Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Parivarta as well as 71 and 72 of his Group B respectively. The same is true for serial
no. 52a (FE page 3306), which consists of the right half of folio 102a,b in S.
Watanabes edition and of folios 65 and 98 of GroupB (FE pages 3496/3495 and
3499/3500) buried in serial no. 50, which otherwise contains folios of a large
Prajpramit text. Lastly, serial no.48 (FE pages 3121-3216) contains 48 folios of S.
Watanabes Group C, which were edited by Hirofumi Toda:
Saddharmapuarkastra Gilgit Manuscripts (Groups B and C), in: Tokushima
Daigaku Kyybu Kiy (Jinbun-Shakai Kagaku) 14. 1979, p. 249-304, particularly p.
249-300. Twenty additional folios of this manuscript were edited later also by H. Toda:
Gilgit Manuscripts (Tuccis Collection) Group C, in: Tokushima Daigaku Kyybu
Rinrigakka kiy 15. 1988. This transcript is based on photos preserved in Rome and
published by Raniero Gnoli: The Gilgit Manuscript of the Saddharmapuarkastram,
in: Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata. Vol. 11. Serie Orientale Roma LVI, 2.
Rome 1987, p. 533 and plates I-XX. Lastly, seven folios are preserved in the British
Library. Only this part of the manuscript appears in S. Watanabes edition as Group
C.
Finally, a large fragment of a fourth Gilgit manuscript comprising 30 folios which
are preserved today in Kashmir (the exact location is not known) was edited by O.v.
Hinber: A new fragmentary manuscript of the Saddharmapuarkastra. Tokyo 19827.
A facsimile of all fragments accompanies by this edition.
Apart from this facsimile, the Gilgit manuscripts of the Saddharmapuarkastra
are also available in black and white facsimiles, which were published from Delhi
between 1959 and 1974 by Lokesh Chandra as mentioned in note 4. Furthermore,
Saddharmapuarkastra manuscripts are also available electronically as facsimiles
reproduced from various microfilms of the National Archives at Delhi on a set of
CD-ROMs published by the Rissho University. Here, the Gilgit manuscripts are found
on CD-ROM Vol. II nos. 9 and 10 containing only the serial numbers 44, 45, and 47.
All of the Gilgit manuscripts of the Saddharmapuarkastra are written on birch
bark, with the notable exception of manuscript no. 48 (Group C) written on so called
clay-coated paper, which was described and chemically analysed by R. Kishore: A
Clay-coated manuscript in the Gilgit Collection. The Indian Archives. New Delhi 15.
1963/63, p. 1-3. This is the only Gilgit manuscript in its entirety written on this
particular sort of paper, while very few other manuscripts, e.g., no. 36 Saghastra
(manuscript F) are written partly on birch bark and partly on paper.
Only rarely colophons of the Gilgit manuscripts are preserved. By lucky
coincidence, two Saddharmapuarkastra manuscripts are among them. This is of
eminent interest and importance, because the persons mentioned in the colophons as
donors of the manuscript are, at the same time, the first worshippers of the
Saddharmapuarkastra, whom we know by name. These names were probably kept
alive in the local Buddhist community also after the manuscript was donated. For it is
said in the ayansanavastu of the Mlasarvstivdavinaya8:
ukta ca bhagavat abhyattaklagatn dnapatn nmn daki deavy iti.
saghasthaviro bhyattaklagatn dnapatn arthya gth bhate
And it was said by the Lord: Reward must be ascribed by name to the deceased,
passed away donors.
The senior-most monk in the community recites a verse for the benefit of the deceased,
passed away donors.
Although this paragraph refers to the donation of a monastery, it is not at all unlikely
that other donations such as manuscripts, which were held in high esteem, were also
accompanied by a recitation of the names of those who donated them. Moreover, it
seems likely although this is not clearly stated in the text quoted above that it was a
custom to repeat the recitation of the names of the deceased donors to keep alive their
memory. Thus it is not impossible that the names of the donors of the
Saddharmapuarkastra were remembered in Gilgit over a longer period of time.
