ANDREW SKILTON

¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA

¯ a a In the study of Mah¯y¯na sutra literature the issue of dating is vexed. a a These texts are considered by Mah¯y¯na tradition to be buddhavacana, ´¯ and therefore the legitimate word of the historical Buddha. The sravaka ¯ a a tradition, according to some Mah¯y¯na sutras themselves, rejected these texts as authentic buddhavacana, saying that they were merely a a inventions, the product of the religious imagination of the Mah¯y¯nist monks who were their fellows.1 Western scholarship does not go so far ¯ a a as to impugn the religious authority of Mah¯y¯na sutras, but it tends to ´a assume that they are not the literal word of the historical S¯kyamuni ´¯ Buddha. Unlike the sravaka critics just cited, we have no possibility of knowing just who composed and compiled these texts, and for us, removed from the time of their authors by up to two millenia, they are effectively an anonymous literature. ¯ a a It is widely accepted that Mah¯y¯na sutras constitute a body of literature that began to appear from as early as the 1st century BCE, although the evidence for this date is circumstantial. The concrete evidence for dating any part of this literature is to be found in dated a a Chinese translations, amongst which we find a body of ten Mah¯y¯na ¯ sutras translated by Lokaksema before 186 C.E. – and these constitute . our earliest objectively dated Mah¯y¯na texts.2 This picture may be a a qualified by the analysis of very early manuscripts recently coming out of Afghanistan, but for the meantime this is speculation. In effect we have a vast body of anonymous but relatively coherent literature, of which individual items can only be dated firmly when they were translated into another language at a known date. We generally accept, without concrete evidence, a date before the common era for the earliest representatives of this literature, and in the absence of a dated translation, we have to resort to inference from a variety of data to suggest a chronological order for other representatives. This has most frequently involved dating on the basis of comparative doctrinal development, references (real or imagined) to other ‘dated’ texts and, even more subjectively, matters of literary style. Some methods involve inference from data taken to reflect the historical circumstances of an
Journal of Indian Philosophy 27: 635–652, 1999. c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

dating becomes a matter of establishing a chronology for each recension. My own interest has been focused for some time on a substantial ¯ ¯ ¯ a a Mah¯y¯na text known as the Samadhiraja Sutra (hereafter SRS). to the Nepalese mss. He also suggests the 7th century as the terminus ante quem for the attainment of what he calls “its present size”. through the version represented by the Tibetan translation.4 Any such ı linear model of development can only be described as na¨ve. e. and that it is ‘early’. in the IIIrd century”. and since I have . although he immediately points out that “direct proofs are wanting” for this more distant date. but then removes this to a further century on the basis of “internal evidences.636 ANDREW SKILTON ‘original’ Mah¯y¯na community.e. While I need not pursue the accuracy of this as an observation on the frailty of human motive.. their arguments bearing largely upon the same concrete evidences. The most influential assessment of a date for this text is that made by C. Regamey. the numbers and constitution of a a ¯ the Buddha’s audience as described in the nidana. who adduces the 4th century Chinese translation of Shih Hsien-kung to establish a concrete date for the terminus ante quem for the composition of the basic text.3 The date of the SRS has been discussed subsequently by a number of authors. The study in Gomez and Silk rightly criticizes Murakami’s linear model of development from the Gilgit mss. it has been remarked. by which he means the recension known to us from the Nepalese mss. with only partially humorous intent. And finally. textual development will have been complex. we can agree that located as we are on this ‘side’ of the chronological span in which a text has been extant. and various speculations concerning the date of an Indian original which take the Chinese translations as their starting point. i. as the SRS clearly was. that each scholar working on a text feels an overwhelming obligation to establish two points about it: that it is ‘important’. Where different recensions are identified.g. This ¯ a a shares many characteristics of the Mah¯y¯na sutra genre. including anonymous composition and compilation and no obvious characteristics by which a date might be ascertained. although it does not commit itself to an alternative model. above all certain archaisms of the metaphysical topics [sic]” ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ that “allow us to place the text in the age of the Prajnaparamitasutras ˙ ¯ ¯ and before that of the Lankavatara. all of which are dateable. and the Tibetan translation.. We have little option but to accept that where a text is disseminated across a wide geographical area. there is an inevitable interest and even an obligation of sorts to locate the further ‘side’ of that same span. taking place upon several independent fronts.

Firstly. K8 and V9 ). More concrete evidence from this source is provided by the dates of the surviving translations: that of the complete s text by Narendraya´as (T 639).7 These a a considerations remove the most frequently cited evidence for a 2nd century text of the SRS. s during the second half of the 5th century C. and ¯ ¯ ıpasamadhi Sutra. Until the scholarly community learns considerably more about the real a a circumstances of the composition and compilation of the Mah¯y¯na ¯ sutra texts that we now know. The colophon to the Chinese translation (T 641) mentions an earlier but lost translation of the SRS by the 2nd century translator An Shih-kao..). in the case .. the high status of An Shih-kao within the Chinese tradition led to the attribution to him of many works clearly not his. as well as to suggest the earliest reasonable absolute date for it. only witnessed in the original language by the three Central Asian fragments (mss. and Tibetan translation. discussion should start with the Chinese translations. and secondly. Since Narendraya´as’ translation was based on a distinct recension.E.e. 3. and not for any recension of the full surviving Sanskrit text. The Central Asian mss. where multiple recensions of a text exist.E. i. in the ms. and 4. of our text from the Gilgit collection. we must conclude that the 5th century is the earliest firm date for that recension alone. to this picture. and designated by me 5 My present intention is to add a chronological dimension as SRS II. the body of work a a judged genuinely to be his is exclusively non-Mah¯y¯na. that translated into Chinese by Narendraya´as (T 639) and witnessed in Sanskrit by three mss. but two factors make this questionable. generalisations around a single date of origin raise more problems than they resolve. that which was known by the name Candraprad¯ preserved. definitely known as the Samadhiraja Sutra. 2.6 For the reasons already cited. which was made in 557 C. themselves belong.E. a longer text. preserved in Nepalese mss. For present purposes my understanding of the recensional situation regarding the SRS is as follows. making it doubtful that he would have worked on this Mah¯y¯na text. we have precisely that challenge in relation to this text. a revised version of this long text preserved in Nepalese ¯ ¯ ¯ mss. without title.¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 637 argued elsewhere that there have been up to four distinct recensions of the SRS. and that of an incomplete text by Shih Hsien-kung (T 640) which was presumably completed in the latter part of his working life (420–479 C. ¯ ¯ designated by me as SRS I and possibly known as the Samadhiraja ¯ Sutra. seeking both to refine our discussion of the dating of these recensions. folios from Central Asia. The SRS appears to have circulated in s four recensions: 1.

