ANDREW SKILTON

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA

In the study of Mahayana sutra literature the issue of dating is vexed.These texts are considered by Mahayana tradition to bebuddhavacana,and therefore the legitimate word of the historical Buddha. Thesravakatradition, according to some Mahayana sutras themselves, rejectedthese texts as authenticbuddhavacana, saying that they were merelyinventions, the product of the religious imagination of the Mahayanistmonks who were their fellows.1 Western scholarship does not go so faras to impugn the religious authority of Mahayana sutras, but it tends toassume that they are not the literal word of the historicalSakyamuniBuddha. Unlike thesravakacritics just cited, we have no possibilityof knowing just who composed and compiled these texts, and for us,removed from the time of their authors by up to two millenia, they areeffectively an anonymous literature.

It is widely accepted that Mahayana sutras constitute a body ofliterature that began to appear from as early as the 1st century BCE,although the evidence for this date is circumstantial. The concreteevidence for dating any part of this literature is to be found in datedChinese translations, amongst which we find a body of ten Mahayanasutras translated by Lokaks.ema before 186 C.E. – and these constituteour earliest objectively dated Mahayana texts.2 This picture may bequalified by the analysis of very early manuscripts recently coming outof Afghanistan, but for the meantime this is speculation.

In effect we have a vast body of anonymous but relatively coherentliterature, of which individual items can only be dated firmly when theywere translated into another language at a known date. We generallyaccept, without concrete evidence, a date before the common era forthe earliest representatives of this literature, and in the absence of adated translation, we have to resort to inference from a variety of datato suggest a chronological order for other representatives. This hasmost frequently involved dating on the basis of comparative doctrinaldevelopment, references (real or imagined) to other ‘dated’ texts and,even more subjectively, matters of literary style. Some methods involveinference from data taken to reflect the historical circumstances of an

Journal of Indian Philosophy27: 635–652, 1999.c© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

636 ANDREW SKILTON

‘original’ Mahayana community, e.g. the numbers and constitution ofthe Buddha’s audience as described in thenidana. And finally, it hasbeen remarked, with only partially humorous intent, that each scholarworking on a text feels an overwhelming obligation to establish twopoints about it: that it is ‘important’, and that it is ‘early’. While Ineed not pursue the accuracy of this as an observation on the frailtyof human motive, we can agree that located as we are on this ‘side’of the chronological span in which a text has been extant, there is aninevitable interest and even an obligation of sorts to locate the further‘side’ of that same span.

My own interest has been focused for some time on a substantialMahayana text known as theSamadhiraja Sutra (hereafterSRS). Thisshares many characteristics of the Mahayana sutra genre, includinganonymous composition and compilation and no obvious characteristicsby which a date might be ascertained. The most influential assessmentof a date for this text is that made by C. Regamey, who adduces the 4thcentury Chinese translation of Shih Hsien-kung to establish a concretedate for theterminus ante quemfor the composition of the basic text,but then removes this to a further century on the basis of “internalevidences, above all certain archaisms of the metaphysical topics [sic]”that “allow us to place the text in the age of thePrajnaparamitasutrasand before that of theLankavatara, i.e. in the IIIrd century”, althoughhe immediately points out that “direct proofs are wanting” for thismore distant date. He also suggests the 7th century as theterminus antequemfor the attainment of what he calls “its present size”, by whichhe means the recension known to us from the Nepalese mss. and theTibetan translation.3

The date of theSRShas been discussed subsequently by a numberof authors, their arguments bearing largely upon the same concreteevidences, all of which are dateable, and various speculations concerningthe date of an Indian original which take the Chinese translations astheir starting point. The study in Gomez and Silk rightly criticizesMurakami’s linear model of development from the Gilgit mss., throughthe version represented by the Tibetan translation, to the Nepalese mss.,although it does not commit itself to an alternative model.4 Any suchlinear model of development can only be described as naıve. We havelittle option but to accept that where a text is disseminated across awide geographical area, as theSRSclearly was, textual developmentwill have been complex, taking place upon several independent fronts.Where different recensions are identified, dating becomes a matterof establishing a chronology for each recension, and since I have

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 637

argued elsewhere that there have been up to four distinct recensionsof the SRS, we have precisely that challenge in relation to this text.Until the scholarly community learns considerably more about the realcircumstances of the composition and compilation of the Mahayanasutra texts that we now know, where multiple recensions of a text exist,generalisations around a single date of origin raise more problems thanthey resolve.

For present purposes my understanding of the recensional situationregarding theSRSis as follows. TheSRSappears to have circulated infour recensions: 1. that translated into Chinese by Narendrayasas (T 639)and witnessed in Sanskrit by three mss. folios from Central Asia, andwhich was known by the nameCandrapradıpasamadhi Sutra; 2. thatpreserved, without title, in the ms. of our text from the Gilgit collection;3. a longer text, preserved in Nepalese mss. and Tibetan translation,designated by me as SRS I and possibly known as theSamadhirajaSutra; and 4. a revised version of this long text preserved in Nepalesemss., definitely known as theSamadhiraja Sutra, and designated by meas SRS II.5 My present intention is to add a chronological dimensionto this picture, seeking both to refine our discussion of the dating ofthese recensions, as well as to suggest the earliest reasonable absolutedate for it.6

For the reasons already cited, discussion should start with the Chinesetranslations. The colophon to the Chinese translation (T 641) mentionsan earlier but lost translation of theSRSby the 2nd century translatorAn Shih-kao, but two factors make this questionable. Firstly, the highstatus of An Shih-kao within the Chinese tradition led to the attributionto him of many works clearly not his; and secondly, the body of workjudged genuinely to be his is exclusively non-Mahayana, making itdoubtful that he would have worked on this Mahayana text.7 Theseconsiderations remove the most frequently cited evidence for a 2ndcentury text of theSRS. More concrete evidence from this source isprovided by the dates of the surviving translations: that of the completetext by Narendrayasas (T 639), which was made in 557 C.E.; and that ofan incomplete text by Shih Hsien-kung (T 640) which was presumablycompleted in the latter part of his working life (420–479 C.E.), i.e.during the second half of the 5th century C.E. Since Narendrayasas’translation was based on a distinct recension, only witnessed in theoriginal language by the three Central Asian fragments (mss. K8 andV9), we must conclude that the 5th century is the earliest firm date forthat recension alone, and not for any recension of the full survivingSanskrit text. The Central Asian mss. themselves belong, in the case

638 ANDREW SKILTON

of K to the 9th century10, and to the 5th or 6th century in that of V11,and so extend our time frame for this recension in only one direction.