Fortunately, it is certain that we have at least the colophon to manuscript C,
because the end of the text immediately precedes the colophon, or better colophons. For
there is first a colophon added to the text of the Saddharmapuarkastra and a second
one composed by and for the donors of the individual manuscripts. The colophon
attached to manuscript a colophon with a string of attributes praising the
Saddharmapuarkastra is used comprising the verse:
agrakar ghitv kramya kurasastara.
gantavya kulaputrea yatra stram ida[] bhavet.
A son of a good family must go where the Stra is (even)
after having dived into pits (filled with) burning coals, having stepped upon scattered
razors.
This line is continued until the end of the Nepalese manuscript tradition in the 19th
century, while this verse (and other verses added occasionally) are missing in a second
line of the manuscript tradition, which begins in the 11th century in Nepal9.
Lerapukhra. (39) (his?) deceased son laphana. (40) the deceased Mitaphara. (41) the
deceased Khukha/12/ + ()a. (42) the deceased Si + + + + +. (43) the deceased
Vlosiigha.
This, then, is the first time in the history of Indian Buddhism that a group of lay people
venerating the Saddharmapuarkastra speaks to us directly.
The names are discussed in some detail in Die Kolophone der
Gilgit-Handschriften12. They point to fairly international group of donors. Names
ending in pha(r)a (nos 9, 23, 28, 36, 39, 40) show Iranian influence as does no. 38
Lera-pukhra containing the Iranian, possibly Bactrian or Parthian word for son
pukhra13, wichi is also discussed below. On the other hand those containing the element
purue (nos. 5 and 17) point to a local language of the Gilgit area, Burushaski, as do
those formed with khukha/khukhu (nos. 34, 35, 41). Others are hybrid names such as the
Burushaski-Iranian name no. 23 Khukhuphana, and many are simply obscure.
It is not only the large number of names that point to a major donation. There are
three monks involved in this project (nos. 11, 12, 14), the first two being senior monks
as mahdharmabhakas. Obviously, the more venerable monk, as indicated by his
titles Mahdharmabhaka and crya, Kraydhana Kalyatrta is named first. The
word kraydhana or perhaps rather kraydhara as read by Sylvain Lvi is obscure but
should also be a title14. The next person is the Mahdharmabhaka the monk
Dhrarmedramati, whose name corresponds to standard Sanskrit Dharmendramati. The
peculiar linguistic form of his name is of particular interest because dhrarma instead of
dharma shows a typically north-western linguistic feature the so-called Dardic
metathesis of liquids, which confirms that this was a local monk and, consequently,
that the donation was in all likelihood a local project.
The following name no. 13 Aauliya Sacavama is enigmatic. The name in itself
is obscure; aauliya or aauli should be a title, higher in rank than that of a simple
monk (bhiku), because Sacavama precedes the bhiku Kema.
It should be noted that the names of all three monks are Sanskrit, while otherwise
names that could be derived from Sanskrit constitute a small minority of six out of
probably 44 persons enumerated (2, 4 , 8 , 10, 18a[?], 19). For, given the obscure
derivation of most names, it is by no means always clear how to segment names and
titles, and consequently to arrive at an exact number of donors.
Fourteen of the at least forty-four persons mentioned in the colophon were dead at
the moment of the donation (nos. 30-43), and, consequently, the merit made was
transferred to them. The first among the deceased is no. 30 the father Cikirira, and it is
remarkable that there is a second living person also named Cikirira (no. 15). Most
likely the deceased Cikirira was the father of the principal donor Lerakia, who might
be an Iranian, if no. 38 Lerapukhra is compared15. Moreover no. 20 Buri-kia can be
compared to no. 1 Lera-kia, and, furthermore no. 16 Bur-sukha to Buri-kia. If Lera
is the son of Lerakia, he is named after his father as is Mamu-pukhra after his mother
(see below).
It is striking that at a first glance not a single woman seems to have participated in
the donation, because all names end in (y)ena, a masculine ending. This is all the more
astonishing once the Gilgit bronzes are compared where women abound. However, this
impression is a deception, because in these formulas masculine case endings are also
used with feminine personal names. Therefore, names such as iriyena may well be
ending in r, and could be feminine (or masculine, of course). However, no. 24
Pevoh certainly is a lady, as are most likely no. 25 Dai, no . 26 rar, no. 27 Mulri,
and no. 19 Magalar, and moreover, no. 2 iri (r), perhaps the wife of Lerakia
placed next to him (?) and no. 4 Mahr. Thus at least seven ladies are mentioned.
