New Series/Volume 23 2009 Edited by Carol Altman Bromberg, Timothy J. Lenz, and Jason Neelis Published with the assistance of the Neil Kreitman Foundation (U.K.) Contents Michael Shapiro Mark Allon Stefan Baums Daniel Boucher Robert L. Brown Collett Cox Harry Falk Andrew Glass Paul Harrison Jens-Uwe Hartmann Stephanie W. Jamison Seishi Karashima Klaus Karttunen Timothy Lenz Abdur Rehman Juhyung Rhi Ludo Rocher and Rosane Rocher Gregory Schopen Martin Schwartz Jonathan A. Silk Nicholas Sims-Williams Peter Skilling Ingo Strauch Michael Willis Foreword Richard Salomon: A Personal Tribute A Gāndhārī Version of the Story of the Merchants Tapussa and Bhallika Inscribed Buddhist Tablets from Merv What Do We Mean by “Early” in the Study of the Early Mahāyāna—and Should We Care? Telling the Story in Art of the Monkey’s Gift of Honey to the Buddha What’s in a Name? School Afiliation in an Early Buddhist Gāndhārī Manuscript Making Wine in Gandhara under Buddhist Monastic Supervision Bha Verses by Śāntideva in the Śikṣāsamuccaya: A New English Translation The Foolish Cat and the Clever Mouse: Another Parable from an Unknown Story Collection An Indo-Iranian Priestly Title Lurking in the Rig Veda? An Indic Equivalent to Avestan karapan On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha Gandhāra and the Greeks Ephemeral Dharma; Magical Hope A Note on the Etymology of Gandhāra The Garuḍa and the Nāgī/Nāga in the Headdresses of Gandhāran Bodhisattvas: Locating Textual Parallels Indian Epigraphy and the Asiatic Society: The First Fifty Years Regional Languages and the Law in Some Early North Indian Buddhist Monasteries and Convents Sārtha- and Other Caravan Words The Nature of the Verses of the Kāśyapaparivarta Some Bactrian Inscriptions on Silver Vessels Prakrit Prajñāpāramitās: Northwest, South, and Center: Gleanings from Avalokitavrata and Haribhadra Inscribed Objects from Greater Gandhāra Avalokiteśvara of the Six Syllables: Locating the Practice of the “Great Vehicle” in the Landscape of Central India 1 5 9 21 33 43 53 65 79 87 105 111 121 131 135 143 147 159 171 179 181 191 199 209 221 Review JONGEWARD, ERRINGTON, SALOMON, AND BAUMS. Buddhist Reliquaries (Jason Neelis) Books Received Abbreviations Gandharan 231 237 239 v On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha* SeiShi KArAShimA international research institute for advanced buddhology, soka university it is now widely recognised that quite a few of early mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures, written in (Buddhist) Sanskrit, were transmitted originally in middle indic and subsequently “translated” gradually into (Buddhist) Sanskrit. Such (Buddhist) Sanskrit texts are, in other words, the result of constant Sanskritization, wrong back-formations, additions and interpolations over the centuries. Chinese translations, on the other hand, particularly those which were made from the second to the sixth century c.e. and thus antedating most of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, may provide substantial clues to the origination and development of Buddhist scriptures.1 if we read early Chinese translations carefully in the light of Sanskrit, Tibetan and other Chinese versions, while taking into consideration the newly discovered old Gāndhārī fragments of various texts, we may be able to reconstruct earlier and more original features of early mahāyāna Buddhist scriptures and trace their transmissions. Sukhāvatīvyūha, namely the Dà āmítú jīng (大阿彌陀經, T. 12, no. 362), which was most probably translated by Zhiloujiachen 支婁迦讖 or Lokakṣema (l. ca 170–190 c.e.),3 this Buddha is always described as possessing incomparable light4 but not limitless life. he even enters parinirvạ̄a (309a15) so as to be succeeded by *Olokitasvara (héĺugèn 廅樓亘 < Avalokita­ svara5). Therefore, he was never seen as having “limitless life” in this earliest version. in the present Sanskrit version of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha, the form Amitābha occurs only in the prose,6 while Amitāyu is found only in the verses7—the same is true in the case of the Sanskrit fragments of the same scripture discovered in Afghanistan, which is now preserved in the Schøyen Collection.8 Although in the present Sanskrit manuscripts from Nepal dating from the twelfth century Amitāyus, the Sanskritized form of Amitāyu, appears seven times in the prose, most of which lack parallels in the Tibetan and (or) Chinese translations, their occurrences are therefore presumably either later interpolations or substitutions in place of Amitābha, which took place when Amitāyus became more popular than Amitābha.9 Concerning why the form Amitāyu occurs only in the verses, my hypothesis is as follows. When Amitābha or rather its middle indic form Amitāha10 was used in the verses and the ending of its nominative singular forms Amitābho / mi Amitāho needed to be shortened for metrical reasons, the name of the Buddha must have become Amitābhu / mi *Amitāhu.11 The middle indic form *Amitāhu would have been pronounced as i. Amitābha (“Limitless Light”) > Amitāyus (“Limitless Life”) Concerning the two names of the Buddha in the land of Sukhāvatī, namely Amitābha (“Limitless Light”) and Amitāyus (“Limitless Life”), i