ch. and ı ´a sı Kamala´¯la frequent reference to or citation of the SRS is explicit and the passages involved can in most cases be identified. or that there was in existence during Candrak¯rti’s lifetime the third. ch.638 ANDREW SKILTON of K to the 9th century10 . amongst whom M¯dhyamikas seem to have had a particular fondness for it as a proof text. we can turn to references to and citations of the SRS in works or by authors that allow such a date to be inferred. 3. but which is a witness to the recension SRS I. expanded recension of the SRS. the earliest firm date for an existing Sanskrit text is determined by palaeographic analysis of the Gilgit manuscript (the earliest surviving Sanskrit manuscript of substance) which gives us a date of the 6th century. and these alone. 8 Dutt p. When we turn to the more substantial Sanskrit sources for the SRS. as are the other two passages. It is well known that the SRS is cited by a number of Indian Buddhist a authors. is the a˙ . S¯ntideva.15 In his discussion ı of the date of the SRS. i. a S¯nkrty¯yana ms. but either way establishes a ı terminus ante quem for the text Candrak¯rti quotes.13 If we seek to establish an earlier date than such concrete criteria as mss.12 Since this is a unique ms. and to the 5th or 6th century in that of V11 . and so extend our time frame for this recension in only one direction. in the present discussion this date is only of significance for that recension.e. and the Tibetan translation (=SRS I/II). In conjunction with the testimony of the Gilgit ms. The passages in question are: ch.. In the absence .9 v. n. recording its own recension of the text. Opinion is divided between placing his working life in the 6th or the first half of the 7th century C.6). A. which was not known to Regamey at the time (and which also omits all three passages) ı we can see that Candrak¯rti’s quotations require one of two conclusions: either that these changes. took place by the first half ı of the 7th century. As the following examples demonstrate. and translations allow.29 Dutt p.16 Dutt’s edition states that the verse in question in ch. in Patna which has been tentatively dated to the 11th century. 2 (=Regamey. Regamey notes that Candrak¯rti quotes a verse which is not in the Chinese translation. but it is found in both SRS I and II. n. Other than this the next earliest Sanskrit ms.14 In works by Candrak¯rti. that now preserved in Nepalese mss. and is compounded by occasional ambiguities and uncertainties over whether or not we are dealing with a reference to our text at all.8 v. and ch.. 87. In fact this verse is one of three ı occasions on which Candrak¯rti quotes passages not in the Chinese. 361.11. As the earliest of ı these authors Candrak¯rti has prompted the most discussion of a date for this text. the problem of differentiating recensions becomes more acute.E.29 appears only in his ms.

They are discussed briefly by Tatz. ¯.. ¯ ¯ ¯ . by name but without quotation. ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯. and indeed. . ¯ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ vacayan / tadyathapi bhagavat¯ prajnaparamita daksinam [sic] disi vacayet / ı . which occurs in chapter 11. as witnessed by Candrak¯rti. I would like to suggest that these quotations demonstrate that he indeed had access to that fuller recension in toto. ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ pudgalam dharmabhanakam pustakabhavad adhyesayet dharmasravanaya /19 . There remain to be mentioned five sets of textual references to the SRS. and the date that is established by his citation is a date for one of these two SRS recensions (SRS I/II). ¯. ´ ı / aryasuvarnaprabhasottamasutram purvayam disi / evam adh¯tacatuhsutrantikam . the SRS is recommended for recitation alongside five other texts: ´¯ ¯ . and provided with an earliest firm date by his working life. . ¯ ¯ ¯.. ¯ . ´ ¯ ¯. ¯. prasastasabdadharmas ravanacatusparsanukulamahayanasutram caturdiksu pustakam . which I have tentatively identext entitled Aryacandraprad¯ s tified with that translated into Chinese by Narendraya´as. work by ¯ . which occurs in chapter 2. recensions.ı aryamahamayur¯ aryaratnaketudharan¯m /20 Clearly the redactor(s) of these passages knew a recension of our ¯ ¯ ıpasamadhi.¯ . as well as the recension of the Central Asian ms. ¯ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ andya sarvabuddhanam saddharmapustakam vacayet / aryaprajnaparamita ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ aryacandraprad¯pasamadhim aryadasabhumakah aryasuvarnaprabhasottamah ı . and occur in the ˜ ´ı ¯ Manjusr¯mulakalpa. . ´ aryacandraprad¯pasamadhih pascimayam disi / aryagandavyuha uttarayam disi ı . There is no a priori argument against the contemporaneity of these distinctive recensions. ¯. . of which only the first has so far been considered in its dating.17 That Candrak¯rti was familiar with this long recension and prepared to use it as authoritative buddhavacana suggests that it was an established text in his milieu. .¯ In the second. ¯ ¯ . ¯. visramya ca muhurtam ardhordhekayamam va tatah patam abhiv. Clearly then. . ¯ a a the SRS is one of four Mah¯y¯na sutras assigned each to one of the four quarters: ´ ´ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯. Tatz does no more than mention the possibility that the . This comprises two references to our text. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ı ¯ ¯ . Candrak¯rti knew and cited one of two distinct. .¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 639 of any evidence that suggests that recensions SRS I/II were compiled piecemeal. ¯ . ¯ ¯. I now argue for the existence of the ‘long’ recension of the SRS ı (i. . They also show that this longer version was roughly contemporary with the Gilgit ms. Whereas until now dating of this recension has relied upon the evidence of the Tibetan translation alone. ¯ ¯ .e. .18 In the first instance. . as we know ı it. . at least SRS I). ¯ ¯ .. and Chinese translations. Following Govinda. but in this case indeterminable. ¯ ¯ Regamey on the Karandavyuha Sutra undermines the assumption of higher critical studies that expanded texts appear after and replace ı original short versions.

but draw the attention of the reader to C. the basic premise of those who doubt that it was compiled by ‘the’ ¯ a a N¯g¯rjuna being that the Sutrasamuccaya cannot be authentic because ¯ a a it quotes from many Mah¯y¯na sutras that we think of as having a later provenance than 2nd century C. . and ¯ ¯ is. I have nothing to contribute to the debate on this issue. S¯ntideva and Kamala´¯ 28 . I have so far reviewed the main textual evidence utilised by others in establishing a date for the SRS.22 Within the Tantric Buddhist tradition. the Sanskrit text of this work does not survive. the ¯ ¯ ıpasamadhisutra24 . Given the lack of a certain date for the ˜ ´ı ¯ Manjusr¯mulakalpa. The first of these consists ¯ a a of four quotations from the SRS in the Sutrasamuccaya of N¯g¯rjuna. and we now know it through its translations into Tibetan and Chinese. and we know they are too late because we will not accept as early anything that quotes these texts’. we know from various studies that this text is composite and its dating problematic.26 Were the authenticity of this work not disputed.640 ANDREW SKILTON ˜ ´ı ¯ Manjusr¯mulakalpa may date from as early as the 1st century C. who accepts the ¯ authenticity of the Sutrasamuccaya on the basis that it agrees with ¯ ¯ ¯ a a N¯g¯rjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika in style. ascribed to Nagarjuna by the testimony 27 – in this case these witnesses include of ‘trustworthy witnesses’ ” ı ´a sıla. scope and doctrine. “explicitly . Unfortunately. moreover. The potential circularity of such a line of argument is immediately apparent – ‘the texts it quotes a a are too late to have been quoted by N¯g¯rjuna. one of a very large body of instrumental ritual texts which appeared between the 2nd and 6th centuries C.21 However. As with the Manjusr¯mulakalpa. Regrettably. I wish now to discuss four bodies of further textual evidence not so far used. I have suggested elsewhere. i.E. Candrak¯rti. Chinese translator rendered the title as Candraprad¯ ¯ ıpas ¯ while the Tibetan translators used Aryacandraprad¯ utra (‘phags pa ˜ ´ı ¯ zla ba sgron ma’i mdo25 ). indicating which recensions I believe are implicated by this evidence.e.E.E. while Govinda himself admits the uncertainty regarding the date of this text. . this appears s to refer to that recension of the SRS translated by Narendraya´as.23 There. the same referent. the ˜ ´ı ¯ ¯ Manjusr¯mulakalpa is classified as a kriyatantra. the authorship of this interesting work remains a matter of debate. we can only conclude that this does not for the time being help the problem of dating any recension of the SRS.. Lindtner. these would stand as the earliest firm reference to any recension of our text. the two translated names having. without specifying the arguments for or against this date.