Masculine names ending in -o(h)a- are well attested in the inscriptions along the
Upper Indus, the area where all these people most likely lived, and these names have
regularly feminine forms ending in -o(h)-. Thus, the name Pevoh again points
inhabitants of the (perhaps wider) Gilgit area as donors.
It is not entirely certain whether or not a stray folio without pagination contains the
colophon to manuscript A, which is connected only tentatively to this manuscript by
S. Watanabe. The size however seems to fit. The reading of the colophon, which was
published in Die Palola his, no. 40B p. 80 could be improved in many places by the
help of the excellent photos prepared for the planned new facsimile edition16.
/1/ ] (s)ya. (1) tath srdha mahraddhopsik mamuiriyena. (2) mamupukhrasya.
(3) tath srdha vlopharasya (4) tath srdha mahga[]{ja}pati dlka agaco
/2/ [ ... tath] srdha (5) sadvidavagturea. (6) tath srdha mah(ha)
ramatideapharasya. (7) tah srdha kht-puruea gakhrapatin. (8) tath
srdha sa /3/ [ ] sarvasatvn anut(!)a{ra}jnavpuny bhavati.
The first half of the folio containing approximately 18 akaras in each line is lost, if
complete folios of this manuscript are compared. In case the colophon started in line 1
as usual by deyadharmo ya (5 akaras), the name of the principal donor (5 akaras)
tath srdha (3 akaras) and the name of a second donor (5 akaras) are lost, or,
alternatively, only the name of the principal donor (5 akaras) and his title, e.g.,
In the same way all stras, which mention dharmabhakas praise the reciter of that
very text, of course. Still the fact remains remarkable that two dharmabhakas are
mentioned in the colophon of the Saddharmapuarkastra which devotes a whole
chapter to the reciters of the Law and that three additional dharmabhakas occur in
inscriptions of the area.
All these observations around the Saddharmapuarkastra manuscripts
demonstrate that this text was firmly embedded in the Buddhist culture of Gilgit during
the reign of the Palola his from the late sixth to the early eighth centuries. The literary
tradition of the text was cultivated by copying manuscripts of the
Saddharmapuarkastra. As far it is possible to draw conclusions from the colophons,
these manuscripts were used in worship. Furthermore, the Saddharmapuarkastra
most likely served as a source of inspiration when the Palola hi
Nandivikramdityanandi conceived the unusual iconography of his bronze dedicated in
the year AD 714 a few days before the important date of the Vikhapj, the full-moon
of the month Vikha, traditionally the date of the Buddhas birth, enlightenment and
Nirva. Lastly, two dharmabhakas, Buddhist monks who propagated the Law
organized one of the extant Saddharmapuarkastra manuscripts to be copied for the
benefit and merit of a large group of laypeople with a widely varied ethnic background.
This shows the universal veneration of the Saddharmapuarkastra across many
different nationalities far beyond Gilgit.
Consequently, the Saddharmapuarkastra manuscripts recovered from the
Gilgit Library not only preserve for the first time, without being complete however,
large parts of the text. For the presence of the Saddharmapuarkastra is, moreover,
felt in many areas of Buddhist religion and Buddhist culture in ancient Gilgit. This is by
far more than any other find of manuscripts from ancient India can tell about the
immediate impact of the Lotus Stra.
Oskar von Hinber
University of Freiburg i. Brsg.
Notes
1.
Grard Fussman: Dans quel type de btiment furent trouvs les manuscrits de Gilgit? Journal
Asiatique 292. 2004, p. 101-150; Gregory Schopen: On the absence of Urtext and Otiose cryas:
Books, Buildings, and Lay Buddhist Ritual at Gilgit, in: Grard Colas et Gerdi Gerschheimer (dd.):
crire et transmettre en Inde classique. (cole franaise dExtrme-Orient. tudes thmatiques 23)
Paris 2009 [rev.: Jean-Pierre Filliozat, Acadmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus
des sances de lanne 2009 [2011], p. 1754-1760; L. Rocher, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 131. 2011, p. 133-135; O.v. Hinber, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen
Gesellschaft (in press)], p. 189-219. For more details see also O.v. Hinber: The Gilgit Manuscripts.