have suggested elsewhere2 that Amitābha (“Limitless Light”; wúliàngguāng 無量光 in Chinese) is a more original form and that only later did it evolve gradually into Amitāyus (“Limitless Life”; wúliàngshòu 無量壽 in Chinese). in the oldest Chinese translation of the Larger 121 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha SP(KN) 455.2. Amitābha-(nāyaka~) (= K, C5, C6, r etc.) / L2, L3, Bj, N2, T8, B etc. Amitābhu- / O, D2, L1, C4, N1, etc. Amitāyu­ (= Tib. Kho. ga 45b1. TSHe mtha yas pa, Tib. Kanj. TSHe mtha’ yas pa) SP(KN) 455.5. Amitābha­(nāyaka~) (= P1, A2 etc.) / C4. Amitābhu- / L2, L3, Bj, C5, C6, B etc. tatha loka­(nāyaka~) / O, D2, K, N1. Amitāyu­ (= Tib. Kho. ga 45b2. TSe mtha’ yas pa, Tib. Kanj. TSHe mtha’ yas pa) *Amitā̆’u or *Amidā̆’u in Gāndhārī, in which the h is silent. The Gāndhārī forms ­ā̆’u could have been interpreted also as coming from Skt. āyus (“life”); cf. mi āu < Skt. āyus. hence, the form *Amitā’u (or *Amidā’u) could have meant both “Limitless Light” and “Limitless Life.” Later, however, when the trend to Sanskritize earlier mahāyāna Buddhist sutras—which must have contained more middle indic forms than the present Sanskrit versions—emerged, presumably around the beginning of the third century c.e.,12 the form *Amitā’u (or *Amidā’u) in the verses was Sanskritized incorrectly as Amitāyu by somebody who probably thought the designation “Limitless Life” was a more appropriate epithet for this Buddha. Thus, the name Amitāyu / Amitāyus (“Limitless Life”) was eventually created as a hyper-form.13 This hypothesized development, namely Amitābha > Amitā(b)hu > Amitāyu in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha, may be supported by instances of confusion among the three forms, which take place in verses 29, 30 and 32 in the Saman­ tamukha­parivarta of the Lotus Sutra.14 At irst, we shall quote the editio princeps, the edition by h. Kern and B. Nanjio. The verses in question SP(KN) 454.5–455.5) read as follows: The confusion among these three forms in the verses of the Lotus Sutra support the possibility that the development Amitābha > Amitā(b)hu > Amitāyu took place in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha. As we have seen above, in the Larger Su­ khāvatīvyūha, the form Amitābha occurs in the prose part, while Amitāyu is found only in the verses. Contrary to this, in the Smaller Su­ khāvatīvyūha, which is composed solely in prose, the secondary and later formed name Amitāyus is used exclusively except in one place where the Buddha explains why he has two names: tat kị manyase Śāriputra! kena kārạena sa tathāgato ’mitāyur nāmôcyate? tasya khalu punaḥ Śāriputra! tathāgatasya teṣạ̄ ca manuṣyạ̄ām aparimitam āyuṣpramạ̄ạ. tena kārạena sa tathāgato ’mitāyur nāmôcyate. tasya ca Śāriputra! tathāgatasya daśa kalpā anuttarạ̄ samyaksạbodhim abhisạbuddhasya. tat kị manyase Śāriputra! kena kārạena sa tathāgato ’mitābho nāmôcyate? tasya khalu punaḥ Śāriputra! tathāgatasyâbhâpratihatā sarvabuddhakṣetreṣu. tena kārạena sa tathāgato ’mitābho nāmôcyate. (Fujita 2011: 87.18–88.8) sthita dakṣịavāmatas tathā vījayanta Amitābhanāyakam | māyopama te samādhinā sarvakṣetra (read °tre) jina gandha (read gatvā) pūjiṣu || 29 || diśa paścima yatra sukhākarā lokadhātu virajā Sukhāvatī | yatra eṣa Amitābhanāyakaḥ sạprati tiṣṭhati sattvasārathiḥ || 30 || ... so caiva Amitābhanāyakaḥ padmagarbhe viraje manorame | sịhāsani sạniṣạ̣ako Śālarājo va yathā virājate || 32 || “What do you think, O Śāriputra? Why is that Tathāgata called Amitāyus? Now, O Śāriputra, the length of that Tathāgata’s life and of those men there is immeasurable. Therefore, that Tathāgata is called Amitāyus. And ten kalpas have passed, O Śāriputra, since this Tathāgata attained to unsurpassed, perfect, enlightenment. What do you think, O Śāriputra? Why is that Tathāgata called Amitābha? Now, O Śāriputra, the light of this Tathāgata spreads unimpeded over all the Buddha-lands. Therefore, that Tathāgata is called Amitābha.” in the above-quoted edition, the form Amitābha occurs three times. however, readings Amitābha, Amitābhu and Amitāyu vary among manuscripts and the Tibetan translation of the same scripture: SP(KN) 454.5. Amitābha-(nāyaka~) (= C5, C6, r etc.15) (= Tib. Kanj.16 sNang ba mtha’ yas) / L2, L3, K, Bj, N2, B etc. Amitābhu­ / O, D2, L1, C4, N1 etc. Amitāyu­ (= Tib. Kho. ga 45a717. TSe mtha’ yas) 122 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha Kōtatsu Fujita has assumed that this Buddha was worshipped under different names by different groups,18 and those who worshipped Amitābha composed the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha, while those who worshipped Amitāyus composed the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha.19 he also maintains that these two sutras were composed almost at the same time by these two groups of worshippers of the same Buddha. This theory is, however, very arbitrary. i presume that the name Amitāyu (= Amitāyus; “Limitless Life”), which had originally been a hyper-form in the verses, originating from Amitābha (“Limitless Light”), grew more and more popular as it became widely accepted as a more appropriate epithet in its own right for this Buddha and inally came to be used in prose as well. in this