but in an earlier publication warns. .33 If the verse is dependent upon the SRS it also draws upon the chapter that was to prove the most frequently quoted by other Madhyamaka scholars. and reviewed by Lindtner. the modern editor of the Tibetan text. 1732 : ¯ ¯ı ¯ ¯ . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ jate ‘titus.ta ukto loko ‘rthatas tvaya . Nevertheless. In favour of Lindtner’s interpretation is ˜a a a that the N¯g¯rjuna verse is partially quoted in Prajn¯karamati’s ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ Bodhicaryavatarapanjika. ´ yatha kumar¯ supinantarasmim sa putra jatam ca mrtam ca pasyati . You have said. established and deceased in a dream. is not really born. throughout other texts firmly attributed to this author. critics of the attribution to N¯g¯rjuna who argue that quotation from scriptures hitherto regarded as somewhat later than ¯ a a N¯g¯rjuna disprove the authenticity of Sutrasamuccaya will need to refute what appear to be frequent references to such texts. . This juxtaposition can hardly be considered conclusive evidence of direct dependence. gives his edition the ¯ ¯ ¯ title. The verse also expresses something of a clich´. and is overjoyed at his birth and griefstricken at his death: know that all dharmas are like that.¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 641 aa P¯s¯dika. Just as a son who is born. Just as. ah svapne yadvat sutas tatha .t . thus the world. Its appearance in both texts could be simple coincidence or show parallel dependence upon a third source. post-dating the e Tibetan translation. .30 Until ¯ the authenticity of the Sutrasamuccaya is positively disproved these references stand as the earliest direct evidence known for the existence of any recension of the SRS. a maiden sees a son being born and dying. in a dream.t¯ . ¯ na cotpannah sthito nas. although it is in all Sanskrit mss. Nevertheless. enduring or destroyed. ´ ¯ utpannas ca sthito nas. a mrta daurmanahsthita tathopaman janatha sarvadharman . . Nagarjuna’s Sutrasamuccaya. although I would not wish to be drawn on the frequency of expression of this sentiment in Buddhist literature as a whole. This raises the possibility of it being an interpolation. This is to be compared to SRS ch. where it is drawn from an un-named but authoritative source.29 Even so. especially ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ the Lankavatara Sutra (or an Ur-Lankavatara Sutra). ¯ To the Sutrasamuccaya quotations we can compare what Lindtner a a suggests is an allusion to the SRS in verse 25 of N¯g¯rjuna’s 31 Acintyastava. ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ “the Lankavatara quotations in the SS [Sutrasamuccaya]. guard against any real confidence where the authorship of the SS is a a concerned”. however. the authenticity of this verse as a part of the Acintyastava is problematic since it is not present in the Tibetan translation. the style of this verse is consonant with that . of this work. 9 v.

227 1. although none of these considerations is conclusive. and therefore the characteristics of the section utilized in the PVPS could offer further insights into dating our text. ˜anaprativedhajnanam. ¯ kulan that the PVPS was quoting from recension SRS I rather than SRS II.10) . ˜¯ ¯ arthaprativedhajnanam and jnananubodhah (Matsunami. ¯ ¯ ¯ rather than displaced to a position between anacaravivarjanata and ¯ am adusanata (Matsunami p. . i.330 doctrinal items that forms the core of the first chapter in all recensions of our text. Thus we have the omission of several s terms that are found only in the version translated by Narendraya´as ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ and in the Gilgit ms. ¯ ¯ between alpabhasyata and mandamantranata (Matsunami p.14). ´ ´ ´ between dharmapravicayakausalyam and dharmaviniscayakausalyam .37 . The last and. not yet .15). This is indeed the case. a literary item as ‘fragile’ as a list of words is usually ‘sensitive’ to recensional divergence.g. ‘borrows’ from Chapter 1 of the SRS a substantial section of what a I have dubbed the ‘sam¯dhi list’. 226 1.e. however. for we find a number of significant variations which help us identify the recension utilized in the redac¯ tion of this curious sutra. priyavadita.34 As to the date of N¯g¯rjuna himself. between purvabhilapita ¯ ¯ ¯ ı ¯ and eh¯tisvagatavadita (Matsunami p. ¨ ¯ a a Hsuan-tsang made a translation of a short Mah¯y¯na sutra.. between ¯ ˜¯ (Matsunami.E. the title of ´¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ which can be reconstructed as Prasantaviniscayapratiharyasamadhisutra 36 This text is of interest for present purposes because it (PVPS). pravrajyacittam.E. These features show us that the redactor of the PVPS was not using s the Gilgit recension or that known to Narendraya´as. In 663/4 C. 224 1. As one might expect. . p. a a Together. at present scholarly opinion seems to favour a date in the second half of the 2nd century C.38 The PVPS thus provides us with a terminus ante quem of the mid-7th century for the recension SRS I.9) conclusively demonstrates ¯ ¯.. e. and jn ˜¯ . the list of c. In the seventh chapter Asanga enumerates six . most interesting reference to the SRS occurs ˙ ¯ ¯ in a passage in Asanga’s Mahayanasamgraha.9). the quotations by N¯g¯rjuna could be the most concrete evidence that we have for pushing back the absolute date for the recen¯ ¯ ıpasamadhi (Sutra) and that presumably sion known as the Candraprad¯ corresponded in major outline and content to the scripture that we now a a know as the SRS. 224 1. ˙ been recognised as such.35 ¯ The next body of evidence comes from a sutra text. but has. I suggest. ¯ With these two recensions thus excluded. 225 1. p. inclusion of mardavata ¯.642 ANDREW SKILTON of adjacent verses and its antiquity is established by its quotation by ˜a Prajn¯karamati.