An Ancient Buddhist Library in Modern Research: Introduction (in press). Images from Gandhra
showing the type of a building as reconstructed by G. Fussman can be seen in Isao Kurita: Gandharan
Art.Vol. I. Tokyo 22003, p. 260f. and in Giuseppe de Marco: The stpa as a funerary monument.
New iconographic evidence. East and West New Series 37. 1987, p. 191-246, particularly p. 203 fig.
6 with p. 202 note 23: The image reproduced by de Marco was seen in the market at Karachi in 1974.
The present whereabouts of the piece seem to be unknown.
2.
Images showing the site at the time of the discovery of the Gilgit manuscripts can be found in Willy
Baruch: Beitrge zum Saddharmapuarkastra. Leiden 1938, II. Beilage, 3 plates.
3.
Some texts are embedded in other texts, such as the Ngakumra-avadna in the Pravrajyvastu of
the Vinayavastu.
4.
Lokesh Chandra: Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts (Facsimile Edition). ata-Piaka Series Vol. 10, 1-10.
Delhi 1959-1974 (abbreviated here as FE), reprinted in three parts as: Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts,
revised and enlarged compact facsimile edition. Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 150, 151, 152.
Delhi 1995.
5.
The new facsimile edition planned by the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology
at Soka University giving for the first time the measurements of each folio, could also be very helpful
for reassembling the manuscripts in their original form.
6.
The numbers refer to The Gilgit Manuscripts, as note 1, where the numbers introduced by the
National Archives and used in the Facsimile Edition are kept, but partly split up into sub-numbers,
where ever this seemed useful and appropriate. This hopefully helps to avoid confusion,
although the original numbering is neither adequate nor very practical.
7.
This book was reviewed by H. Bechert: Journal of Religious Studies (Patiala) 11. 1983, p. 118-120;
G. Fussman, Bulletin de lcole franaise dExtrme-Orient 73. 1984, p. 384 foll.; H. - O. Feistel,
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 134. 1984, p. 387; P. Williams, Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society 1984, p. 156 foll.; D. Seyfort-Ruegg, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 106. 1986, p. 879; H. Eimer, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 81. 1986, columns 393 foll.
8.
The Gilgit Manuscript of the ayansanavastu and the Adhikaraavastu edited by Raniero Gnoli.
Serie Orientale Roma L. Rome 1978, p. 36, 6-8.
9.
For details cf. O.v. Hinber: Aus der Welt der Kolophone von Gilgit bis Ln2 N (to appear in On
Colophons [Conference organized by the research group Manuscript Cultures in Asia and Africa
in Hamburg from 3rd to 5th December 2009].
10. O.v. Hinber: Die Palola his. Ihre Steininschriften, Inschriften auf Bronzen,
Handschriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber. (Antiquities of Northern Pakistan 5). Mainz 2004 [rev.:
Adam Nayyar, Journal of Asian Studies 65. 2006, p. 453 foll.; R. Salomon, Bulletin of the Asia
Institute 17. 2003, p. 183-185; Harry Falk, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 100. 2005, columns
696-698; Grard Fussman, Journal Asiatique 293. 2005, p. 734-742; R. Schmitt, Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 157. 2007, p. 500-502; Alberto M. Cacopardo, East and
West New Series 58. 2008, p. 475-477] with supplements: Three New Bronzes from Gilgit. Annual
Report of the International Research Institute of Advanced Buddhology (at Soka University) 10.
2007, p. 39-43; More Gilgit Bronzes and Some Additions to Die Palola his. ibidem 12. 2009, p.
3-6; An Inscribed Incense Burner from the MacLean Collection in Chicago, ibidem 13. 2010, p. 3-88
and Four Donations Made by Magalahasik, Queen of Palola (Gilgit), ibidem 14. 2011, p. 3-6.
11. In spite of the fact that the scribe wrote sigha throughout there can be little doubt that sigha is
meant, which occurs very frequently elsewhere in names in inscriptions along the Upper Indus.
12. O.v. Hinber: Die Kolophone der Gilgit-Handschriften. StII 5/6. 1980, p. 49-83 = Kleine Schriften.
Wiesbaden 2009, p. 688-721, particularly p.66-69 on IX Saddharmapuarkastra, cf. also the index
to this article under the individual names.