way, the same Buddha came to have two different names, with different meanings. however, those who worshipped this Buddha, probably knew that these two names referred to one and the same Buddha and did not think it strange, as it is common in many cultures that one god has different names or various epithets. From the transliterations used in the Dà āmítú jīng, it is evident that the underlying indian text of this oldest Chinese translation of the Larger Su­ khāvatīvyūha had been transmitted in middle indic, most probably Gāndhārī. in contrast, the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha, which appeared later than the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha, seems to have been composed in (Buddhist) Sanskrit from the beginning. The composer of the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha must have known that these two names referred to one and the same Buddha, but felt more comfortable using Amitāyus than Amitābha and might have tried to explain their being the same by means of the above-quoted sentences. my hypothesis of the development Amitābha > Amitābhu > mi. *Amitāhu > *Amitā’u > Amitāyu > Amitāyus20 was criticised harshly by Fujita as “a solely linguistic, unacceptable assumption with disregard for the development of the ideas of the Buddha.”21 however, i cannot ind grounds to relate the change from “(limitless) light” to “(limitless) life” to any theory on the development of the ideas of the Buddha, except for his arbitrary, a priori one meant to be used to support his own Amitābha / Amitāyus theory.22 The original indic form of the transliteration of this Buddha, āmítú 阿彌陀 (QYS. ʔâ mjie4[mjie:4] dâ)23 in Lokakṣema’s earliest Chinese transla- tion of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha, namely the Dà āmítú jīng might have been Amitāha or *Amidāha (probably pronounced as *Amitā’a or *Amidā’a), which are middle indic forms of Amitābha.24 Throughout the second oldest Chinese translation of the same scripture, namely the Wúliàng­ qīngjìng Píngdĕngjué jīng 無量清淨平等覺經 (T. 12, no. 361) by Zhi Qian 支謙 (l. ca. 220–257 c.e.), which is none other than a “modiied version” of the Dà āmítú jīng, the Buddha’s name is changed to wúliàngqīngjìng(f́) 無量清淨(佛) “(Buddha) of ininite Purity.” Jan Nattier assumes that this name was originally a translation of the title of the text, namely Amitābha­vyūha.25 i agree with her assumption in principle, but with some differences. As we shall see later, in the older Sanskrit manuscripts, the title of the sutra reads Amitābha­vyūha instead of Sukhāvatī­vyūha. The original title of the older Chinese translations and the Tibetan one seem to have been Amitābha­vyūha as well. The underlying title of the oldest Chinese translations, namely the Dà āmítú jīng and the Wúliàngqīngjìng Píngdĕngjué jīng, was probably its middle indic form *Amitāha­(or Amidāha­)vyūha (< Amitābha­ vyūha). Lokakṣema transliterated the Buddha’s name as Āmítú 阿彌陀 and, therefore, translated the title of the sutra as Āmítú jīng 阿彌陀經–later it was altered to Dà āmítú jīng.26 in mahāyāna Buddhist literature, the word vyūha occurs very frequently as the inal component of compounds of proper names of buddhas and bodhisattvas, e.g., Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra i § 4, Prabhāvyūha; i § 4, Mahāvyūha; i § 4, Padmavyūha; iii § 29, Śubhavyūha; Vi § 13, 44a3, Ratnavyūha etc. This might have led Zhi Qian, the probable translator of the Wúliàngqīngjìng Píngdĕngjué jīng, into misinterpreting *Amitāhavyūha as being the Buddha’s full name. he might have thought that *Amitāha in the original text and Āmítú 阿彌陀 in Lokakṣema’s translation to be abbreviated forms of *Amitāhavyūha. he then translated *Amitāha, while relating it to Skt. amita (“limitless”), as wúliàng 無量. As he consistently interpreted vyūha incorrectly in association with mi śuha (< śubha “bright”) and translated it in a peculiar fashion as qīngjìng 清淨 (“pure”),27 he might have translated -vyūha in *Amitāhavyūha as such. Thus, he changed āmítú(f́) 阿彌陀(佛) wherever it occurred in Lokakṣema’s translation to wúliàngqīngjìng(f́) 無量清淨(佛) without exception. 123 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha ii. On the Name of Amitābha’s land: Sukhāvatī / *Suhāmatī dating from the middle of the 12th century are entitled Amitābhavyūha­parivarta Sukhāvatī­ vyūha, while the remaining 36, being paper manuscripts, which were copied between the end of the 17th century and the irst half of the 20th century,34 are entitled Amitābhavyūha­ parivarta Sukhāvatīvyūha, Amitābhasya vyūha­ parivarta Sukhāvatīvyūha, śrīAmitābhasya Sukhāvatī­vyūha nāma mahāyānasūtra, śrī­ madAmitābhasya tathāgatasya Sukhāvatīvyūha­ mahāyānasūtra, Amitābhasya parivarta Sukhāvatīvyūha­mahāyānasūtra.35 A relatively old manuscript of a Tibetan translation of this scripture, preserved in the manuscript collection of the Tabo monastery in the Spiti Valley, himachal Pradesh, northern india, bears Sanskrit and Tibetan titles, namely āryaAmitābhabyūha (i.e., °vyūha) nāma mahāyānasūtra and ’phags pa ’Od dpag myed kyi bkod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo’.36 The Tibetan translation of this sutra in the Kanjur is found in the ifth chapter of the