When we turn to the more substantial Sanskrit sources for theSRS,the earliest firm date for an existing Sanskrit text is determined bypalaeographic analysis of the Gilgit manuscript (the earliest survivingSanskrit manuscript of substance) which gives us a date of the 6thcentury.12 Since this is a unique ms., recording its own recension ofthe text, in the present discussion this date is only of significance forthat recension. Other than this the next earliest Sanskrit ms. is theSankr.tyayana ms. in Patna which has been tentatively dated to the 11thcentury, but which is a witness to the recension SRS I.13

If we seek to establish an earlier date than such concrete criteria asmss. and translations allow, we can turn to references to and citationsof theSRSin works or by authors that allow such a date to be inferred.As the following examples demonstrate, the problem of differentiatingrecensions becomes more acute, and is compounded by occasionalambiguities and uncertainties over whether or not we are dealing witha reference to our text at all.

It is well known that theSRSis cited by a number of Indian Buddhistauthors, amongst whom Madhyamikas seem to have had a particularfondness for it as a proof text.14 In works by Candrakırti, Santideva, andKamalasıla frequent reference to or citation of theSRSis explicit andthe passages involved can in most cases be identified. As the earliest ofthese authors Candrakırti has prompted the most discussion of a datefor this text. Opinion is divided between placing his working life in the6th or the first half of the 7th century C.E. but either way establishes aterminus ante quemfor the text Candrakırti quotes.15 In his discussionof the date of theSRS, Regamey notes that Candrakırti quotes a versewhich is not in the Chinese translation. In fact this verse is one of threeoccasions on which Candrakırti quotes passages not in the Chinese.The passages in question are: ch. 8 Dutt p. 87, n. 2 (=Regamey, ch.8v.6); ch.9 v.11, and ch.29 Dutt p. 361, n. 3.16 Dutt’s edition states thatthe verse in question in ch.29 appears only in his ms. A, but it is foundin both SRS I and II, as are the other two passages.

In conjunction with the testimony of the Gilgit ms., which was notknown to Regamey at the time (and which also omits all three passages)we can see that Candrakırti’s quotations require one of two conclusions:either that these changes, and these alone, took place by the first halfof the 7th century; or that there was in existence during Candrakırti’slifetime the third, expanded recension of theSRS, i.e. that now preservedin Nepalese mss. and the Tibetan translation (=SRS I/II). In the absence

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 639

of any evidence that suggests that recensions SRS I/II were compiledpiecemeal, I would like to suggest that these quotations demonstratethat he indeed had access to that fuller recensionin toto, as we knowit. Clearly then, Candrakırti knew and cited one of two distinct, but inthis case indeterminable, recensions, and the date that is established byhis citation is a date for one of these twoSRSrecensions (SRS I/II).They also show that this longer version was roughly contemporarywith the Gilgit ms., as well as the recension of the Central Asian ms.and Chinese translations. There is noa priori argument against thecontemporaneity of these distinctive recensions, and indeed, work byRegamey on theKaran. d. avyuha Sutra undermines the assumption ofhigher critical studies that expanded texts appear after and replaceoriginal short versions.17 That Candrakırti was familiar with this longrecension and prepared to use it as authoritativebuddhavacanasuggeststhat it was an established text in hismilieu. Whereas until now datingof this recension has relied upon the evidence of the Tibetan translationalone, I now argue for the existence of the ‘long’ recension of theSRS(i.e. at least SRS I), as witnessed by Candrakırti, and provided with anearliest firm date by his working life.

There remain to be mentioned five sets of textual references tothe SRS, of which only the first has so far been considered in itsdating. This comprises two references to our text, by name butwithout quotation. They are discussed briefly by Tatz, and occur in theManjusrımulakalpa.18 In the first instance, which occurs in chapter 2,the SRSis one of four Mahayana sutras assigned each to one of thefour quarters:

prasastasabdadharmasravan. acatus. pars. anukulamahayanasutram. caturdiks. u pustakam.vacayan / tadyathapi bhagavatı prajnaparamita daks. in. am. [sic] disi vacayet /aryacandrapradıpasamadhih. pascimayam. disi / aryagan. d. avyuha uttarayam. disi/ aryasuvarn. aprabhasottamasutram. purvayam. disi / evam adhıtacatuh. sutrantikam.pudgalam. dharmabhan. akam. pustakabhavad adhyes. ayet dharmasravan. aya /19

In the second, which occurs in chapter 11, theSRSis recommendedfor recitation alongside five other texts:

. . . visramya ca muhurtam. ardhordhekayamam. va tatah. pat.am abhiv-andya sarvabuddhanam. saddharmapustakam. vacayet / aryaprajnaparamitaaryacandrapradıpasamadhim. aryadasabhumakah. aryasuvarn. aprabhasottamah.aryamahamayurı aryaratnaketudharan. ım /20

Clearly the redactor(s) of these passages knew a recension of ourtext entitledAryacandrapradıpasamadhi, which I have tentatively iden-tified with that translated into Chinese by Narendrayasas. FollowingGovinda, Tatz does no more than mention the possibility that the

640 ANDREW SKILTON

Manjusrımulakalpamay date from as early as the 1st century C.E.,while Govinda himself admits the uncertainty regarding the date ofthis text, without specifying the arguments for or against this date.21

However, we know from various studies that this text is compositeand its dating problematic.22 Within the Tantric Buddhist tradition, theManjusrımulakalpa is classified as akriyatantra, i.e. one of a verylarge body of instrumental ritual texts which appeared between the2nd and 6th centuries C.E. Given the lack of a certain date for theManjusrımulakalpa, we can only conclude that this does not for thetime being help the problem of dating any recension of theSRS.