for Lamotte has taken a the subject of the statement to be sam¯dhi in the sense of ‘meditative concentration’. which abstracts. As it stands. according ´ı to Buddhaghosa. ¯ ´ı in the Mahayanasutralamkara. Suramgama (Marche Hero¨que).40 [Mah¯y¯na exhibits] Superiority regarding diversity. le Samadhirajabhadrapala . as follows: adhis¯lam by ¯ the Vinaya. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . is . by three bodies of scripture. est . Bhadrapala [Sutra]43 and a a ´uramgama[-samadhi Sutra]. although we cannot rule out the possibility that he reflects here a broader current of Indian Buddhist thought (he was himself Indian. even a cursory glance at the list offered here by ˙ Asanga should be sufficient to recognize the titles of three major ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Mah¯y¯na scriptures: Samadhiraja [Sutra]. My argument for this re-interpretation is twofold. ´¯ of concentration. a a of course. and adhiprajna. etc. whereas I would like to suggest that the general context of this passage indicates that the items here listed are to be understood as items of scripture. adhicittam by the Sutras.e. the monastic rule book. and prajna. correspond to the ubiquitous ´ı ¯ ˜¯ threefold formula of the Path as s¯la. ¯. the a a a Sarvapunyasamuccaya (accumulation of all merit). These ‘three ´ a ¯y¯na and Sr¯vakay¯na Buddhism of all a trainings’ are found in Maha a periods. ´´ Superiorite en variete (nanatvavisesa). and the Suramgama (Heroic Advance).e. cannot be taken as an authority upon Mah¯y¯na doctrine. such as the Mah¯y¯n¯loka (Brilliance of the Great Vehicle). ´¯ ´ ı (Roi de concentration. More significantly. rather than to meditative attainments. the ˜¯ discourses of the Buddha. The three categories are understood to be expounded. comme le Mahayanaloka (Eclat du Grand Vehicule). .39 The second of these distinctions concerns ‘diversity’ (sna tshogs nyid kyi rab tu dbye ba) in a passage which Lamotte translates (with his restoration of Sanskrit terms) as follows: ´ ´ ´´ ¯ ¯ ´. le ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sarvapunyasamuccaya (accumulation de tout merite). . 6–8 in the Mahayanasamgraha. states that adhicitta (and adhis¯la) is 42 I suggest we should therefore expect ¯ accomplished through the sutras. infinie (apramana). etc. Asanga himself. infinite. ˙ that Asanga’s exposition of adhicitta could refer to a body of scripture.. ´ı ˜¯ adhis¯lam. the subjects of Chs..44 The second of these scriptures is named ¯ ¯ S¯ . the Sam¯dhir¯jabhadrap¯la (King . car la variete des concentrations ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ (samadhinanatva). ˙ and had taken ordination there). adhicittam. i.41 Buddhaghosa. good protector). based on external and internal evidence. samadhi. since the diversity of its a a a a a concentrations. ¯ ¯ Firstly. organizes and correlates ¯ the doctrinal categories to be found in the Sutras. Secondly. i. and adhiprajna by the Abhidharma. this translation is misleading. the third main division of scripture. bon protecteur).¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 643 a a ı a ways in which the Mah¯y¯na is superior to the H¯nay¯na in respect of adhicittam.

e. but it also circulated under the title of Pratyutpannabuddha¯ ¯ ¯ a sammukhavasthitasamadhi Sutra. making the second an attribute of the first. ¨ Hsuan-tsang’s earlier Chinese translation of the same) duplicates this interpretation by seeking to explain this item as follows: ting nge ‘dzin gyi rgyal po bzang skyong ni / ‘jig rten gyi rgyal po bzhin du ting nge ‘dzin thams cad kyi bdag po ste / gang yod na phyogs bcu rnams su da ltar byung ba ‘i dus kyi sangs rgyas bcom ldan ‘das rnams mngon sum du mthong bar ‘gyur ba’o // ¯ a a a a Le Sam¯dhir¯jabhadrap¯la. the name of the sam¯dhi which the . The Sarvapunyasamuccaya is a less well known scripture. i. it may be relevant to . the Illustrious Protector Concentration.47 Asvabh¯va takes the element ‘sam¯dhir¯ja’ to qualify ‘bhadrap¯la’. We should note that a a passage in the Tibetan translation of Asvabh¯va’s commentary to the ¯ ¯ ¯ Mahayanasamgraha. a a a a but his definition of the latter is a succinct definition of the a a Pratyutpannabuddhasammukh¯vasthitasam¯dhi.46 a The conflation of the first two items. states of concentration. and the Heroic March Concentration”. Consultation of Tibetan and Chinese catalogues reveals that this name ¯ too is an abbreviation. However. but despite this we have here four ‘sam¯dhi’ sutras. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Mahayanaloka. 46–III): “Its varieties: it encompasses sundry . for that matter. text teaches. the Merit Accumulation Royal Concentration. the Bhadrapala Sutra ¯ ¯ ¯ Bhadrapala ¯ ¯ never describes its subject as samadhiraja.644 ANDREW SKILTON after the main interlocutor with the Buddha. ¯ Sutra. a usage perfectly in accordance with both Sanskrit and.e. est le chef a e e de tous les Sam¯dhi. les Buddha Bhagavat du temps pr´sent ¯ ´ ´ e e a (pratyutpannakala) et situ´s dans les dix r´gions (dasadis) sont vus face ` face. the Mahayanasamgrahopanibhandana (but not in . and the full title is Sarvapunyasamuccayasamadhi . such as the Great Vehicle Light Concentration. but the Tibetan itself may only transmit the omission of the connective ‘ca’ (Tib. I note with interest the translation of the same passage in the BDK Tripitaka series (vol. Par sa pr´sence. i. the subject of the . If the wording of the ¯ ¯ Mahayanasamgraha is to be understood as I suggest. that the same translators were responsible for the Tibetan translations of text and commentary. So far as I am aware. the explanation for the error shared between main text and commentary. Tibetan syntax for lists.48 Presumably it is the commentary that encouraged Lamotte to interpret the passage as he did. . This suggests that the original Sanskrit employed a lengthy dvandva compound which the translators ‘unpacked’ in different ways. may be a literal translation of the Tibetan. ` l’instar d’un roi de la terre (lokaraja). . rather than the 3rd and 4th as in the Tibetan.49 The conflation here involves the 2nd and 3rd items. . dang) in the original. a layman called a Bhadrap¯la. ¯ 45 I have not as yet found any scriptural candidate for the Sutra.