Mahāratnakūṭasūtra, under the titles ’Od dpag med kyi bkod pa’i le’u (*Amitābhavyūha­ parivarta), de bzhin gshegs pa ’Od dpag med kyi bkod pa’i le’u (*Amitābhasya tathāgatasya vyūha­parivarta), ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa ’Od dpag (v.l. dpag tu) med pa’i bkod pa zhes bya ba’i le’u (*ārya­Amitābhasya tathāgatasya vyūha nāma parivarta), de bzhin gshegs pa ’Od dpag tu med pa’i sangs rgyas kyi zhing gi yon tan bkod pa (*Amitābhasya tathāgatasya buddhakṣetragụavyūha), de bzhin gshegs pa ’Od dpag tu med pa’i sangs rgyas kyi zhing gi bkod pa’i le’u (*Amitābhasya tathāgatasya buddhakṣetravyūha­parivarta). it should be noted that in the Tibetan translations, this sutra is not entitled Sukhāvatīvyūha, but is referred to as Amitābhavyūha or Amitā­ bhasya vyūha. Also, in the Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts and some of the paper copies, it is entitled Amitābhavyūha­parivarta Sukhāvatī­ vyūha and Amitābhasya vyūha­parivarta Su­ khāvatīvyūha. From these facts, i presume that this sutra originally had the title Amitābhavyūha, Amitābhasya vyūha or the like37 and the name Sukhāvatīvyūha, which appears only in the Sanskrit manuscripts, was added later as its subtitle. moreover, the original texts of most of the Chinese translations could have also been entitled Amitābhavyūha or the like. We shall now examine the titles of these translations. The Dà āmítú jīng contains other noteworthy transliterations which indicate that its original language was middle indic, most probably Gāndhārī, e.g., tíhéjiélú 提惒竭羅 (QYS. diei γwâ gjɐt[gjät3] lâ; *Dīvagara < Dīpạkara; 300b21), héĺugèn 廅28樓亘 (QYS. ʔâp ləu sjwän; *Avalo . . . svar < Avalokita­svara; 308b15, 21, 309a15) etc. Amitābha’s Buddhaland (Sukhāvatī) is transliterated as xūḿtí 須 摩題 (QYS. sju muâ diei; 303b18), from which one may assume the underlying form was *Suhā̆matī or °adī, where the intervocalic h is silent, common in Gāndhārī. in the modiied translation of the same text (T. 12, no. 361), Zhi Qian changed this transliteration to xūḿtí 須摩提 (QYS. sju muâ diei; *Suhāmatī or °adī; 282c29, 288c9), while transliterating anew the name of the land as xūātí 須阿提 (QYS. sju ʔâ diei; *Suhā(v)atī, or °adī?; 288b25).29 The latter occurs only once in a verse, which is wanting in Lokakṣema’s translation. 30 A later Chinese translator, Nie Daozhen 聶道真 (l. beginning of the 4th century c.e.), transliterated the name of the same land as xūhēḿtí 須呵摩提 (QYS. sju xâ muâ diei; *Suhāmatī or °adī?; T. 14, no. 483, 666c-1, 668a17) and xūhēḿchí 須訶摩持 (QYS. sju xâ muâ ḍï; *Suhāmatī or °adī?; T. 24, no. 1502, 1116b3).31 in Khotanese, we ind the word Suhāvaẗ32 for this Buddha-land. From these facts, we can therefore presume that Amitābha’s land had been called, at an earlier stage, *Suhāmatī (or °adī) or *Suhāvatī (or °adī), where the h is silent, but not Sukhāvatī. Although Zhi Qian translated it as ānlègú 安樂 國 “the Land of happiness” (288c6) in one verse, we are not sure whether the name was originally meant as such or not.33 iii. On the Titles of the Chinese Translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Though the Sanskrit version of the Larger Su­ khāvatīvyūha is generally referred to as such in modern books, the real titles found in the Sanskrit manuscripts and the Tibetan translations vary greatly. Among the extant Sanskrit manuscripts from Nepal, two palm-leaf manuscripts 124 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha III.1. D̀ āmítú jīng 大阿彌陀經 (T. 12, no. 362)38 used at times in early Chinese translations as a transliteration for indic ap(a), av(a), was discontinued completely in later translations, leading it to be miswritten as gài 蓋 or gài 盖. Therefore it is quite probable that this not so often used character hé 廅 was miswritten as sà 薩, as their shapes resemble each other. Also, the character gèn 亘, which in the irst place had not been understood properly, was then hyper-formed to tán 檀, containing dàn 旦 on the right side of the character. This title, then, may mean “Amitā(b)ha *samyāsạbuddha43 (and) Avalokitasvara save human beings.” This was probably not the original indian title, but rather given by the translator or somebody else in a later period, summarising the content of the sutra—according to this sutra (309a14f.), after Amitā(b)ha’s parinirvạ̄a, Avalokitasvara succeeded him as a Buddha and began to rescue (guòdù 過度) human beings and other various sentient beings as Amitā(b)ha does. This oldest Chinese translation by Lokakṣema39 is generally called Dà āmítú jīng 大阿彌陀經. however, the title Āmítú jīng 阿彌陀經, as some editions read, might have been the original translation of the title of the underlying text. After the appearance of the translation of the Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūha by Kumārajīva, which was entitled also Āmítú jīng 阿彌陀經 (T. 12, no. 366), the character dà 大 “larger” was added to the title of no. 362 in order to differentiate it from no. 366, and thus the more familiar title Dà āmítú jīng 大阿彌陀經 came into being. As stated above, from the title Āmítú jīng 阿彌陀經, one may presume *Amitāha­vyūha or *Amidāha­vyūha (< Amitābhavyūha) as its underlying form. in the Koryo and Jin editions, there is a very long title at the beginning of the sutra, which