I have so far reviewed the main textual evidence utilised by others inestablishing a date for the SRS, indicating which recensions I believeare implicated by this evidence. I wish now to discuss four bodiesof further textual evidence not so far used. The first of these consistsof four quotations from theSRSin the Sutrasamuccayaof Nagarjuna.Regrettably, the Sanskrit text of this work does not survive, and we nowknow it through its translations into Tibetan and Chinese.23 There, theChinese translator rendered the title asCandrapradıpasamadhisutra24,while the Tibetan translators usedAryacandrapradıpasutra (‘phags pazla ba sgron ma’i mdo25). As with theManjusrımulakalpa, this appearsto refer to that recension of theSRStranslated by Narendrayasas, thetwo translated names having, I have suggested elsewhere, the samereferent.26

Were the authenticity of this work not disputed, these would stand asthe earliest firm reference to any recension of our text. Unfortunately,the authorship of this interesting work remains a matter of debate,the basic premise of those who doubt that it was compiled by ‘the’Nagarjuna being that theSutrasamuccayacannot be authentic becauseit quotes from many Mahayana sutras that we think of as having alater provenance than 2nd century C.E. The potential circularity ofsuch a line of argument is immediately apparent – ‘the texts it quotesare too late to have been quoted by Nagarjuna, and we know theyare too late because we will not accept as early anything that quotesthese texts’. I have nothing to contribute to the debate on this issue,but draw the attention of the reader to C. Lindtner, who accepts theauthenticity of theSutrasamuccayaon the basis that it agrees withNagarjuna’sMulamadhyamakakarika in style, scope and doctrine, andis, moreover, “explicitly . . . ascribed to Nagarjuna by the testimonyof ‘trustworthy witnesses’ ” 27 – in this case these witnesses includeCandrakırti, Santideva and Kamalasıla.28

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 641

Pasadika, the modern editor of the Tibetan text, gives his edition thetitle, Nagarjuna’s Sutrasamuccaya, but in an earlier publication warns,“ the Lankavatara quotations in the SS[Sutrasamuccaya], however,guard against any real confidence where the authorship of the SS isconcerned”.29 Even so, critics of the attribution to Nagarjuna who arguethat quotation from scriptures hitherto regarded as somewhat later thanNagarjuna disprove the authenticity ofSutrasamuccayawill need torefute what appear to be frequent references to such texts, especiallytheLankavatara Sutra (or anUr-Lankavatara Sutra), throughout othertexts firmly attributed to this author, and reviewed by Lindtner.30 Untilthe authenticity of theSutrasamuccayais positively disproved thesereferences stand as the earliest direct evidence known for the existenceof any recension of theSRS.

To theSutrasamuccayaquotations we can compare what Lindtnersuggests is an allusion to theSRSin verse 25 of Nagarjuna’sAcintyastava.31

utpannas ca sthito nas. t.ah. svapne yadvat sutas tathana cotpannah. sthito nas. t.a ukto loko ‘rthatas tvaya

Just as a son who is born, established and deceased in a dream, thus the world,You have said, is not really born, enduring or destroyed.

This is to be compared toSRSch. 9 v. 1732:

yatha kumarı supinantarasmim. sa putra jatam. ca mr. tam. ca pasyatijate ‘titus. t.a mr. ta daurmanah. sthita tathopaman janatha sarvadharman

Just as, in a dream, a maiden sees a son being born and dying, and is overjoyed athis birth and griefstricken at his death: know that all dharmas are like that.

This juxtaposition can hardly be considered conclusive evidenceof direct dependence. In favour of Lindtner’s interpretation isthat the Nagarjuna verse is partially quoted in Prajnakaramati’sBodhicaryavatarapanjika, where it is drawn from an un-named butauthoritative source.33 If the verse is dependent upon theSRSit alsodraws upon the chapter that was to prove the most frequently quoted byother Madhyamaka scholars. Nevertheless, the authenticity of this verseas a part of theAcintyastavais problematic since it is not present inthe Tibetan translation, although it is in all Sanskrit mss. of this work.This raises the possibility of it being an interpolation, post-dating theTibetan translation. The verse also expresses something of a cliche,although I would not wish to be drawn on the frequency of expression ofthis sentiment in Buddhist literature as a whole. Its appearance in bothtexts could be simple coincidence or show parallel dependence upon athird source. Nevertheless, the style of this verse is consonant with that

642 ANDREW SKILTON

of adjacent verses and its antiquity is established by its quotation byPrajnakaramati, although none of these considerations is conclusive.

Together, the quotations by Nagarjuna could be the most concreteevidence that we have for pushing back the absolute date for the recen-sion known as theCandrapradıpasamadhi (Sutra) and that presumablycorresponded in major outline and content to the scripture that we nowknow as theSRS.34 As to the date of Nagarjuna himself, at presentscholarly opinion seems to favour a date in the second half of the 2ndcentury C.E.35

The next body of evidence comes from a sutra text. In 663/4 C.E.,Hsuan-tsang made a translation of a short Mahayana sutra, the title ofwhich can be reconstructed asPrasantaviniscayapratiharyasamadhisutra(PVPS).36 This text is of interest for present purposes because it‘borrows’ from Chapter 1 of theSRSa substantial section of whatI have dubbed the ‘samadhi list’, i.e. the list of c.330 doctrinal itemsthat forms the core of the first chapter in all recensions of our text. Asone might expect, a literary item as ‘fragile’ as a list of words is usually‘sensitive’ to recensional divergence, and therefore the characteristicsof the section utilized in thePVPScould offer further insights intodating our text.

This is indeed the case, for we find a number of significant vari-ations which help us identify the recension utilized in the redac-tion of this curious sutra. Thus we have the omission of severalterms that are found only in the version translated by Narendrayasasand in the Gilgit ms., e.g.priyavadita, betweenpurvabhilapitaand ehıtisvagatavadita (Matsunami p. 227 1.15);pravrajyacittam,betweendharmapravicayakausalyam. anddharmaviniscayakausalyam.(Matsunami, p. 226 1.14); andjnanaprativedhajnanam, betweenarthaprativedhajnanam. andjnananubodhah. (Matsunami, p. 225 1.9).37

These features show us that the redactor of thePVPSwas not usingthe Gilgit recension or that known to Narendrayasas.

With these two recensions thus excluded, inclusion ofmardavatabetweenalpabhas. yata andmandamantran. ata (Matsunami p. 224 1.10)rather than displaced to a position betweenanacaravivarjanata andkulanam adus. an. ata (Matsunami p. 224 1.9) conclusively demonstratesthat thePVPSwas quoting from recension SRS I rather than SRS II.38

The PVPSthus provides us with aterminus ante quemof the mid-7thcentury for the recension SRS I.