. 220. tasyo imam santa samadhi bhasatah 17. ¯ ¯ ¯ .. ¯ ¯. . ¯ bahunam ca buddhanam bhagavatam antikan maya pravrajitvayam kumara ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ sarvadharmasvabhavasamatavipancitah samadhir vistarena sruta udgrh¯tah prs. ¯ ¯ ¯ bahutaru punyu samadhi dharayitva 3.17d .7d . ¯ catuspadam gatha sa tus.46a .51 a Here the term sam¯dhi is used to denote the text of the SRS itself. i. moreover. the scriptural referents in a passage seeking a a to demonstrate the superiority of the Mah¯y¯na form of Buddhism are a a Mah¯y¯na scriptures. Asanga’s usage indicates that it was considered appropriate for him (and presumably therefore for others in a his milieu) to refer to scriptural texts that contain the term sam¯dhi in a a their title (because they claim to teach a specific sam¯dhi) as ‘sam¯dhis’.27d . As we might expect. Thus.t . ´¯ . ¯. . .28d .¯ ¯ ¯´ .e.25d . . and a this usage occurs elsewhere in the SRS. . .44ab . .13c And less specifically: ¯ ¯ dhareti yah santasamadhi dudrsam 2. ´ ¯ ´ . dharito vacitah pravartitah aranabhavanaya bhavito bahul¯krtah parebhyas ca . ‘[these texts . a brief survey of such references:52 ¯ ¯ ¯ yo gatha dhareya itah samadhitah 2.tha grhnec . ı . ¯ itah samadheh parivarta ekah /50 . . . ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ samadhi srutva imu dharayeyuh 2. o . with a variety of expressions a indicating that the sam¯dhi is understood to be a text (though not necessarily a written text) rather than a meditative state.¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 645 ¯ ¯ ¯ I also suspect the possibility that mahayanaloka may not have been used as the title of a text at all. . ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ itu dharayi samadhitas ca gatham 3.tacittah 36. ¯. ´¯ ¯ ¯ dhareti yah santam imam samadhim 2. ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ tasya mama etu samadhi srutva 16. but as a description in apposition to a the four sam¯dhi texts that are named. 4–7. ´¯ . ¯ ¯. ¯ ¯. . . In the presence of that Sugata I learned one chapter from this sam¯dhi.´ . . as elsewhere) . . ] which are a a the splendour of the Mah¯y¯na’. vistarena samprakasitah 17 (Dutt p. This interpretation is supported. yas co samadhim imu varu sres.24 . ı . . That four of these scriptures each contain the a term sam¯dhi in their title is sufficient to explain the presence of this ˙ term in a non-meditative context. by an interesting passage in the SRS itself: ¯ tasyodgrh¯tah sugatasya me’ntikad . . .5a ¯ ¯ ¯ dharentu vacentu imam samadhim 16. ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ı .

´ samadher yathalabdham parivarto nama c[atv]arimsatimah. [etc. To these instances we can add the final colophon of SRS I. experience joy. is concluded’. cultivate it. on hearing this samadhi-sutra.45cd . . recite it. which ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ describes the text as the aryasarvadharmasvabhavasamatavipancitat ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯ ´¯ sa srosyate etu samadhi santam 36.38b ´ ¯ ´¯ asrutva etam viraju samadhi santam . ¯ ¯ ¯ dharetva vacetva imam samadhim 36.14c ¯ imam samadhim srutveha 24. To do this we can begin by examining ˙ a those other texts cited by Asanga as sam¯dhis. .82cd ¯ ¯ ¯ .. .36d .7d ´ ¯ ´¯ ¯ ı srutva ima samadhi santa bhum¯ 18. i. . . And discard all the various spells of the world. 6A ¯ ¯ Those who. preserve it. Together these citations demonstrate that for the tradition of the SRS ¯ there can be no doubt that this sutra was known and knew itself under a the general appellation of ‘sam¯dhi’. ´ . or put it into practice. Bhadrapala. .58d passim .e. . read it.] . and is replete with passages in a which the term sam¯dhi is used to denote a text. . 6J. ima vara santa samadhi bhasamanah 18. quoting the most emphatic examples (a number of which indicate that here a written text is understood):53 ¯ ¯ through desire for this samadhi. ´ ´ı ˜¯ yatha srutva s¯gram labhati sa buddhajnanam 36. teach it. 4D (2) ¯ On hearing this samadhi. expound it.51a .646 ANDREW SKILTON ¯ sa parthivah srutva samadhim etam 17. 5E. Examination of the ¯ ¯ ¯ Pratyutpanna Sutra (=Bhadrapala Sutra). to whose ¯ hearing such a precious samadhi as this has come: if on hearing it they do not copy it in book form. ¯. .. confirms that this is the case. . . ¯ kaccij jino bhasati tam samadhim 17. for the sake of making this samadhi endure for a ¯ long time and in order that this samadhi be preserved. . Our next step should therefore be to establish whether such usage was idiosyncratic and restricted to the SRS alone. for example.2a ¯ ¯ Those who. . ‘the . . ) . ´ ¯ tatha vyakaromy aham anantamatim ¯ hastasmi yasya susamadhivaram 29. as received from the noble samadhi elaborated as the sameness in their essence of all phenomena. . on hearing a sutra and samadhi like this. ¯. acaryu loke bhavisyati nityakalam . Thus. ¯ fortieth chapter.67c . on hearing .6a (and similarly throughout chapter 7 with . ¯ ´¯ ¯ dharitva santam imu virajam samadhim 32.172cd (and as a refrain thereafter) . with any sons of good family . . copying it well and presenting it as a book.8ab ¯ It is the same. . 6J. ´ . . ´¯ ¯ ¯.

9. que le monde ´ ´ entier avec les dieux et les hommes (sadevamanusya loka) devrait venerer. . 11 and 12) Again we have unambiguous evidence that for a second early Mah¯y¯na a a ¯ a sutra text.. ´¯ ´ 67. . . le repetent et le pratiquent? ´ ´ Bhagavat. . tous les lieux ou l’on preche le Sgs.4d. . veut y ´ ´ croire et ne veut pas les rejeter. . ayant entendu des enseignements non encore entendus. Si un maˆtre de la Loi (dharmacarya) ecrit (likhayati). . . qui. To these ´¯ ¯ ¯ can be added similar passages from the Suramgamasamadhi Sutra: . 176.. doit ecouter attentivement (ekacittasravana) le Sgs.t ´ ´ possedes par Mara (maradhis. some of which are attested at an even earlier date. .3d (and similarly for vv. . etudie (svadhyayati) ´ ou enseigne (uddesayati) le Sgs. . . . the term sam¯dhi is used to denote the text itself. (Each of these texts purports to teach a specific. De meme aussi tous les lieux ou le Sgs. . ¯ ¯ ¯ a Samadhiraja Sutra.13L. we can conclude that this usage was a natural one for a scholar ˙ such as Asanga to use. . nous avons entendu ce ¯ samadhi .7c ¯ They recite and develop the excellent samadhi 13L. 7G. . Mais maintenant que. ´ ` l’ayant entendu. ´ ` ˆ 118. le bs. ´ 113. named sam¯dhi. ı . . . . . S’ils entendent le Sgs. ceux qui l’ont entendu sont certainement proteges ¯ . . . Le devaputra dit: Ce sont ceux qui tiennent en mains ce Sgs. . ¯ ¯ ´ ´ ¯ ¯ ı 173. Que dire alors (kah punar vadah) de ceux qui. hita). 7G. . . . Drdhamati. doit ecouter le Sgs. . . ils se fixeront. ´ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ .4ab ¯ The merit of those who keep a verse from this samadhi . . . I think we can accept with confidence that this passage ¯ ¯ ˙ of the Mahayanasamgraha constitutes a reference by Asanga to the . and for 14J. . . de la bouche du Buddha. . celui qui ecrit (likhati) et qui etudie (svadhyatati) ce Sgs. . qui veut penetrer les attributs des Buddha (buddhadharma) et ´ ` ´ ´ arriver a l’autre rive. .54 This would therefore establish the existence of a recension of the SRS available as a scriptural . within at a a a least a part of the early Mah¯y¯na community. 6d and 11d. sur les attributs des Buddha ¯ (buddhadharmes u niyata bhavisyati).) Further. par les Buddhas (buddhaparigr h¯ta). . [Suramgamasam¯dhi] sont certainement a . . . . ` ` ˆ ` (sama. ce bs. . Eh bien. Together these passages demonstrate unambiguously that. along with other well known ‘sam¯dhi’ texts. ˆ ´ ´ ´ ´ ¯ ´ est preche (desita). . . recite (vacita) ou ecrit (likhita). 132. Le bs. sont absolument identiques ´ ´.¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 647 Bodhisattvas desiring much merit. ´ 76. ¯ Who keep and read this samadhi. 7G. . given that sam¯dhi could be used to denote a scriptural text. . 10. . ´ ´ ´ ¯ ¯ 174. eux aussi. the term sam¯dhi was a used to denote a scriptural text when the term sam¯dhi was a part of the a title. . a Therefore. ..2ab Those who master a single four-line verse ¯ From this samadhi bestowed by the Buddhas . nirvisesa) a ce Siege de diamant. Ceux qui n’ont pas entendu le Sgs.