reads āmítú sānyēsānf́ sàĺu{f́}tán guòdù réndào jīng 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓{佛}檀過度人道經 (the second f́ 佛 should be deleted according to ancient catalogues), while in the other editions and also at other places (namely, at the end of the irst and the beginning of the second juan as well as at the end of the sutra) in the same Koryo and Jin editions, the title reads simply Āmítú jīng 阿彌陀經 or the Amitā(b)ha sutra instead. Also, an old catalogue, namely the Chu­ sanzangji ji 出三藏記集, which was compiled in the Liang Tianlan Period (502–519 c.e.), states: “Āmítú jīng 阿彌陀經. Two juans. The title inside the book reads āmítú sānyēsānf́ sàĺután guòdù réndào jīng 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓檀過度人 道經,”40 indicating that the long title was originally a subtitle. moreover, in the Púsà Shòuzhāi jīng 菩薩受齋經, which was allegedly translated by Nie Daozhen 聶道真 (l. beginning of the 4th century c.e.)—but is more likely a composition made in China under the inluence of the Dà āmítú jīng 大阿彌陀經 and others—we ind the following similar expression: “i take refuge in Ed ē or é Āmítú­sānyēsānf́tán 阿彌陀三耶三佛檀 in the west (and) the bodhisattvas, Héĺugèn 廅樓亘 and Ḿhēnàbō 摩訶那鉢.”41 The original form of the longer title and its meaning are both enigmatic. however, i am inclined to agree with Prof. Chen Jinhua’s hypothesis that sàĺu{f́}tán 薩樓{佛}檀 is a corruption of héĺugèn 廅樓亘, which is an incomplete transliteration of Avalokitasvara.42 The character hé 廅 (QYS. ʔâp), which had been III.2. Wúlìngqīngjìng píngdĕngjué jīng 無量清淨平等覺經 (T. 12, no. 361) This version is quite likely a modiication of the Dà āmítú jīng 大阿彌陀經 undertaken by Zhi Qian. As we have already seen above, wúliàngqīngjìng 無量清淨 was probably Zhi Qian’s peculiar translation of *Amitāha­vyūha. The word píngdĕngjué 平等覺 was the standard rendering of samyaksạbuddha and so, from the Chinese title, we can reconstruct *samyaksạbuddhasya Amitāhasya vyūha as its original form. however, i assume that Zhi Qian simply added the word píngdĕngjué 平等覺, based on sānyēsānf́ 三耶三 佛 (*samyāsạbuddha < samyaksạbuddha) in the long title of the Dà āmítú jīng 大阿彌陀經. III.3. Wúlìngshòu jīng 無量壽經 (T. 12, no. 360) This translation is most likely the work of Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 (359–429 c.e.) and Baoyun 寶雲 and hence dating from 421 c.e. From the Chinese title, one might suppose *Amitāyur­vyūha as its original, but i presume the underlying title of this translation is more likely to have been Amitābha­vyūha. The word wúliàngshòu 無量 壽 is found in many places in this translation, where the Sanskrit version reads Amitābha,44 125 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha which indicates the translators’ preference of wúliàngshòu 無量壽 over wúliàngguāng 無量光. Probably, owing to this preference, the title was rendered as Wúliàngshòu jīng 無量壽經 instead of *Wúliàngguāng jīng 無量光經. SP(KN) = h. Kern and B. Nanjio, eds. Saddharmapụ­ ḍarīka. St. Petersburg, 1908–1912 Sukh(F) = reading of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha in Fujita 2011 Sukh(SC) = reading of the fragments of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha possibly from the Bamiyan area in harrison et al. 2002 T = J. Takakusu and K. Watanabe, eds. Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō 大正新修大藏經. 100 vols. Tokyo, 1924–1934 Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra = Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, ed. Bonzōkan Taisho Yuimagyō 梵藏漢対照『維摩經』 Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: Trans­ literated Sanskrit Text Collated with Tibetan and Chinese Translations. The institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University. Tokyo, 2004 ~ = Stem of a word, e.g., dharma~ ° = except for letters, following or preceding the sign, the word is the same as the preceding one α < β = The form α comes from β III.4. Wúlìngshòurúlái huì 無量壽如來會 (T. 11, no. 310.5) This translation, belonging to the Chinese Ma­ hāratnakūṭasūtra, was translated between 706– 713 c.e. by Bodhiruci (l. 693–713). From this Chinese title, one may presume *Amitāyuṣaḥ tathāgatasya vyūha­parivarta as its original title. however, just as in the case of the Wúliàngshòu jīng 無量壽經, the translator rendered Amitābha as wúliàngshòu 無量壽, because of its popularity in China. i believe, therefore, that the underlying title of this translation was probably *Amitābhasya tathāgatasya vyūha­parivarta, which corresponds to one of the above-quoted Tibetan titles. Notes * i am greatly indebted to Dr. Peter Skilling, Dr. Timothy Lenz, ms. Liang Ye Tan and rev. Peter Lait for carefully reading through this manuscript and making numerous valuable suggestions and corrections. III.5. D̀shèng wúlìngshòu zhuāngyán jīng 大乘無量壽莊嚴經 (T. 12, no. 363) 1. When a certain text was translated into Chinese more than once and such translations are extant, we are able to trace the development of that text as well. For this purpose, it is particularly of great advantage that the Chinese translations usually supply the translators’ names, which can be then dated, though these may not always be correct. 