The last and, I suggest, most interesting reference to theSRSoccursin a passage in Asanga’sMahayanasam. graha, but has, however, not yetbeen recognised as such. In the seventh chapter Asanga enumerates six

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 643

ways in which the Mahayana is superior to the Hınayana in respect ofadhicittam.39 The second of these distinctions concerns ‘diversity’ (snatshogs nyid kyi rab tu dbye ba) in a passage which Lamotte translates(with his restoration of Sanskrit terms) as follows:

Superiorite en variete (nanatvavises.a), car la variete des concentrations(samadhinanatva), comme le Mahayanaloka (Eclat du Grand Vehicule), leSarvapun. yasamuccaya (accumulation de tout merite), le Samadhirajabhadrapala(Roi de concentration, bon protecteur),Suram. gama (Marche Heroıque), etc., estinfinie (apraman. a).40

[Mahayana exhibits] Superiority regarding diversity, since the diversity of itsconcentrations, such as the Mahayanaloka (Brilliance of the Great Vehicle), theSarvapun.yasamuccaya (accumulation of all merit), the Samadhirajabhadrapala (Kingof concentration, good protector), and theSuram. gama (Heroic Advance), etc., isinfinite.

As it stands, this translation is misleading, for Lamotte has takenthe subject of the statement to be samadhi in the sense of ‘meditativeconcentration’, whereas I would like to suggest that the general contextof this passage indicates that the items here listed are to be understoodas items of scripture. My argument for this re-interpretation is twofold,based on external and internal evidence.

Firstly, the subjects of Chs. 6–8 in theMahayanasam. graha, i.e.adhisılam, adhicittam, andadhiprajna, correspond to the ubiquitousthreefold formula of the Path assıla, samadhi, andprajna. These ‘threetrainings’ are found in Mahayana andSravakayana Buddhism of allperiods. The three categories are understood to be expounded, accordingto Buddhaghosa, by three bodies of scripture, as follows:adhisılam bythe Vinaya, the monastic rule book;adhicittamby the Sutras, i.e. thediscourses of the Buddha; andadhiprajna by the Abhidharma, the thirdmain division of scripture, which abstracts, organizes and correlatesthe doctrinal categories to be found in the Sutras.41 Buddhaghosa,of course, cannot be taken as an authority upon Mahayana doctrine,although we cannot rule out the possibility that he reflects here abroader current of Indian Buddhist thought (he was himself Indian,and had taken ordination there). More significantly, Asanga himself,in the Mahayanasutralam. kara, states thatadhicitta (and adhisıla) isaccomplished through the sutras.42 I suggest we should therefore expectthat Asanga’s exposition ofadhicittacould refer to a body of scripture,rather than to meditative attainments.

Secondly, even a cursory glance at the list offered here byAsanga should be sufficient to recognize the titles of three majorMahayana scriptures:Samadhiraja [Sutra], Bhadrapala [Sutra]43 andSuram. gama[-samadhi Sutra].44 The second of these scriptures is named

644 ANDREW SKILTON

after the main interlocutor with the Buddha, i.e. a layman calledBhadrapala, but it also circulated under the title ofPratyutpannabuddha-sam. mukhavasthitasamadhi Sutra, i.e. the name of the samadhi which thetext teaches. TheSarvapun. yasamuccayais a less well known scripture.Consultation of Tibetan and Chinese catalogues reveals that this nametoo is an abbreviation, and the full title isSarvapun. yasamuccayasamadhiSutra.45 I have not as yet found any scriptural candidate for theMahayanaloka, but despite this we have here four ‘samadhi’ sutras.46

The conflation of the first two items, making the second an attributeof the first, may be a literal translation of the Tibetan, but the Tibetanitself may only transmit the omission of the connective ‘ca’ (Tib. dang)in the original, a usage perfectly in accordance with both Sanskritand, for that matter, Tibetan syntax for lists. We should note that apassage in the Tibetan translation of Asvabhava’s commentary to theMahayanasam. graha, theMahayanasam. grahopanibhandana(but not inHsuan-tsang’s earlier Chinese translation of the same) duplicates thisinterpretation by seeking to explain this item as follows:

ting nge ‘dzin gyi rgyal po bzang skyong ni/ ‘jig rten gyi rgyal po bzhin du tingnge ‘dzin thams cad kyi bdag po ste/ gang yod na phyogs bcu rnams su da ltarbyung ba ‘i dus kyi sangs rgyas bcom ldan ‘das rnams mngon sum du mthong bar‘gyur ba’o //Le Samadhirajabhadrapala, a l’instar d’un roi de la terre (lokaraja), est le chefde tous les Samadhi. Par sa presence, les Buddha Bhagavat du temps present(pratyutpannakala) et situes dans les dix regions (dasadis) sont vus facea face.47

Asvabhava takes the element ‘samadhiraja’ to qualify ‘bhadrapala’,but his definition of the latter is a succinct definition of thePratyutpannabuddhasam. mukhavasthitasamadhi, the subject of theBhadrapala Sutra. So far as I am aware, theBhadrapala Sutranever describes its subject assamadhiraja. If the wording of theMahayanasam. grahais to be understood as I suggest, it may be relevant tothe explanation for the error shared between main text and commentary,that the same translators were responsible for the Tibetan translations oftext and commentary.48 Presumably it is the commentary that encouragedLamotte to interpret the passage as he did.

However, I note with interest the translation of the same passage in theBDK Tripit.aka series (vol. 46–III): “Its varieties: it encompasses sundrystates of concentration, such as the Great Vehicle Light Concentration,the Merit Accumulation Royal Concentration, the Illustrious ProtectorConcentration, and the Heroic March Concentration”.49 The conflationhere involves the 2nd and 3rd items, rather than the 3rd and 4th as inthe Tibetan. This suggests that the original Sanskrit employed a lengthydvandvacompound which the translators ‘unpacked’ in different ways.

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 645

I also suspect the possibility thatmahayanaloka may not have beenused as the title of a text at all, but as a description in apposition tothe four samadhi texts that are named, i.e. ‘[these texts. . . ] which arethe splendour of the Mahayana’.