13. For Parthian pwhr, cf. Rdiger Schmitt: Die mitteliranischen Sprachen im berblick, in: Rdiger
Schmitt (Ed): Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden 1989, p. 99, and for Bactrian poora
or poura, i.e. puhra, cf. Ivan Michajlovitch Steblin-Kamensakij: Baktrijskij jazyk, in: Vera Segeevna
Rastorgueva (Ed.): Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija. Sredneiranskie jazyki. Moscow 1981, p. 338.
The reading pukhrena follows Sylvain Lvi, who recognized the Iranian word pukhra, which was
most likely not represented by hra in Indian script, because Indian h is voiced in contrast to the
voiceless h in Parthian: Werner Sundermann: Parthisch, in: Compendium, as above, p. 122. The rare
akara interpreted as khra does not normally occur in Indian languages.
14. Perhaps it might be assumed, if the reading kraydhara is correct, that kraydhara either stands for
*kydhara = kriydhara (for : ra cf. pho : praho, Sanskrithandschriften aus den
Turfanfunden Teil IV. Wiesbaden 1980, p. 237, K 466, b Blatt 12 R 2), or it is a writing mistake for
*kriydhara. However, *kriydhara practitioner (??) or decision maker (??) is not attested
otherwise.
15. In no. 7 lera-nihela-pati seems to be a title rather than a name; on Khotanese nihela-pati cf. Ronald
Eric Emmerick: Two Indian loanwords in Khotanese., in: Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus.
Gedenkschrift fr Ludwig Alsdorf. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 23. Wiesbaden 1981, pp. 79-82,
particularly p. 81, where the meanwhile outdated reading nihela-mati is repeated.
16. I am obliged to Prof. Dr. Seishi Karashima and Dr. Noriyuki Kudo for granting access to these as yet
unpublished materials.
17. Cf. Die Palola his, as above note 10, p. 141 with note 181.
18. Ditte Knig, Grard Fussman (Edd.): Die Felsbildstation Shatial. Materialien zur Archologie von
in which the available space on the rock is used. The relation of the name Candrasena to the stpas is
as obscure as the meaning of in the Candrasena Monastery. Perhaps Candrasena was a traveller
who visited the site and wrote down his name after the two stpas were drawn.
25. Martin Bemmann und Ditte Knig (Edd.): Die Felsbildstation Oshibat. Materialien zur Archologie
von Nord-Pakistan 1. Mainz 1994.
26. Masahiro Shimoda: A Study of the Mahparinirvastra with a Focus on Methodology of the Study
of Mahynastras. Tokyo 1997, p. 15. The Mahparinirvamahstra actually uses the word
dharmakathika, cf. Seishi Karashima and Klaus Wille: The British Library Sanskrit Fragments.
Buddhist Manuscripts from Central Asia. Vol. II.1 Texts, Tokyo 2009, p. 554: [bha]yrditn
dharmakathi<kathi>knm dharmanaitr[ ]/line 2/ ... ] kntare v aavkntre v
nadkntre[ ... .
27. dharmabhakarakyai, Ratnaketuparivarta ed. by Yenshu Kurumiya. Kyoto 1978, p. 137, 2* for
the protection of dharmabhakas.
28. On dharmabhakas see Graeme MacQueen: Inspired Speech in Early Mahyna Buddhism II.
Religion 12. 1982, p. 49-65, particularly p. 53 foll.; Keisho Tsukamoto: Source Elements of the
Lotus Stra, Buddhist Integration of Religion, Thought, and Culture. Tokyo 2007, p. 179 foll. for
references also from inscriptions and Davis Drewes: Dharmabhakas in Early Mahyna.
Indo-Iranian Journal 54. 2011, 331-372. Richard Nance: The dharmabhaka inside and outside
the stras. Religion Compass 2. 2008, p. 134-159 is not accessible to me. In later texts such as the
Nepalese version of the Kraavyha, the dharmabhaka is also seen as a tantric yog, cf.
Adelheid Mette, Indo-Iranian Journal 47. 2004, p. 325 note 11; for evidence from Khotan cf. O.v.
Hinber, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 157. 2007, p. 390 note 14.
29. Giotto Canevascini: The Khotanese Saghastra. A critical edition. Beitrge zur Iranistik Band 14.
Wiesbaden 1993.