2. Cf. Karashima 1997: 138; 1999a: p. 141, n. 34. Cf. also Nattier 2006: 190ff. 3. Though this is attributed to Zhi Qian, it is most probably by Lokakṣema; cf. Okayama 1980, Kagawa 1993: 17–29, harrison 1998: 556–57 and harrison et al. 2002: 179–81. The counter-arguments by Fujita (2007: 39ff.), who clings to its credit to Zhi Qian, following the Chinese catalogues of the Chinese Tripiṭaka, are awkward. 4. e.g., “Bodhisattva Dharmākara, subsequently became a buddha, namely *Amitāha Buddha, who (possesses) the foremost wisdom, vigour and unparalleled light. The land, in which he lives, at present, is extremely wonderful.” (其曇摩迦菩薩至其然後，自致得 作佛，名阿彌陀佛。最尊智慧勇猛，光明無比。今現在所 居國土甚快善; 301a16f.). 5. *Olokitasvara is an older form of Avalokitasvara, which is, in its turn, an earlier form of Avalokiteśvara; cf. Karashima 1999b. 6. Some relatively new paper manuscripts have, in a verse, Amitābhasya (Sukh[F] 53.6), which does not This was translated in 991 c.e. by the Songdynasty translator Faxian 法賢 or Dharmabhadra. From this Chinese title, one may infer *Amitā­ yuṣaḥ vyūha­mahāyānasūtra as its original, though i presume that the underlying title of this translation was probably *Amitābhasya vyūha­ mahāyānasūtra as well. Abbreviations and Symbols Ap = m. e. Lilley, ed. Pali Text Society. The Apadāna of the Khuddaka Nikāya. 2 vols. London, 1925, 1927 BhSG = F. edgerton. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Gram­ mar. New haven, 1953 do. = ditto mi = middle indic QYS = reconstruction of the Qieyun 切韻 System. in this article, Qieyun System forms, reconstructed by Karlgren and revised by F. K. Li, are used. The following further notational changes, made by Coblin (1994), are also adopted here: 1. •- will be written as ʔ-, 2. ě will be written as e, 3. Division iii and iV chongniu 重紐 inals will be redundantly identiied with superscripts “3” and “4” 126 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha between 47–147 c.e. (cf. Falk 2011: 20–23; Falk and Karashima 2012: 19–61; 2013: 97–169). This Gāndhārī version is therefore probably contemporary with the original text of the Dàoxíng Bānrě jīng 道行般若經, the oldest Chinese translation of the same scripture by Lokakṣema in 179 c.e. Actually, the transliterations, found in the latter, suggest that its original language was Gāndhārī (cf. Karashima 2013). On the other hand, there are also fragments of a Sanskrit manuscript of the same scripture, discovered in Bāmiyān and now preserved in the Schøyen Collection and elsewhere, which are written in an old Brāhmī script of the Kuṣạ̄a period, supposedly dating back to the second half of the third century c.e. based on palaeographical evidence (Sander 2000: 288). moreover, a Gāndhārī fragment from Afghanistan, now in the Schøyen Collection, shows the Sanskritization of Gāndhārī, for example, the long vowel ā is marked by a point beneath the characters. Also, the Sanskritic ligatures, such as śca, dhya, jña, ṣṭha, are used as well. Although a C14 test gave its age between 72–245 c.e., its actual date is thought to fall towards the upper end of this range, according to its palaeographic features (Allon and Salomon 2006: 289). From these, i presume that the Sanskritization of Buddhist texts, which were originally transmitted in middle indic, including Gāndhārī, occurred around the beginning of the third century c.e. 13. in the earlier Chinese translations made in the han Dynasty, neither the transcription nor the translation of Amitāyus (“Limitless Life”) is found (cf. Nattier 2006: 196). This fact also demonstrates that Amitāyus is a secondary form of Amitābha. 14. As these verses are wanting in the Chinese translations, they are probably later interpolations in the Sanskrit versions. 15. The abbreviations of the Sanskrit manuscripts of the Saddharmapụḍarīkasūtra are as follows: A2 = ms. kept in the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, No. 4199; B = Or. 2204, ms. kept in the British Library; Bj = ms. formerly kept in the Library of the Cultural Palace of the Nationalities, Beijing (written in 1082 c.e.); C4, C5, C6 = mss. kept in the Cambridge University Library, Add. No. 1683, No. 1684, No. 2197; D2 = Gilgit ms. kept in the National Archives of india (New Delhi); K = ms. kept in the Tōyō Bunko, Tokyo (written in 1069/ 70 c.e.; brought from Tibet by rev. e. Kawaguchi); L1 = ms. kept in the Potala Palace, Lhasa; L2, L3 = mss. now kept in the Norbulingka, Lhasa, (written in 1065 c.e. and 1067 c.e., respectively); N1, N2 = mss. kept in the National Archives of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nos. 4–21, Nos. 3–678, respectively; O = the so-called Kashgar manuscript, actually discovered in Khādaliq but purchased in Kashgar; P1 = ms. kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, No. 138–39; r = ms. kept in the royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and ireland, London, No. 6; T8 = ms. kept in the Library of the University of Tokyo, No. 414. match the metre, while an older palm-leaf manuscript reads Amitāsya instead, which is a better and apparently more original reading (see Fujita 1992–1996, ii 990). in other verses, Amitaprabha, a synonym of Amitābha is used: Sukh(F) 51.10 (Amitaprabhasya), 57.2 (do.). 7. Sukh(F) 50.6 (Amitāyu), 10 (Amita­āyu), 51.4 (Amitāyu), 8 (Amita­āyu), 53.8 (Amitāyu), 55.11 (Amitāyu). 8. Sukh(SC) 194.7 (prose: Amitābha~), 194.9 (do.), 195.20 (do.), 195.24 (do.), 197.10 (do.); 209.9 (verse: Amitāyu). 9. For example, the latter half of the following sentence: Sukh(F) 35.14–15. aparimitam eva tasya bhaga­ vata āyuṣpramạ̄am aparyantam. tena sa tathāgato ’mitāyur ity ucyate (“. . . the measure of the life span of that blessed one is unlimited. Therefore, that tathagata is called Amitayus [‘measureless Life’]” [Ǵmez 1996: 83]), inds its parallel only in the Tibetan translation (cf. Kagawa 1984: 186–87). Just after this sentence, the form Amitāyus appears in the Sanskrit version (Sukh[F] 35.17), while its Tibetan parallel reads ’Od dpag med (Amitābha) and the Chinese parallels read āmítú 阿彌陀, wúliàngqīngjìngf́ 無量清淨佛 or simply “the Buddha” (cf. Kagawa 1984: 188–89). Cf. also Fujita 1970: 307f. 10. The form Amitāha is attested in Pali as a variant reading for Amitābha, the name of a cakkavatti: Ap 210.2 Amitābho (v.l. Amitāho) ti nāmena cakkavattī mahabbalo. 11. in middle indic and Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, when a short vowel is required for metrical reasons in verses, a masculine nominative singular ­aḥ / -o becomes ­u or ­a; cf. BhSG §§ 8.20, 8.22. 12. According to Damsteegt, who investigated hybrid Sanskrit inscriptions from mathurā, Buddhists there had already started using Sanskritized middle indic to write inscriptions between the latter half of the irst century and the second century and in the Kuṣạ̄a period, i.e., 200–350 c.e. (he follows the theory that Kaniṣka became the king of the Kushans in 200 c.e. On the basis of harry Falk’s research, however, Kaniṣka’s reign is now believed to have begun in 127 c.e.) Sanskrit came to be used in inscriptions. This practice of using Sanskritized language in Buddhist inscriptions spread from mathurā to other regions. Parallel to this development, the language in Buddhist texts must have been Sanskritized gradually in this period as well (Damsteegt 1978: 264–66). On the other hand, no Sanskritization is found in the language of the northwestern inscriptions of the pre-Kushan Period (ibid.: 207–8). it is only from the age of the Kuṣạ̄as that Sanskritized Buddhist inscriptions started to appear (ibid.: 221). recently, fragments of a Gāndhārī version of the Aṣṭasahasrikā Prajñāpāramitā were discovered in northern Pakistan and these are thought to date back, with an 81.1% probability based on a C14 test, to 127 k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha 39. Cf. n. 3. 40. 《阿彌陀經》二巻 内題云《阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓檀 過度人道經》(T. 55, no. 2145, 6c25). 41. 歸命西方阿彌陀三耶三佛檀，廅樓亘，摩訶那鉢菩 薩 (T. 24, no. 1502, 1116b28f.). i should like to thank Jan Nattier for drawing my attention to this reference in a personal communication. 42. Personal communication, may 2003. 43. Cf. Skt. samyaksạbuddha; Pāli sammāsạ­ buddha; Gāndhārī samasabudha. 44. Cf. Fujita 1970: 301–2. 16. Tib. Kanj. = The Dam pa’i chos padma dkar po in the Kanjur; see Karashima 2008: 215–16. 17. Tib. Kho. = An old manuscript of a Tibetan translation of the Lotus Sutra from Khotan, now kept in the National museum of ethnography, Stockholm; see Karashima 2008: 215–16. 18. Fujita 2007: 287ff. 19. Fujita 2007: 4, 140, 296. 20. Cf. Nattier 2006: 190. 21. Fujita 2007: p. 247, n. 5. 22. Fujita 2007: 249ff. 23. As Nattier points out (2006: 188ff; see esp. 194– 95), if the original word were Amita, as maintained by some scholars, Lokakṣema would have transliterated it as *āmì 阿蜜 instead of āmítú 阿彌陀 in the same way as āyì 阿逸 (Skt. Ajita) or bōlúmì 波羅蜜 (Skt. pāramitā). 24. Cf. Karashima 1997: 138; 1999a: p. 141, n. 34. 25. Nattier 2007: 382ff. 26. See iii.1 in this article. 27. Cf. Nattier 2007: 371ff.; Karashima 2010: 18ff. 28. The Taishō edition reads 蓋 instead, while its basic text, the Koryō edition (高麗藏), reads 盖. The other editions correctly read 廅. 29. Xūātí 須阿提 might be a scribal error for xūhētí *須呵題 (QYS. sju xâ diei; *Suhātī, *Suhādī), though no extant editions or manuscripts support this reading. 30. Lokakṣema’s translation completely lacks verses, although they are found in the other versions, including Zhi Qian’s translation. in other words, Zhi Qian, who otherwise just copied and modiied the preexisting Lokakṣema’s translation, translated the verses to ill up his modiied translation. 31. For other transliterations for *Suhāmati, found in later Chinese translations, see Nishimura 1987: 113ff. 32. The Book of Zambasta §14.47 (emmerick 1968: 218). 33. From these middle indic forms, we can suppose *Sudhāvatī/*Sudhāmatī (< sudhā “the beverage of the gods, nectar, ambrosia” + vat/mat sufix) as a possible alternative, though sudhā would have become *susa in Gāndhārī. 34. Cf. Fujita 1992–1996: i vii–xii, iii v–vi and Fujita 2007: 19ff. 35. Cf. Fujita 1992–1996: ii 1472–73, iii 484. 36. Cf. harrison 2009: 94, § 1.3.3.5. There, byū tha stands instead of byū ha (i.e., vyūha), though the former must be a misprint. 37. Cf. the Sanskrit title, ārya­Akṣobhyasya tathā­ gatasya byūha nāma mahāyānasūtra and the Tibetan one ’phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa Mi ’khrugs pa’i bkod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo’ found in the Tibetan translation of the *Akṣobhyavyūha in the Tabo Collection; see harrison 2009: 94, § 1.3.3.6. 