As we might expect, the scriptural referents in a passage seekingto demonstrate the superiority of the Mahayana form of Buddhism areMahayana scriptures. That four of these scriptures each contain theterm samadhi in their title is sufficient to explain the presence of thisterm in a non-meditative context. Asanga’s usage indicates that it wasconsidered appropriate for him (and presumably therefore for others inhis milieu) to refer to scriptural texts that contain the term samadhi intheir title (because they claim to teach a specific samadhi) as ‘samadhis’.This interpretation is supported, moreover, by an interesting passagein the SRSitself:

tasyodgr. hıtah. sugatasya me’ntikaditah. samadheh. parivarta ekah. /50

In the presence of that Sugata I learned one chapter from this samadhi.51

Here the term samadhi is used to denote the text of theSRSitself, andthis usage occurs elsewhere in theSRS, with a variety of expressionsindicating that the samadhi is understood to be a text (though notnecessarily a written text) rather than a meditative state. Thus, a briefsurvey of such references:52

yo gatha dhareya itah. samadhitah. 2.24

yas co samadhim imu varusres. t.ha gr. hn. eccatus.padam. gatha sa tus. t.acittah. 36.44ab

itu dharayi samadhitas ca gatham 3.13c

And less specifically:

dhareti yah. santasamadhi dudr. sam. 2.25d

dhareti yah. santam imam. samadhim. 2.27d

samadhi srutva imu dharayeyuh. 2.28d

bahutaru pun. yu samadhi dharayitva 3.17d

tasya mama etu samadhi srutva 16.5a

dharentu vacentu imam. samadhim. 16.7d

bahunam. ca buddhanam. bhagavatam. antikan maya pravrajitvayam. kumarasarvadharmasvabhavasamatavipancitah. samadhir vistaren. a sruta udgr. hıtah. pr.s. t.odharito vacitah. pravartitah. aran. abhavanaya bhavito bahulıkr. tah. parebhyas cavistaren. a sam. prakasitah. 17 (Dutt p. 220. 4–7; as elsewhere)

tasyo imam. santa samadhi bhas. atah. 17.46a

646 ANDREW SKILTON

sa parthivah. srutva samadhim etam. 17.51a

kaccij jino bhas. ati tam. samadhim. 17.58dpassim

ima vara santa samadhi bhas.aman. ah. 18.7d

srutva ima samadhi santa bhumı 18.14cimam samadhim. srutveha24.67c

tatha vyakaromy aham anantamatimhastasmi yasya susamadhivaram29.82cd

acaryu loke bhavis. yati nityakalam.dharitva santam. imu virajam. samadhim. 32.172cd (and as a refrain thereafter)

dharetva vacetva imam. samadhim 36.36d

sa sros.yate etu samadhi santam36.38b

asrutva etam. viraju samadhi santam.yatha srutva sıgram. labhati sa buddhajnanam36.45cd

To these instances we can add the final colophon of SRS I, whichdescribes the text as thearyasarvadharmasvabhavasamatavipancitatsamadher yathalabdham. parivarto nama c[atv]arim. satimah. , i.e. ‘thefortieth chapter, as received from the noblesamadhi elaborated as thesameness in their essence of all phenomena, is concluded’.

Together these citations demonstrate that for the tradition of theSRSthere can be no doubt that this sutra was known and knew itself underthe general appellation of ‘samadhi’, and is replete with passages inwhich the term samadhi is used to denote a text. Our next step shouldtherefore be to establish whether such usage was idiosyncratic andrestricted to theSRSalone. To do this we can begin by examiningthose other texts cited by Asanga as samadhis. Examination of thePratyutpanna Sutra (=Bhadrapala Sutra), for example, confirms thatthis is the case. Thus, quoting the most emphatic examples (a numberof which indicate that here a written text is understood):53

through desire for this samadhi, for the sake of making this samadhi endure for along time and in order that this samadhi be preserved, copying it well and presentingit as a book;4D (2)

On hearing this samadhi, experience joy,And discard all the various spells of the world;5E.8ab

It is the same, Bhadrapala, with any sons of good family. . . [etc.] . . . to whosehearing such a precious samadhi as this has come: if on hearing it they do not copyit in book form, teach it, recite it, preserve it, read it, expound it, cultivate it, or putit into practice,. . . 6A

Those who, on hearing a sutra and samadhi like this,6J.2a

Those who, on hearing this samadhi-sutra,. . . 6J.6a (and similarly throughout chapter7 with . . . on hearing. . . )

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 647

Bodhisattvas desiring much merit,Who keep and read this samadhi,. . . 7G.2ab

Those who master a single four-line verseFrom this samadhi bestowed by the Buddhas. . . 7G.4ab

The merit of those who keep a verse from this samadhi . . . 7G.7c

They recite and develop the excellent samadhi 13L.3d (and similarly for vv.13L.4d,6d and 11d; and for 14J.9, 10, 11 and 12)

Again we have unambiguous evidence that for a second early Mahayanasutra text, the term samadhi is used to denote the text itself. To thesecan be added similar passages from theSuram. gamasamadhi Sutra:

67. . . .Ceux qui n’ont pas entendu leSgs. [Suram. gamasamadhi] sont certainementpossedes par Mara (maradhis. t.hita); ceux qui l’ont entendu sont certainement protegespar les Buddhas (buddhaparigr. hıta). Que dire alors (kah. punar vadah. ) de ceux qui,l’ayant entendu, le repetent et le pratiquent?

Bhagavat, le bs. qui veut penetrer les attributs des Buddha (buddhadharma) etarriver a l’autre rive, doit ecouter attentivement (ekacittasravan. a) le Sgs.. . .

76. . . . Le devaputra dit: Ce sont ceux qui tiennent en mains ceSgs. que le mondeentier avec les dieux et les hommes (sadevamanus. ya loka) devrait venerer.

113. . . .S’ils entendent leSgs., ils se fixeront, eux aussi, sur les attributs des Buddha(buddhadharmes. u niyata bhavis. yati).

118. . . .Eh bien, tous les lieux ou l’on preche leSgs. sont absolument identiques(sama, nirvises.a) a ce Siege de diamant. De meme aussi tous les lieux ou le Sgs.est preche (desita), recite (vacita) ou ecrit (likhita).

132. . . .Mais maintenant que, de la bouche du Buddha, nous avons entendu cesamadhi . . .

173. . . .Si un maıtre de la Loi (dharmacarya) ecrit (likhayati), etudie (svadhyayati)ou enseigne (uddesayati) le Sgs.. . .