so there is no need for you to show it respect. SRS I or SRS II.. ˜˜ ¯ ˜˜ ¯ / tesu bhannamanesu na sussusissanti / na sotam odahissanti / na annacittam . . the Central Asian folios demonstrate that this was still in circulation as late as the 9th century C. // Ye ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜˜ ¯ ı ¯ ı te suttanta tathagatabhasita gambh¯ra gambh¯rattha lokuttara sunnatapatisamyutta . and the borrowing of PVPS confirms this date specifically for recension SRS I. By way of summary. and 3. and SRS II to the 12th century by a fragmentary Nepalese palmleaf manuscript. Candrak¯rti’s quotations from this text give sound evidence that this long recension too was in circulation by the 6th century C. that of the long version ı quoted by Candrak¯rti and recorded in the Nepalese mss. no need to ¯´ ¯ show it veneration’ ”. The long version (SRS I/II) was for a long time known only from late Nepalese mss.E. similar situation appears to be referred to in a short sutta from the Samyutta . as ¯ ¯ ˙ ıpasamadhi Sutra. the Sutrasamuccaya quotations. . transl. Nikaya. While the first of these may be the most archaic. A . The doctrine you teach has your own creation as its source. bhavissanti bhikkhu anagatam addhanam. and the Tibetan ı translation. ¯ . 2. i. the evidence that we now have demonstrates that there were at least three recensions circulating contemporaneously: s 1. a scholar who is dated to the period 310–390 ¯ ¯ C. If this was ¯ ¯ ¯ the recension known characteristically as the Samadhiraja Sutra. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Ye pana te suttanta kavikata kaveyya cittakkhara cittavyanjana bahiraka savakabhasita ˜˜ ¯ ˜˜ ¯ / tesu bhannamanesu sussusissanti sotam odahissanti annacittam upat. . that of the Chinese translation of Narendraya´as and Central Asian fragments. Snellgrove. hapessanti / te . 620–623. for this is not what was taught by the Tathagata. the latter being used to establish its date. probably in the 6th century. . BSOAS xxi (1958) pp... .55 Since he uses the title Samadhiraja.E. was copied prior to 630 C.e.thapessanti / na ca te dhamme uggahetabbam pariyapunitabbam mannissanti // . and is probably that for which ¯ we have the earliest evidence. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . ˜˜ dhamme uggahetabbam pariyapunitabbam mannissanti // Evam eva tesam bhikkhave . a only as early as the 11th century by the S¯nkrty¯yana ms.E.E.56 NOTES 1 “(Some) scoff with words such as these: ‘You are teaching the doctrine on ¯ your own inspiration. from the Adhyasayasamcodanasutra. that of the Gilgit ms. Otherwise. then Asanga’s reference to distinct from Candraprad¯ a text of that name may push the date for this recension back to the 4th century. the recension SRS I is attested directly in Sanskrit a˙ . You have made this doctrine to please yourselves.e. ¯´ ¯ ‘Note on the Adhyasayasamcodanasutra. ¯ . . we have evidence that it was in circulation between the 2nd and 9th centuries C.t ¯ ¯ . . i.e. ˜˜ upat.E. D. i. we may be justified in concluding that he knew one or the other of those recensions that I have suggested elsewhere were designated by that title. The Gilgit ms. . ... Evam eva kho bhikkhave.648 ANDREW SKILTON ˙ authority for Asanga.

10.41ff. Bongarda a ¯ Levin. M. in Bauddhavidyasudhakarah Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert . Bongard-Levin. 39.-U. XXI. Central Asian Manuscript Collection SI P/67(11). Swisttal-Odendorf 1997. N. 8 That the two leaves of K are from a single ms. ‘Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? a a Self-Image and Identity Among the Followers of Early Mah¯y¯na’. Gomez and A. pp. pp. eds. I. Hartmann. 47–66. 32–38.: No.-U. Vol.44583. Ohara. Tokyo 1986 (catalogue). Uno and N.. Institute of Oriental Studies. 1–88 (p. cit. p. Indian Texts from Central Asia (Leningrad Manuscript Collection).-U. Gomez and A. 137–141). see G. H. 3 ¯ ¯ ¯ C. Ki – St. eds. forthcoming. ‘Marginalia to the Sanskrit Fragments of Some Buddhist Texts’. Biblioth`que Nationale. Matsumura. 9/5/96. 105–109. ‘Four Recensions of ¯ ¯ ¯ the Samadhiraja Sutra’. see A. Steppat. 120– e 149 (revised transcription and discussion. 264–266. 62–72 (facsimile and transcription). Bongard-Levin and M. ¯ ¯ ¯ . pp. Bodhicaryavatara. 4 L. suttantanam tathagatabhasitanam gambh¯ranam gambh¯ratthanam lokuttaranam ı ¯ . I have been able to use an unpublished transcription and description of this folio generously provided by K. Hartmann. ¯ a a ınaya ‘Mah¯y¯na or H¯ ¯na: A Reconsideration of the yana Affiliation of An Shigao ¯ ¯ and His School’. . sunnatapatisannuttanam antaradhanam bhavissati. G.-U. 689–697.-U. Irisawa. I cannot bring myself to ¯ ¯ ¯ declare that the Samadhiraja Sutra is either late or unimportant. p. M. II p. pp. pp. ‘Die Bedeutung des Handschriftenfundes bei Gilgit’. eds. 9 Bongard-Levin 1990 op. 6 Pace Gregory Schopen (lecture given at Oxford. ‘A Note on a Newly Identified Palm-Leaf Manuscript of the a a ¯ Sam¯dhir¯jasutra’. pp. Wille and J. von Hinuber. Kyoto 1989. op. Kii – Paris. Kieffer-Pulz and J. plates 152–153 (facsimile and transcription). JIABS 10 (1987). 4/9/95. 267 (PTS edition). 67–89. see T. Silk.¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 649 ¯ . Inokuchi. Hartmann. Petersburg. 2 (Russian) Moscow 1990. ¯ . M. 14 A summary of such citations is given in L. in ¨ ¨ F. but this reluctance may indeed just be due to my having studied it for several years. 15). ‘Fragment sanskritshoy Sam¯dhir¯jasutra iz Central’ noj Azii’. ´a ¯ ¯ The debate was on-going. R. 9. A Catalogue of the Sanskrit ` Manuscripts Brought from Central Asia by Paul Pelliot Preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale [Preliminary]. Three Chapters from the Samadhirajasutra (originally published Warsaw 1938) reprinted New Delhi 1990. Hartmann. Indo-Iranian Journal 39 (1996). pp. ı ˜˜ ¯ . E. ¯ . so as to trouble even S¯ntideva. Azuma. 5 For a detailed presentation of my argument. Studies in ¯ ¯ the Literature of the Great Vehicle – Three Mahayana Buddhist Texts. cit.092001–092003. 5/2/96. Godfrey A. ed. 11–12. 13 J. 2 These texts are reviewed in P. private communiı cation. I. Hartmann. G. Compare the more equivocal view in Bangwei Wang. 12 ¨ See O. Harrison. ¨ on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. 5). 1997).. Ann Arbor 1989. Silk. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Ausgewahlte Vortrage (Zeitschrift a der Deutschen Morgenl¨ndischen Gesellschaft: Supplement. pp. Ann Arbor 1989. Sanskrit I drevneindijskaja kul’tura I. 10 Suggested with caution by K. ˜˜ ¯ . Wille. P. has been suggested in private communication from J. Regamey. Pelliot Sanskrit Mss. Indian Texts from Central Asia. Wiesbaden 1983. Wille. Central Asiatic Journal 37 (1993) pp. 11 Script identified as Early Turkestan Brahm¯ (type b) by K. 266–268 (plates 154–155). pp. Studies in the Literature of the Great Vehicle – Three ¯ ¯ Mahayana Buddhist Texts. 7 Private communication from Paul Harrison.. SN vol. in private communication from J. Regamey was of the same opinion. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya. pp. . Moskva 1979 pp. Skilton. 7/7/92.