38. i am in the process of publishing a Japanese annotated translation of this text: Karashima 1999a–. references Allon and Salomon 2000 Coblin 1994 Damsteegt 1978 emmerick 1968 Falk 2011 Falk and Karashima 2012 Falk and Karashima 2013 Fujita 1970 Fujita 1992–1996 128 m. Allon and r. Salomon. “Kharoṣṭhī Fragments of a Gāndhārī Version of the mahāparịirvạ̄a-sūtra.” in Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 1, ed. J. Braarvig et al., 243–73, manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, vol. 1. Oslo. W. S. Coblin. A Compendium of Phonetics in Northwest Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics monograph Series, vol. 7. Berkeley. T. Damsteegt. Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit: Its Rise, Spread, Characteristics and Relationship to Buddhist Hy­ brid Sanskrit. Leiden. r. e. emmerick. The Book of Zambasta: A Khotanese Poem on Buddhism. London. h. Falk. “The ‘Split’ Collection of Kharoṣṭhī Texts.” ARIRIAB 14: 13–23 + pls. 7–8. h. Falk and S. Karashima. “A First-Century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra— parivarta 1 (Text from the Split Collection 1).” ARIRIAB 15: 19–61 + pls. 5–7. . “A First-Century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra—parivarta 5 (Text from the Split Collection 1).” ARIRIAB 16: 97–169 + pls. 52–53. K. Fujita 藤田宏達. Genshi Jōdo Shisō no Kenkyū 原始浄土思想 の研究 (A study of early Pure Land Buddhism). Tokyo. . The Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha: Romanized k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha Fujita 2007 Fujita 2011 Ǵmez 1996 harrison 1998 harrison 2009 harrison et al. 2002 Kagawa 1984 Kagawa 1993 Karashima 1997 Karashima 1999a– Text of the Sanskrit Manu­ scripts from Nepal. 3 vols. Tokyo. . Jōdo Sanbukyō no Kenkyū 浄土三部経の研究 (A study of the Three Pure Land sūtras). Tokyo. . The Larger and Smaller Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra. Kyoto. L. O. Ǵmez. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light. Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutras. honolulu. P. harrison. “Women in the Pure Land: Some relections on the Textual Sources.” Jour­ nal of Indian Philosophy 26.6: 553–72. . Tabo Studies III: A Catalogue of the Manuscript Collection of Tabo Monastery. Vol. 1, Sutra Texts (Ser phyin, Phal chen, dKon brtsegs, mDo sde, Myan ’das). rome. P. harrison, J.-U. hartmann and K. matsuda. “Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra.” in Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 2, ed. J. Braarvig et al., 179–214. manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, vol. 3. Oslo. T. Kagawa 香川孝雄. Muryōjukyō no Shohon Taishō Kenkyū 無量壽經の諸本對照 研究 (A comparative study of the texts of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha). Kyoto. . Jōdokyō no Seirit­ sushiteki Kenkyū 浄土教の成 立史的研究 [The origins and development of Pure Land Buddhism]. Tokyo. S. Karashima 辛嶋静志. “Dai Amida kyō ganmon yaku” 『大阿弥陀経』願文訳 (A Japanese translation of the vows in the Da Amituo jing). Kyōka Kenkyū 教化研究 117: 135–45. . “Daiamidakyō Yakuchū” 『大阿彌陀經』訳 注 (An annotated Japanese translation of the earliest Chinese version of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha). in Bukkyō Karashima 1999b Karashima 2008 Karashima 2010 Karashima 2013 Nattier 2006 Nattier 2007 Nishimura 1987 Okayama 1980 129 Daigaku Sōgōkenkyūjo Kiyō 佛 教大学総合研究所紀要 (Bulletin of the research institute of Bukkyo University) 6: 135–50; 7: 95–104; 8: 133–46; 10: 27–34; 11: 77–96; 12: 5–20; 13: 1–11; 14: 1–17; 17: 1–13. . “hokekyō no Bunkengakuteki Kenkyū (2)” 法華経の文献学的研究（二）–– 観音Avalokitasvaraの語義解釈 (Philological remarks on the Lotus Sutra (2)—On the name Avalokitasvara). ARIRIAB 2: 39–66. . “An Old Tibetan Translation of the Lotus Sutra from Khotan: The romanised Text Collated with the Kanjur Version (4).” ARIRIAB 11: 177–301 + 21 pls. . “Amida Jōdo no Genhūkei” 阿弥陀浄土の 原風景 (The original landscape of Amitābha’s “Pure Land”). Bukkyū Daigaku Sōgōkenkyūjo Kiyō 佛教大学 総合研究所紀要 (Bulletin of the research institute of Bukkyo University) 17: 15–44. . “Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?” ARIRIAB 16: 171–88. J. Nattier. “The Names of Amitābha/Amitāyus in early Chinese Buddhist Translations (1).” ARIRIAB 9: 183–99. . “The Names of Amitabha/Amitayus in early Chinese Buddhist Translations (2).” ARIRIAB 10: 359–94. m. Nishimura 西村実則. “Gandāra go bukkyōken to kanyaku butten ガンダーラ語 仏教圏と漢訳仏典” (Gāndhārī and Chinese translations of the Buddhist texts). in Sankō Bunka Kenkyūjo Nenpō 三康 文化研究所年報 (Annual report of the Sankō research institute for the Studies of Buddhism) 20: 49–125. h. Okayama 丘山新. “Dai Amida kyō yakusha ni k a r a s h i m a : On Amitābha, Amitāyu(s), Sukhāvatī and the Amitābhavyūha Sander 2000 kansuru ichi kasetsu” 『大阿 弥陀経』訳者に関する一仮説 (A hypothesis on the translator of the Da Amituo jing). Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 印度學佛 敎學硏究 (Journal of indian and Buddhist Studies) 28.2: 227–30. 130 L. Sander. “A Brief Paleographical Analysis of the Brāhmī manuscripts in Volume i.” in Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 1, ed. J. Braarvig et al., 285–300. manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, vol. 1. Oslo.