174. . . .Dr.d. hamati, celui quiecrit (likhati) et qui etudie (svadhyatati) ce Sgs.. . .

176. . . . Le bs. qui, ayant entendu des enseignements non encore entendus, veut ycroire et ne veut pas les rejeter, ce bs. doitecouter leSgs.

Together these passages demonstrate unambiguously that, within atleast a part of the early Mahayana community, the term samadhi wasused to denote a scriptural text when the term samadhi was a part of thetitle. (Each of these texts purports to teach a specific, named samadhi.)Further, we can conclude that this usage was a natural one for a scholarsuch as Asanga to use.

Therefore, given that samadhi could be used to denote a scrip-tural text, I think we can accept with confidence that this passageof the Mahayanasam. graha constitutes a reference by Asanga to theSamadhiraja Sutra, along with other well known ‘samadhi’ texts, someof which are attested at an even earlier date.54 This would thereforeestablish the existence of a recension of theSRSavailable as a scriptural

648 ANDREW SKILTON

authority for Asanga, a scholar who is dated to the period 310–390C.E.55 Since he uses the titleSamadhiraja, we may be justified inconcluding that he knew one or the other of those recensions that Ihave suggested elsewhere were designated by that title, i.e. SRS I orSRS II.

By way of summary, the evidence that we now have demonstratesthat there were at least three recensions circulating contemporaneously:1. that of the Chinese translation of Narendrayasas and Central Asianfragments; 2. that of the Gilgit ms.; and 3. that of the long versionquoted by Candrakırti and recorded in the Nepalese mss. While thefirst of these may be the most archaic, and is probably that for whichwe have the earliest evidence, i.e. theSutrasamuccayaquotations, theCentral Asian folios demonstrate that this was still in circulation as lateas the 9th century C.E., i.e. we have evidence that it was in circulationbetween the 2nd and 9th centuries C.E. The Gilgit ms. was copied priorto 630 C.E., probably in the 6th century. The long version (SRS I/II) wasfor a long time known only from late Nepalese mss. and the Tibetantranslation, the latter being used to establish its date. Candrakırti’squotations from this text give sound evidence that this long recensiontoo was in circulation by the 6th century C.E., and the borrowing ofPVPSconfirms this date specifically for recension SRS I. If this wasthe recension known characteristically as theSamadhiraja Sutra, asdistinct fromCandrapradıpasamadhi Sutra, then Asanga’s reference toa text of that name may push the date for this recension back to the 4thcentury. Otherwise, the recension SRS I is attested directly in Sanskritonly as early as the 11th century by the Sankr.tyayana ms., and SRS IIto the 12th century by a fragmentary Nepalese palmleaf manuscript.56

NOTES

1 “ (Some) scoff with words such as these: ‘You are teaching the doctrine onyour own inspiration, for this is not what was taught by the Tathagata. You havemade this doctrine to please yourselves. The doctrine you teach has your owncreation as its source, so there is no need for you to show it respect, no need toshow it veneration’”, from the Adhyasayasam. codanasutra, transl. D. Snellgrove,‘Note on the Adhyasayasam. codanasutra, BSOAS xxi (1958) pp. 620–623. Asimilar situation appears to be referred to in a short sutta from theSam. yuttaNikaya, Evam eva kho bhikkhave, bhavissanti bhikkhu anagatam addhanam. . // Yete suttanta tathagatabhasita gambhıra gambhırattha lokuttara sunnatapat. isam. yutta/ tesu bhannamanesu na sussusissanti/ na sotam. odahissanti/ na annacittam.upat. t.hapessanti/ na ca te dhamme uggahetabbam. pariyapun. itabbam. mannissanti //Ye pana te suttanta kavikata kaveyya cittakkhara cittavyanjana bahiraka savakabhasita/ tesu bhannamanesu sussusissanti sotam. odahissanti annacittam. upat. t.hapessanti/ tedhamme uggahetabbam. pariyapun. itabbam. mannissanti // Evam eva tesam. bhikkhave

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 649

suttantanam. tathagatabhasitanam. gambhıranam. gambhıratthanam. lokuttaranam.sunnatapat. isannuttanam. antaradhanam. bhavissati, SN vol. II p. 267 (PTS edition).The debate was on-going, so as to trouble evenSantideva,Bodhicaryavatara,9.41ff.2 These texts are reviewed in P. Harrison, ‘Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle?Self-Image and Identity Among the Followers of Early Mahayana’, JIABS 10 (1987),pp. 67–89.3 C. Regamey,Three Chapters from the Samadhirajasutra (originally publishedWarsaw 1938) reprinted New Delhi 1990, pp. 11–12.4 L. Gomez and A. Silk, eds.Studies in the Literature of the Great Vehicle – ThreeMahayana Buddhist Texts, Ann Arbor 1989, pp. 1–88 (p. 15).5 For a detailed presentation of my argument, see A. Skilton, ‘Four Recensions ofthe Samadhiraja Sutra’, forthcoming.6 PaceGregory Schopen (lecture given at Oxford, 1997), I cannot bring myself todeclare that theSamadhiraja Sutra is either late or unimportant, but this reluctancemay indeed just be due to my having studied it for several years.7 Private communication from Paul Harrison, 7/7/92. Regamey was of the sameopinion, op. cit., p. 10. Compare the more equivocal view in Bangwei Wang,‘Mahayana or Hınayana: A Reconsideration of theyana Affiliation of An Shigaoand His School’, inBauddhavidyasudhakarah. Studies in Honour of Heinz Becherton the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, eds. P. Kieffer-Pulz and J.-U. Hartmann,Swisttal-Odendorf 1997, pp. 689–697.8 That the two leaves of K are from a single ms. has been suggested in privatecommunication from J.-U. Hartmann, 4/9/95. Ki – St. Petersburg, Institute of OrientalStudies, Central Asian Manuscript Collection SI P/67(11); see G. M. Bongard-Levin, ‘Fragment sanskritshoy Samadhirajasutra iz Central’ noj Azii’, Sanskrit Idrevneindijskaja kul’tura I, Moskva 1979 pp. 62–72 (facsimile and transcription); G.M. Bongard-Levin and M. I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya,Indian Texts from Central Asia(Leningrad Manuscript Collection), Tokyo 1986 (catalogue); G. M. Bongard-Levin,Indian Texts from Central Asia, Vol. 2(Russian) Moscow 1990, pp. 264–266, plates152–153 (facsimile and transcription); H. Matsumura, ‘Marginalia to the SanskritFragments of Some Buddhist Texts’,Central Asiatic Journal37 (1993) pp. 120–149 (revised transcription and discussion, pp. 137–141). Kii – Paris, BibliothequeNationale, Pelliot Sanskrit Mss.: No.092001–092003, R.44583, Godfrey A; see T.Inokuchi, I. Irisawa, N. Azuma, E. Uno and N. Ohara,A Catalogue of the SanskritManuscripts Brought from Central Asia by Paul Pelliot Preserved in the BibliothequeNationale [Preliminary], Kyoto 1989, p. 39. I have been able to use an unpublishedtranscription and description of this folio generously provided by K. Wille and J.-U.Hartmann.9 Bongard-Levin 1990op. cit., pp. 266–268 (plates 154–155).10 Suggested with caution by K. Wille. in private communication from J.-U. Hart-mann, 5/2/96.11 Script identified as Early Turkestan Brahmı (type b) by K. Wille; private communi-cation, 9/5/96.12 See O. von Hinuber, ‘Die Bedeutung des Handschriftenfundes bei Gilgit’, inF. Steppat, ed.,XXI. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Ausgewahlte Vortrage (Zeitschriftder Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft: Supplement, 5), Wiesbaden 1983,pp. 47–66.13 J.-U. Hartmann, ‘A Note on a Newly Identified Palm-Leaf Manuscript of theSamadhirajasutra’, Indo-Iranian Journal39 (1996), pp. 105–109.14 A summary of such citations is given in L. Gomez and A. Silk, eds.Studies inthe Literature of the Great Vehicle – Three Mahayana Buddhist Texts, Ann Arbor1989, pp. 32–38.

650 ANDREW SKILTON

15 D. S. Ruegg, ‘Towards a Chronology of the Madhyamaka School’, inIndologicaland Buddhist Studies, ed. L. A. Hercus et al., Canberra 1982, pp. 505–530.16 I refer the reader to the list of testimonia in Gomez and Silk, where the complexpattern of citation of these passages, which are used several times over by Candrakırti,is summarized on pages 33–34. Note that in the case of the last passage (ch.29),Candrakırti places the crucial verse after v.17 (Vaidya 1960, 47.9–12 and 208, n. 1),whereas it occurs after v.14 in theSRSitself.17 C. Regamey, ‘Randbemerkungen zur Sprache und Textuberlieferung desKaran.d.avyuha’ in ASIATICA. Festschrift Friedrich Weller, Leipzig 1954, pp. 514–527.18 M. Tatz, “Revelation” in Madhyamika Buddhism, unpublished M.A. thesis, Univer-sity of Washington 1972, p. 12. Tatz does not give textual references for these, butinstead directs the reader to the work of M. Lalou. Apart from this reference, hisdiscussion of the date of theSRSis unremarkable. In particular, he asserts thatEdgerton has “proven” that theSRSand “other texts, Madhyamika sutras for themost part, were composed in the centuries around the time of Christ”, and that bythis linguistic evidence “the antiquity of the SR is established most firmly”. There isno need to recapitulate here the controversy concerning Edgerton’s thesis to establishthe inadequacy of this argument. The second of these references is mentioned byRegamey (1990, p. 7, n. 1) but not with regard to its significance for dating.19 P.L. Vaidya, ed.Mahayanasutrasam. graha, part 2 Darbhanga 1964, p. 26 1.24–27.20 Ibid. p. 79 1.12–14.21 Anagarika Govinda, ‘Tantric Buddhism’, in2500 Years of Buddhism, New Delhi1956, p. 316 (not p. 361, as reported by Tatz).22 Y. Matsunaga, ‘On the Date of the Manjusrımulakalpa’, Melanges Chinois etBouddhiquesxxii (1985) pp. 882–894.23 Cf. Bhikkhu Pasadika,Nagarjuna’s Sutrasamuccaya: a critical edition of the mDokun las btus pa, Copenhagen 1989.24 T1635: 58a3, 61a6, 61c3, 71a13.25 Pasadika, op. cit., pp. 37, 57, 97–98, 175.26 See A. Skilton, ‘Four Recensions. . . ’. Of the three passages in theSutrasamuccayathat have been identified, none comes from a distinctive passage from the longerrecension, but each is to be found in all recensions. If my hypothesis regardingthe recensions is correct, detailed study of the Chinese translation may provide thesource for the remaining unidentified verse (Pasadika . . . op. cit., p. 36).27 C. Lindtner,Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna,Copenhagen 1982, p. 10. Note that although Williams (P. M. Williams,MahayanaBuddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, London 1989, pp. 56–7) follows the Tibetanclassification of Nagarjuna’s work, which does not list theSutrasamuccayaamongsthis non-Tantric works, he elsewhere uses the evidence of theSutrasamuccayatosuggest a similarly early date for theVajracchedika, p. 42. Seyfort Ruegg remainsnon-committal on the issue of the authenticity of this text (D. Seyfort Ruegg,TheLiterature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India, Wiesbaden 1981).28 Lindtner 1982, p. 172. Candrakırti provides a succinct definition of Nagarjuna’sopusin his Madhymakasastrastuti10: dr.s. t.va Sutrasamuccayam. parikatham. Ratnavalım.sam. stuti abhyasyaticiram. ca Sastragaditas tah. Karika yatnatah. / Yuktyakhyam athaS. as. t. ikam. sa Vidalam. tam Sunyatasaptatim. ya casav atha Vigrahasya racita Vyavartanı,tam api // . . . (as quoted from de Jong’s edition, in Lindtner 1982, p. 31, n. 89).29 ‘Prolegomena to an English Translation of theSutrasamuccaya’, JIABS 5.2 (1982)pp. 101–109 (p. 106).30 Lindtner, 1982 passim. Also note Lindtner, ‘The Lankavatarasutra in Early IndianMadhyamaka Literature’,Etudes AsiatiquesXLVI (1992) pp. 244–279, in which theauthor sets out to substantiate the authenticity of the references to theLankavatara