he asserts that ¯ a Edgerton has “proven” that the SRS and “other texts. 24 T1635: 58a3. ‘Four Recensions . 29 ¯ ‘Prolegomena to an English Translation of the Sutrasamuccaya’. 1) but not with regard to its significance for dating. 61a6. which are used several times over by Candrak¯ is summarized on pages 33–34. ´¯ ¯ ¯ ¯. st ¯ ¯ . p. thesis. London 1989. M. 21 An¯g¯rika Govinda. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ samstuti abhyasyaticiram ca Sastragaditas tah Karika yatnatah / Yuktyakhyam atha . Canberra 1982. and that by this linguistic evidence “the antiquity of the SR is established most firmly”. 172. Lindtner. pattern of citation of these passages. . Note that in the case of the last passage (ch. n. Apart from this reference. JIABS 5. part 2 Darbhanga 1964.29). 244–279. in Indological and Buddhist Studies. cit. .. 175. p. pp. 28 Lindtner 1982. 17 ¨ C. va Sutrasamuccayam parikatham Ratnaval¯m . ikam sa Vidalam tam Sunyatasaptatim ya casav atha Vigrahasya racita Vyavartan¯. Also note Lindtner. There is no need to recapitulate here the controversy concerning Edgerton’s thesis to establish the inadequacy of this argument. pp. 23 ¯ ¯ ¯ Cf. . Note that although Williams (P. . none comes from a distinctive passage from the longer recension. but instead directs the reader to the work of M. The second of these references is mentioned by Regamey (1990. 20 Ibid. p. he elsewhere uses the evidence of the Sutrasamuccaya to ¯ suggest a similarly early date for the Vajracchedika.650 15 ANDREW SKILTON D. 26 1. . p. Etudes Asiatiques XLVI (1992) pp. K¯randavyuha’ in ASIATICA. whereas it occurs after v. ¯ . op. Lalou. . 106). Tatz does not give textual references for these. p. Festschrift Friedrich Weller. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. 37. n. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. New Delhi a a 1956. ‘Randbemerkungen zur Sprache und Textuberlieferung des ¯ a .24–27. t ¯. 505–530. 57. Regamey. 79 1. ’. Mahayanasutrasamgraha. Bhikkhu P¯s¯dika.A. detailed study of the Chinese translation may provide the aa source for the remaining unidentified verse (P¯s¯dika . M¯dhyamika sutras for the most part.17 (Vaidya 1960. 18 ¯ M. pp. as reported by Tatz). Wiesbaden 1981). . 61c3. ¯ ı. 27 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ C. 47. 10. Candrak¯ provides a succinct definition of N¯g¯rjuna’s ırti a a ´¯ ¯. 31. . in 2500 Years of Buddhism. .9–12 and 208. p. Skilton. Copenhagen 1989. ‘Tantric Buddhism’. In particular. 12. ‘Towards a Chronology of the Madhyamaka School’.14 in the SRS itself. ¯ ¯ Copenhagen 1982.L. p. but each is to be found in all recensions. ‘The Lank¯vat¯rasutra in Early Indian ´ Madhyamaka Literature’. 361. 16 I refer the reader to the list of testimonia in Gomez and Silk. Williams. 25 P¯s¯dika. in Lindtner 1982. Tatz. Seyfort Ruegg. 36). p.. p. 7.12–14. cit. 19 ¯ ¯ ¯ P. Hercus et al. 30 ˙ a a ¯ Lindtner. . 101–109 (p. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. L. 1). Ruegg. Of the three passages in the Sutrasamuccaya that have been identified.. 42. ed. aa 26 ¯ See A. “Revelation” in Madhyamika Buddhism. n. S. ırti Candrak¯ places the crucial verse after v. which does not list the Sutrasamuccaya amongst ¯ his non-Tantric works. unpublished M. University of Washington 1972. Matsunaga. . (as quoted from de Jong’s edition. ed. ¯ ´¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ı Sas. 56–7) follows the Tibetan ¯ a a classification of N¯g¯rjuna’s work. 514– 527. opus in his Madhymakas astrastuti 10: dr. were composed in the centuries around the time of Christ”. 1982 passim. in which the ˙ ¯ ¯ author sets out to substantiate the authenticity of the references to the Lankavatara .. ‘On the Date of the Manju´r¯ ulakalpa’. 316 (not p. 22 ˜ s ım¯ ´ Y. Nagarjuna’s Sutrasamuccaya: a critical edition of the mDo aa kun las btus pa. Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques xxii (1985) pp.2 (1982) pp. p. 89). op. where the complex ırti. Leipzig 1954. . Seyfort Ruegg remains non-committal on the issue of the authenticity of this text (D. If my hypothesis regarding the recensions is correct. his discussion of the date of the SRS is unremarkable. 97–98. 882–894. A. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ tam api // . pp. . 71a13. Vaidya.