DATING THE SAMADHIRAJA SUTRA 651

Sutra in accepted works of Nagarjuna. Not surprisingly, Lindtner’s conclusions arenot universally accepted.31 Acintyastava25; translated and identified by Lindtner 1982, p. 149 and n. 25.32 C. Cuppers,The IXth Chapter of the Samadhirajasutra – A text critical contributionto the study of Mahayana sutras, Stuttgart 1990.33 S. Tripathi, Bodhicaryavatara of Santideva with the Commentary Panjika ofPrajnakaramati, 2nd ed. Darbhanga 1988, p. 273. In this edition, the use of squarebrackets indicates that the explicit identification of the source of the verse as [nagarjunah.catuh.stave] is an editorial addition, and not given by the author. Prajnakaramati quotesthe second line of this verse in explication of precisely the same sentiment inSantideva’stext, tasmat svapne sute nas. t.e sa nastıti vikalpana / tadbhavakalpanotpadam. vibadhnatimr.s. a ca sa, 9.141.34 The identified quotations are from chapters 3 and 32, Gomez and Silk,op. cit.,p. 37.35 Rueggop. cit., 1982 p. 507; Williams,op. cit., 1989 p. 56.36 Taisho 648 (vol. 15, 723a–727b). There is also a Tibetan translation from the 9thcentury, e.g. Peking Tripit.aka vol. 32, #797 (mdo thu 189b–228a).37 I give references to Matsunami’s edition since he alone clearly distinguishesbetween his Nepalese text and the Gilgit recension. Although both Narendrayasasand the Gilgit recension both give ‘extra’ terms at these places, it not the case thatthe terms given are identical between these two recensions.38 Matsunami follows the reading of SRS II in constructing his edition.39 E. Lamotte,La Somme du Grand Vehicule d’Asanga (Mahayanasam. graha), 2vols. Louvain-la-Neuve 1973: vol. I, p. 70, 7.3.40 theg pa chen po snang ba dang/ bsod nams thams cad yang dag par bsags padang / ting nge ‘dzin gyi rgyal po bzang skyong dang/ dpa’ bar ‘gro ba la sogspa’i ting nge ‘dzin sna tshogs nyid tshad med pa’i phyir ro, Lamotte,op. cit. 1973,vol. II, p. 219. The following translation, including the material in square brackets,is provided by the present author.41 tısu pi ca etesu tisso sikkha tın. i pahanani catubbidho gambhırabhavo vedit-abbo, tatha hi vinayapit.ake visesena adhisılasikkha vutta, suttapit.ake adhicittasikkha,abhidhammapit.ake adhipannasikkha, Atthasalinı (L. Cousins,Atthasalinı (revisededition) London 1979, p. 21).42 xi.1 punah. siks. atrayadesana sutren. a adhisıladhicittasam. padanata vinayenasılavato‘vipratisarad avipratisaren. a . . .Unfortunately there is a problem with the text, sincethe sole Nepalese ms. used by Levi in his edition was corrupt at this point (reading‘vipratisaradineman. a), and the present text is his emendation. He himself emendsagain to‘vipratisaradikramen. a for his translation. On the basis of the Tibetan trans-lation Lamotte suggests a different emendation:vipratisaratikramen. a (1973, p. 2, n.3).43 v. P.M. Harrison,The Tibetan Text of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Sam. mukhavasthita-Samadhi-Sutra, Tokyo 1978, andThe Samadhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhasof the Present, Tokyo 1990 (translation). The titleBhadrapalaparipr. cchasutram isalso used.44 v. E. Lamotte,La Concentration de la Marche Heroıque (Suram. gamasamadhisutra),Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, XII (1965). English translation by S. Boin Webb,Suram. gamasamadhisutra, Concentration of Heroic Progress, London 1998.45 Tibetan translation, sTog Palace 107 (T. Skorupski,A Catalogue of the sTogPalace Kanjur, Tokyo 1985); Chinese translation, T.381 and T.382; Korean Canon,K140 and 141 (L. Lancaster,The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue,Berkeley 1979).46 I note that theDharmasam. graha (CI) gives, as the first of four, thealokasamadhi.By way of contrast, we find in the bka’ ‘gyur a translation of theAryasvabhavasunyata

652 ANDREW SKILTON

AcalapratisarvaAloka Sutra, an unlikely candidate for the text in question (DergeKanjur, New Delhi: Da, ff.171a.1–174b.1).47 Lamotte,op. cit. 1973, vol. II p. 219 and n. 3.48 Lamotte,op. cit. 1973, vol. I p. v.49 J. P. Keenan,The Summary of the Great Vehicle by Bodhisattva Asanga, BDKEnglish Tripit.aka 46-III, Berkeley 1992, p. 89.50 Ch. 2.10, S. Matsunami, ed.Samadhiraja-sutra Taisho Daigaku Kenkyu Kiyo,Memoirs of Taisho University, The Departments of Buddhism and Literature, 60(1975), pp. 244–188 (=SRS chapters 1–4).51 Parivarta is the term used throughout theSRSto denote its chapters.52 I do not believe that this list is exhaustive. While the following examples allindicate that ‘samadhi’ indicates a text, heard or read, I explore elsewhere an importantambiguity in a number of these citations, i.e. whether the reference is to the entiresutra text, or to a specific passage within the sutra. See Skilton, ‘State or Statement:Samadhi in some early Mahayana sutra’, forthcoming.53 Translation from Harrison,op. cit. 1990.54 The Bhadrapala and Suram. gama Sutras are amongst those texts translated byLokaks.ema into Chinese in the second half of the 2nd century C.E. and are thus thevery earliest concretely dated Mahayana sutras.55 Williams, op. cit. 1989 p. 80. Frauwallner suggests 315–390 C.E. (E. Frauwallner,‘Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic’, WZKSO 5 (1961) pp. 125–148). Withoutdoubt there is a complex of problems concerning the authorship and dating of textsattributed to Maitreya(natha) and his pupil Asanga, which cannot be addressed here.For a resume, see J. May, ‘La Philosophie Bouddhique Idealiste’, Etudes Asiatiques25 (1971) pp. 265–323 (p. 285ff. and notes).56 The manuscript is incomplete, with folios preserved in two archives: Nepal-GermanManuscript Preservation Project, A38/8 and Tokyo University Library, 333.ii.

Cardiff UniversityCardiff CF1 3EUWales, U.K.