25. e.1 punah siksatrayadesana sutrena adhis¯ladhicittasampadanata vinayena s¯lavato . Tokyo 1990 (translation).. 56. Atthasalin¯ (L. E. Skorupski. 1982 p. including the material in square brackets. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . s¯ 34 The identified quotations are from chapters 3 and 32. ´ Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques. ´ . ¯ ¯ ´¯ ¯ By way of contrast. 35 Ruegg op. In this edition. Louvain-la-Neuve 1973: vol. 1989 p. 723a–727b). . Stuttgart 1990. Cuppers. Darbhanga 1988.382.M. Gomez and Silk. 219.141. The following translation. II. and not given by the author. ´ı ¯ ¯ ´ı xi. Chinese translation. 43 ¯ v. 70. Lamotte. . 38 Matsunami follows the reading of SRS II in constructing his edition. 44 ´ ´¯ ´ ı ¯ ¯ v. also used. . I. . p. Harrison. Cousins. XII (1965). A Catalogue of the sTog Palace Kanjur.. 32 ¨ ¯ ¯ ¯ C. Berkeley 1979). vols. He himself emends . P. 31 Acintyastava 25. ˜a catuhstave] is an editorial addition. ¯ ¯ ¯ Samadhi-Sutra. ´a the second line of this verse in explication of precisely the same sentiment in S¯ntideva’s ¯ ¯ ı ¯ ¯ ¯ . is provided by the present author. translated and identified by Lindtner 1982. . it not the case that the terms given are identical between these two recensions. 37 I give references to Matsunami’s edition since he alone clearly distinguishes s between his Nepalese text and the Gilgit recension. 15. 42 ´ ¯ ¯ . edition) London 1979. op. Unfortunately there is a problem with the text. 507. 3). Lindtner’s conclusions are a a not universally accepted. There is also a Tibetan translation from the 9th century. tatha hi vinayapitake visesena adhis¯lasikkha vutta. and The Samadhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas ¯ ¯ ¯ of the Present. cit. sTog Palace 107 (T.3. cit. Concentration of Heroic Progress. 41 ¯ ı. 2. Lamotte. a ca sa. Atthasalin¯ (revised . La Concentration de la Marche Hero¨que (Suramgamasamadhisutra). ¯ text. Boin Webb. 2nd ed. 45 Tibetan translation. 149 and n.381 and T. 2 . 9. English translation by S. 36 Taisho 648 (vol. 32. ¯ mr. 7. n. 46 ¯ ¯ I note that the Dharmasamgraha (CI) gives. Williams. ˜˜¯ ¯ ¯ ı ¯ ı abhidhammapitake adhipannasikkha. p. 33 ´¯ ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ S. used by Levi in his edition was corrupt at this point (reading ¯ ¯ ‘vipratisaradinemana). we find in the bka’ ‘gyur a translation of the Aryasvabhavasunyata . London 1998. The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue. the alokasamadhi. . ´¯ ¯ ¯ Suramgamasamadhisutra. . ¯ ¯ ¯ t¯su pi ca etesu tisso sikkha t¯ni pahanani catubbidho gambh¯rabhavo veditı ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ abbo. ı . op. . and the present text is his emendation. #797 (mdo thu 189b–228a). vol. Bodhicaryavatara of Santideva with the Commentary Panjika of ˜¯ Prajnakaramati. p. ‘vipratisarad avipratisarena . K140 and 141 (L.¯ . op. Lamotte.g. 273. 21). p. Lancaster. 37. 39 ´ ´ ˙ ¯ ¯ E. 40 theg pa chen po snang ba dang / bsod nams thams cad yang dag par bsags pa dang / ting nge ‘dzin gyi rgyal po bzang skyong dang / dpa’ bar ‘gro ba la sogs pa’i ting nge ‘dzin sna tshogs nyid tshad med pa’i phyir ro. On the basis of the Tibetan trans.te sa nast¯ti vikalpana / tadbhavakalpanotpadam vibadhnati . The title Bhadrapalapariprcchasutram is . T. Tokyo 1978. Prajn¯karamati quotes . Although both Narendraya´as and the Gilgit recension both give ‘extra’ terms at these places. Tokyo 1985). Peking Tripitaka vol. p. tasmat svapne sute nas. The IXth Chapter of the Samadhirajasutra – A text critical contribution ¯ ¯ ¯ to the study of Mahayana sutras. cit. Korean Canon. La Somme du Grand Vehicule d’Asanga (Mahayanasamgraha).. 1973. since the sole Nepalese ms. as the first of four.¯ ¯ ¯ DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 651 ¯ Sutra in accepted works of N¯g¯rjuna. Not surprisingly. p. ¯ ¯ lation Lamotte suggests a different emendation: vipratisaratikramena (1973. . The Tibetan Text of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Sam mukhavasthita. suttapitake adhicittasikkha. the use of square a a brackets indicates that the explicit identification of the source of the verse as [n¯g¯rjunah . cit. Tripathi. ¯ ¯ again to ‘vipratisaradikramena for his translation. p.

p. 56 The manuscript is incomplete. ff. 1989 p. whether the reference is to the entire ¯ ¯ sutra text. heard or read.e. 49 ˙ J. with folios preserved in two archives: Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project. 285ff. cit. Without doubt there is a complex of problems concerning the authorship and dating of texts ˙ a attributed to Maitreya(n¯tha) and his pupil Asanga. which cannot be addressed here. II p. op. 1973. (E. ‘Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic’. .1–174b. and are thus the . Frauwallner. BDK English Tripitaka 46-III. ´ e e e For a r´sum´. 1973.E. 52 I do not believe that this list is exhaustive. 51 Parivarta is the term used throughout the SRS to denote its chapters. cit. forthcoming. 244–188 (=SRS chapters 1–4). vol. Keenan. Memoirs of Taisho University. Samadhiraja-sutra Taisho Daigaku Kenkyu Kiyo. A38/8 and Tokyo University Library. 3. 219 and n. 48 Lamotte. cit. 60 (1975). pp. 50 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Ch.ii.10. . an unlikely candidate for the text in question (Derge Kanjur. see J. New Delhi: Da. The Summary of the Great Vehicle by Bodhisattva Asanga. vol. 80. Cardiff University Cardiff CF1 3EU Wales. 55 Williams. i. Etudes Asiatiques 25 (1971) pp. Lokaksema into Chinese in the second half of the 2nd century C. While the following examples all indicate that ‘sam¯dhi’ indicates a text. 333. 1990. 265–323 (p. Matsunami. May. 47 Lamotte. 53 Translation from Harrison. See Skilton. ‘State or Statement: ¯ a a a Sam¯dhi in some early Mah¯y¯na sutra’. S. 89. I p. or to a specific passage within the sutra. 2. cit. ed. P. The Departments of Buddhism and Literature.171a. ‘La Philosophie Bouddhique Id´aliste’. I explore elsewhere an important a ambiguity in a number of these citations.K. Berkeley 1992. op. op.E. 125–148).1). WZKSO 5 (1961) pp. op. v.652 ANDREW SKILTON ¯ ¯ Acalapratisarva Aloka Sutra. Frauwallner suggests 315–390 C. ¯ a a very earliest concretely dated Mah¯y¯na sutras. 54 ´¯ ¯ ¯ The Bhadrapala and Suramgama Sutras are amongst those texts translated by . U. and notes).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful