Next Article in Journal
From the Imagination to the Reality: Historical Aspects of Rewriting Six Dynasties Buddhist Avadāna Stories
Previous Article in Journal
Editorial: Ethical and Epistemological Aspects of ‘Dialogue’: Exploring the Potential of the Second-Person Perspective §
Previous Article in Special Issue
Through the Open Gate of Heavens: The Tōdaiji Objects and Salvation in Vairocana’s Lotus Treasury World
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Material Heritage of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā: Manuscripts and Inscribed Tablets

1
Department of Buddhist Studies, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
2
Norwegian Institute of Philology, 0302 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2023, 14(4), 544; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040544
Submission received: 16 February 2023 / Revised: 16 March 2023 / Accepted: 11 April 2023 / Published: 17 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Buddhist Doctrine and Buddhist Material Culture)

Abstract

:
The Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, “Questions of the Oceanic Intelligence,” is the fifth chapter of the Mahāsaṃnipāta, “Great Collection,” and is a canonical work belonging to the tradition of Mahāyāna sūtra literature. This sūtra is highly valued in the long history of Mahāyāna Buddhism for its thematic and metaphorical richness, as it personifies the ocean (Skt. sāgara) to represent core aspects of the Mahāyāna doctrinal system. This paper presents two small Sanskrit fragments of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā recently identified in the Schøyen Collection, with transliteration and annotated translation. In order to provide a fuller picture of the textual history of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, a quotation from the text on votive tablets from Kedah, Malaysia, is also discussed. These materials are employed as a case study within the context of tangible and intangible heritage. On the basis of the UNESCO declaration of 2003, it is argued that these two kinds of heritage are intrinsically interlinked, and that the categories and their pertaining definitions can be broadened so as to be relevant to more traditions and their heritage.

1. Background: Broadening the Definition of Intangible Heritage

Material culture is always connected to what has been styled in relation to intangible or immaterial culture, and vice versa. In this paper, we explore these concepts through an example of materials used in our study of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Although the material we are examining is small, it serves the purpose of discussing these concepts. The “UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” has highlighted the dichotomy of the tangible and intangible, as well as material and immaterial heritage, and has promoted the concepts to being widely employed in cultural and educational policies.1
An issue with the terminology used by UNESCO is that it may be perceived as somewhat dismissive. In ordinary parlance, “intangible” means “less substantial,” and, with the French terminology, immatériel, it is even worse, at least in English, where “immaterial” often implies “irrelevant”, or the like. However, we disregard this and employ the categories in their technical capacity as defined by the UNESCO documents mentioned in note 1. It is even more regrettable that the whole UNESCO project may seem biased, despite its undeniable contributions within its defined domains, as it is called in the documents. The domains, namely, are almost exclusively those of ethnic minority cultures and those of indigenous peoples, which are the objects of study for ethnology, folklore studies and social anthropology only. These domains are of course very worthy objects of study, but the heritage concept also includes, particularly in its general and global sense, the heritage of more complex cultures, which, in our test case, is that of the Buddhist tradition and its heritage.
Such a broader understanding of heritage includes the material or touchable heritage, but most objects of material culture also pertain to the immaterial or intangible, in the parlance of the UNESCO initiative. Although the intangible heritage of certain objects may be lost, it can be recovered to a greater or lesser extent through the interpretation and study of material objects and artifacts.
In the “Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage”, established during the General Conference of the UNESCO meeting in Paris, from 29 September to 17 October 2003, § I,2,2 states that “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and (e) traditional craftsmanship.”
To employ the UNESCO concepts to our present study, we argue, then, that the list of domains of intangible heritage should also include (1) narrative heritage, (2) literary heritage, (3) musical heritage and (4) intellectual heritage as part of intangible or immaterial culture. Our additions to the items mentioned in the UNESCO declaration include very basic forms of heritage that hold significant importance in any culture. These additions also provide contexts in which material artifacts can be interpreted, understood and even revived as objects of cultural importance.
Our study of the artifacts, as shown in Appendix A, involves materials that allow us to communicate with present strands of Buddhist heritage. The objects are expressions of how Buddhist thought, as well as its religious, literary, narrative and intellectual traditions, depends on artifacts, consisting of palm leaf manuscripts, stone inscriptions, xylographs, votive objects and other materials. To understand these artifacts, the disciplines of codicology, palaeography and philology are crucial.

2. A Case Study of the Buddhist Tradition and Its Material Culture: The Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā in Ancient (Maritime) Silk Routes

With our study, we wish to meet the challenge of the volume in which we are participating. Our manuscript, inscriptions and xylograph materials constitute tangible heritage, whereas the “contents” of the materials constitute intangible heritage, viz., Buddhist doctrine and other aspects of Buddhist thinking. The Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, “Questions of the [bodhisatva]2 Oceanic Intelligence,” counting as the fifth chapter of the Mahāsaṃnipāta, the “Great Collection,” is a canonical work, a dharmaparyāya, belonging to the tradition of Mahāyāna sūtra literature.3 The Mahāsannipata has come down to us as a complete collection of sūtras in Chinese; in Sanskrit and Tibetan, as well as in Chinese, the most cited and lengthy chapters appear as separate works (Braarvig 1993b, pp. xxv–xli). The Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā constitutes a pair with the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā, “Questions of the [bodhisatva] Sky-Treasury,” as it employs the ocean as its basic theme, or metaphor, and the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā employs that of empty space or the sky as the figure from which it develops the plot of the sūtra (Han 2021b, pp. 7–12).
The thematic and metaphorical richness of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, with its personification of the ocean (Skt. sāgara)—which represents core aspects of the Mahāyāna doctrinal system—made this dharmaparyāya4 quoted and translated in the long history of Mahāyāna Buddhism,5 but no complete Sanskrit text has been preserved. However, there do remain three translations of it: one in Tibetan and two in Chinese, which allow us to access the complete text, despite textual variations. The Tibetan translation, ‘Phags pa blo gros rgya mtshos źus pa źes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (D152), was produced by Jinamitra, Dānaśīla, Buddhaprabha and Ye shes sde during the first propagation of Buddhism in Tibet in the late 8th or early 9th century CE. The first Chinese version, the “Haihui pusa pin 海慧菩薩品” in the Da fangdeng dajijing 大方等大集經 collection (T. 397) was translated by Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 around 420–21. The other version is the Haihui pusa suowen jingyin famen jing 海意菩薩所問淨印法門經 (T. 400), translated by Wei Jing 惟淨 and Dharmarakṣa 法護 in the early 11th century.
Several parts of the original Sanskrit still survive as citations in the Sanskrit manuscripts of later Indian commentaries, such as the ones found in the Śikṣāsamuccaya from Nepal and the Ratnagotravibhāga from Tibet. (cf. Saerji 2005, 2019).6 In addition to this, a palm leaf manuscript of the Sūtrasamuccaya, consisting of 35 incomplete folia, was discovered by Zhang Meifang 張美芳 in a collection of manuscripts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region, China, which includes two citations from the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā (Wang et al. 2020, pp. 80–81). The Sūtrasamuccaya, the Śikṣāsamuccaya and the Ratnagotravibhāga all had great impacts on the intellectual history of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India, Tibet and East Asian countries, including China, Korea and Japan. Moreover, recent research suggests that a small portion of this scripture is quoted in the voluminous Mahāyāna compendium written in Old Khotanese, the Book of Zambasta, dating back to the 5th century (Chen and Loukota 2020, p. 203).
The Silk Road, a crucial trade route linking China, India, the Mediterranean and the West, enabled the exchange of goods and culture for well over a thousand years. It attracted military conquerors, traders and merchants who brought luxury items from the Eastern and Western kingdoms. The Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan, where the manuscripts now known as the Schøyen Collection were discovered, was one of their major stopping points on their long journey. The presented textual evidence illustrates the wide-ranging role of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā as a canonical source for disseminating Mahāyāna doctrines and practices along the Silk Road, where Buddhist manuscripts and artifacts were transported, as material expressions of Buddhism. However, it should also be noted that the historical trajectory of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā is not limited to the northern overland routes, but it also includes the ancient Maritime Silk Road in Southeast Asia, as described below.
Another place, where material expressions of Buddhism are found, is Bujang Valley, or Lembah Bujang in Malay. It is a historical site where a port of the ancient kingdom of Kedah once existed. Located in the south-central part of the state of Kedah on the northwest coast of Peninsular Malaysia (Samat 2013, p. 14), this region is widely recognized as one of the oldest and most significant archaeological sites in Southeast Asia. More than 80 historical sites, mostly comprising Buddhist temples (caṇḍi) and an entrepôt, have been uncovered here, making it a rich repository of cultural and historical heritage not just for Malaysia but also for the wider Southeast Asia (Mokhtar et al. 2011). It was not until British Colonel James Low discovered the remnants of an early trading settlement with fragments of Hindu–Buddhist structures in the 1840s that the existence of an ancient civilization in Kedah was revealed to the world (Low 1849). This unexpected discovery has opened new avenues for the study of ancient Kedah, and fieldwork has continued (e.g., (Evans [1927] 2011)).
The first archaeological expedition to Bujang Valley in Kedah was undertaken during 1936–1937 by H.G. Quaritch Wales, a pioneering British scholar of the early history of Southeast Asia, with his wife, Dorothy, under the sponsorship of the Greater India Research Committee based in Calcutta, India (Wales 1940, p. vii; Guy 1995, p. 91). On this expedition, he discovered a rectangular clay tablet 13 cm in length inscribed in Sanskrit verses at Site 2 located at a village about 40 m away from the right bank of the Sungai Bujang River. The Sanskrit verses were written in Later Pallava script, the same type that appeared in Śrīvijaya inscriptions produced in the first half of the 7th century; the clay tablet discovered at Bujang Valley was therefore also datable to the same period or somewhat later (De Casparis 1975, p. 20; Skilling 2018, pp. 435–36).7 The Sanskrit verses were transcribed and translated by contemporary scholars such as J. Allan, J. Ph. Vogel, E. H. Johnston and N. P. Chakravarti, and then identified by Lin Li-Kouang 林藜光 as belonging to the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā (Wales 1940, pp. 8–10).
Since the pioneering work of Quaritch Wales, archeologists have continued conducting excavations and analyzing museum objects and local texts, and they have significantly advanced our understanding of the ancient history of Bujang Valley in Kedah (see, among others, Lamb 1960, 1961a, 1961b, Wheatley 1961; Peacock 1970, 1974; Hassan et al. 1990; Jacq-Hergoualc’h 1992; Chia and Mokhtar 2011).8 Recent studies have shown that Bujang Valley was not only a major entrepot on the western coast of the Thai–Malay peninsula from at least the 5th to the 14th century but also a cosmopolitan center of ancient maritime trade and cultural exchange that functioned as a connecting bridge between the East and West (see, e.g., the recent papers by Murphy 2018; Khaw et al. 2021).
In 2007 and 2009, more stone tablets inscribed with the Sanskrit verses from the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā were discovered at two separate locations in Bujang Valley: Site 32 of Sungai Mas and Site SB1B of Sungai Batu.9 It is noteworthy that all the Sāgaramati inscriptions found in Bujang Valley so far bear the same content, i.e., the three verses on the teachings of emptiness, conditionality, the limitlessness of saṃsāra and the qualities of the Buddha. Peter Skilling, in his brief yet comprehensive survey of the Sāgaramati inscriptions from Kedah, noted that it is “a phenomenon of Bujang Valley only” and does not take place elsewhere (Skilling 2018, p. 444). He further suggested that these Sāgaramati inscriptions can be taken as evidence for the widespread practices of inscribing and installing sacred texts in Kedah, which had been widely adopted in South and Southeast Asian Buddhist societies at the time.
One reason that the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā was popular in the area where the inscribed tablets have been found could be that the settlements of Kedah were centers of international trade and thus dependent on seafaring. Śrīvijaya’s imperial power was, to a great extent, built on the control of the Malacca Strait, and the towns and settlements were very much part of a network of marine routes and seamanship. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider artifacts with inscriptions quoting the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā, or a sailor’s votive tablet, as bringing luck at sea; from that viewpoint, these artifacts serve as expressions of the sūtra in the context of the material culture of Kedah. This interpretation also points to the possibility that the text was popular in the learned circles of Śrīvijaya at the time and thus a part of the intangible heritage of the area that, although it has been lost, shows evidence of its existence in extant manuscripts. Centers of Śrīvijaya Buddhist learning were in great esteem at the time that the inscribed artifact was produced, as documented, for example, by the fact that 義淨 (Yijing, 635–713), the great Tang translator, stayed in Śrīvijaya for an extended period to learn Sanskrit before he proceeded to India proper.
The following are the transliteration and translation of the Sanskrit verses from Bujang Valley, with their Tibetan and Chinese parallels. Skilling (2018) amended the order of the verses to reflect that of the original text (p. 436, fn. 15). As mentioned above, two versions of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā exist in Chinese: the “Haihui pusa pin 海慧菩薩品” in the Da fangdeng dajijing 大方等大集經 collection (T. 397) and the Haihui pusa suowen jingyin famen jing 海意菩薩所問淨印法門經 (T. 400). The Chinese parallels of the Sanskrit verses are found only in the later extant version, the Haihui pusa suowen jingyin famen jing, and we could not find corresponding portions in the earlier version, the Haihui pusa pin.10 It is therefore assumed that the Chinese translation that Lin Li-Kouang consulted to identify the Bujang inscriptions that he found was the Haihui pusa suowen jingyin famen jing. The first verse regards the pivotal concepts of Mahāyāna Buddhism, dependent arising and emptiness, and is quoted in later philosophical works of Indian masters, such as Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka and Abhayākaragupta’s Munimatālaṃkāra (Kanō and Li 2021, pp. 104–5). The citations of the first verse, together with the Sāgaramati inscriptions found in Kedah, indicate the possibility that the text had been used as authoritative canonical lines that present the core doctrines of Buddhist metaphysics in South and Southeast Asian Buddhist traditions:11
(a)
ye pratītyasamutpannā na te kecit svabhāvataḥ
ye svabhāvā na vidyante na teṣāṃ saṃbhavaḥ kvacit
(b)
jānīte ya imāṃ koṭīṃ akoṭīṃ jagatas samāṃ
tasya koṭīṃ gataṃ jñānaṃ sarvadharmeṣu varttate
(c)
balāni daśa catvāri vaiśāradyāni yāni ca
aṣṭādaśa ca buddhānāṃ dharmmā āveṇikā hi ye (see Figure A2 in Appendix A)
(a)
Those things that have arisen in dependence
[Have not arisen] from any own nature [of their own accord]
Those that do not exist from [their] own nature [of their own accord]
For them there is no arising.
(b)
One who knows that this limit
Of the world is equal to no limit:
His wisdom has gone to the limit
And functions with regard to all dharmas.
(c)
The ten types of powers,
The four kinds of confidence
And the eighteen qualities
That are unique to Buddhas. (tr. by Skilling 2018, pp. 436–37).
(a)
謂諸法縁生 自性無所有
若自性不有 即無少法生
(b)
實際此若知 世間等無際
是際中起智 隨轉一切法
(c)
所謂佛十力 及四無所畏
諸佛十八種 不共功徳法 (T.400, 494a16–19; 494a24–25; K1281, v41, 58b21–24; 58c06-c07, see Figure A3)
(a)
rten cing ’brel bar gang byung ba | de dag gang la’ang rang bzhin med ||
gang dag ngo bo nyid med pa | de dag gang du’ang ’byung ba med ||
(b)
’gro ba mtha’ med mnyam par ni | gang gis mtha’ ’dir rab shes pa ||
de yi ye shes mthar son pas | chos rnams kun la ’jug par ’gyur ||
(c)
stobs ni rnam pa bcu dag dang | mi ’jigs rnam bzhi gang dag dang ||
sangs rgyas rnams kyi ma ’dres chos | rnams pa bcva brgyad gang yin dang || (D152, 48r4–5; 48r6, Skilling 2018, pp. 451–52, see Figure A5)

3. Sanskrit Fragments of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā in the Schøyen Collection12

3.1. Introduction

Apart from the inscriptions from Bujang Valley in Kedah, scholars considered that the Sanskrit original of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā (henceforth Sgm) survived only as quotations in later commentaries, such as the Sūtrasamuccaya, the Śikṣāsamuccaya (Śikṣ) and the Ratnagotravibhāga.13 Recently, however, two small fragments of the Sgm, labeled MS 2381/11 (Figure A1 in Appendix A) and 2381/146 (Figure A1), were identified by Gudrun Melzer in the Schøyen Collection, Norway, which are to date the only known surviving witness of the original Sanskrit text.14
Each fragment has five lines to the side, and the original folio can be assumed to have had about 80 syllables in each line. The material of these fragments is palm leaf; the script is Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I, or Gandhāran Brāhmī, which was the most widely used script in Northwestern India during the 6–7th centuries before it was superseded by Gilgit/Bāmiyān Type II, or Proto-Śārada (Sander 2000, pp. 291–300; von Hinüber 2013, p. 88). Thus, the fragments vouch for the popularity at the time of this scripture in Northwestern India as well.
The two fragments belong to the same Sgm piece as that of the Śikṣ quotation, related to the perfection of patience (kṣāntipāramitā), which is the longest Sgm quotation in Śikṣ. However, the fragments also include a previously unknown portion that does not appear in either Śikṣ or any other known sources. The fragments come from two folia that were likely separated by one folio based on the distances between the last and first lines of each folio. In the following, we present the two fragments of the Sgm in the Schøyen Collection and also its annotated translation.

3.2. An Edition and Translation

Symbols and sigla15
( )restorations in a gap
[ ]damaged akṣara(s)
+one destroyed akṣara
.illegible part of an akṣara
..one illegible akṣara
...indefinite number of lost akṣaras
-filler mark used when the surface of the MS cannot be written upon
a punctuation mark
||a daṇḍa
gap representing space
///beginning or end of a fragment when broken
Transliteration and reconstruction (cf. Figure A1)
Folio nr. [24]16
recto
r1+ + + + + rvasatvā[n]. + + śaparibh[ā] + ///
Rec.... (sa)rvasatvān(ām ākro)śaparibhā(ṣā-) ...
r2+ + + + + nayati • v[ī] .[y].[m] ārabhate • [p]. + ///
Rec.... (saṃja)nayati • vī(r)y(a)m ārabhate • p(arākrama-) ...
r3nn. .. + + sa◊rvalokaviruddham idaṃ [y]. + ///
Rec.... (sa)nn(ahyati |)17 sarvalokaviruddham idaṃ y(ānaṃ yad uta mahāyānam | tat kasya hetoḥ)18 ...
r4nnaddhaḥ ete ca sa [-] - - tvāḥ vyāpādaśūrāḥ a ///
Rec.... (saṃnāhasa)nnaddhaḥ19 (|) ete ca satvāḥ vyāpādaśūrāḥ a(ham) ...
r5te asiśaktitomara - - pā[.ip.] rigṛ[h]ī ///
Rec.... te asiśaktitomarapā(ṇ)iparigrhī(tā)20 ...
verso
v1śrutakuśalamūlacittotpādara .[n]. .. tpāda .. + ///
Rec.... śrutakuśalamūlacittotpāra(t)n(am u)tpāda(y-)21 ...
v2[ru]ṣābhir vāgbhiḥ samudā - - careyur adhiṣṭhitā a .. ///
Rec.... (pa)ruṣābhir vāgbhiḥ samudācareyur22 adhiṣṭhitā a(narthakarmāṇ-) ...
v3niga .a .. + ya◊malokagatasyāpi • [m]. + ///
Rec.... (tiryagyo)niga(t)a(syāpi •) yamalokagatasyāpi • m(anuṣyagatasyāpi)23 ...
v4+ + + + + ◊ tmārthaḥ kṛto na parārthaḥ [s]. + ///
Rec.... (ā)tmārthaḥ kṛto na parārthaḥ s(ace-)24 ...
v5+ + + + + [ta]t kasya [h]e + + [sa]rvā hy eṣā + + ///
Rec.... tat kasya he(toḥ) sarvā hy eṣā ...
Translation25
… He endures (r1) the harsh words of all beings, and their ways of speaking that are abusive and crooked;26 he endures harms of all beings; he carries the burdens of all beings, or delivers them; but he is never depressed, dispirited, disheartened, or exhausted; he shows strength, (r2) produces power, uses strength, makes the effort, strives, and restrains the thought of infatuation;27 he being reviled does not revile in return;28 he being struck does not strike in return; he being annoyed does not annoy in return; he being irritated does not irritate in return. In this way he (r3) puts on the armor of mental calculation.29 This Great Way (mahāyāna) is therefore the way (yāna) in opposition to the whole world (sarvalokaviruddha).30 Why is that? Those beings follow the stream, and I wish to make an effort to turn back the stream. Those beings are in conflict with one another, and I am (r4) clad in the armour (saṃnāhasaṃnaddha)31 for the eliminating of their conflicts. Those beings are heroes by doing violence (vyāpāda), and I strive after certainty (niyāma) in tolerance (kṣānti). Those beings dwell in mutual deception, and I seek to be satisfied with insight (prajñātṛpta).32 Further, if (r5) those beings, as many as in the multiplying multiples of ten directions, holding swords, spears, and lances were to chase me behind, [saying]: “Wherever he, standing, sitting, or lying down, (v1) will produce the thought of awakening, the thought of giving, up to the thought of insight,33 or the jewel of the thought of the roots of good which consists in hearing,34 there we will tear, cut, sunder his body into a hundred pieces just like a leaf of the jujube tree.” If all those beings were to revile me and blame me, criticize me, disparage me, (v2) address me with lying and harsh words, be engaged in evil actions; if they were to tear up, cut up, destroy, and annihilate my body in a hundred pieces like a leaf of the jujube tree; even so I will never produce the thought of anger against any being. Why is that? Since in the beginningless cyclic existence I was an inhabitant in hell, (v3) an animal, a habitant in the Yāma’s world or a man;35 being attached to the desire for food, I did not hear the dharma; being associated with wrong36 livelihood, I lived meaninglessly; I was tortured by being dismembered into a hundred pieces; there was no occasion (nidāna) (v4) for my good nor for the good of others. If, however, in the future end, all these beings were to dismember me, even so, I would not give up omniscience, any being, nor the intense desire for the good quality. (v5) Why is that? Because all this bodily pain and damage does not approach even a hundredth part of the pains of the inhabitant in hell, until nor does it even permit analogy.37 I can endure living in the hell. I shall not give up the dharma of the Buddha, nor the great compassion that is the basis38 for [the deliverance] of all beings …39
Transliteration and reconstruction (cf. Figure A1)
Folio nr. (26)40
recto
r1/// + + + + + .. + .. + .y. + + + + ///
r2/// + [nt]. nām aguptānām anupaśā[nt]. + + + ///
Rec. ... (adā)nt(ā)nām aguptānām anupaśānt(ānām) ...
r3/// + t[i] paribhāṣate • hanta vaya[ṃ] + + + + ///
Rec. ... (sa mām ākrośaya)ti paribhāṣate •41 hanta vayaṃ ...
r4/// yam asya prajñāpāramitā [e]vaṃ hi .[ā] + ///
Rec. ... (i)yam asya prajñāpāramitā evaṃ hi (s)ā(garamate) ...42
r5/// + [dhi]satvas[y]a vākpīḍāsahanaṃ • || ta .. ///
Rec. ... (bo)dhisatvasya vākpīḍāsahanaṃ • || ta(tra) ...
verso
v1/// + + + jñ. t[ā]c. ttān na muhyate • buddharū .. ///
Rec.... (sarva)jñ(ā)tāc(i)ttān na muhyate • buddharū(pa)43 ...
v2/// .. j[a] tvam etad vīryaṃ durllabhā bodhir durllabhā .. ///
Rec.... (tya)ja tvam etad vīryaṃ durllabhā bodhir durllabhā (buddha-
dharmā)44 ...
v3/// + [j]aty āśayaṃ ca na viko + + ..e ..ṃ .. .. ///
Rec.... (tya)jaty āśayaṃ ca na viko(payaty) e(va)ṃ ...
v4/// + sramahāsāhasre lokadhāt[au] + + + ///
Rec.... (trisāha)sramahāsāhasre lokadhātau45 ...
v5/// + + + + + .. ..ṃ .. .e + .[e] + + + ///
Translation
… Again, he thinks: “This being is forgetful (muṣitasmṛti), unaware of what he does (asamprajña), and the one whose thought is attached to vices (kleśa). That is why he reviles me and abuses me. I shall reflect on vices! I shall be with memory and presence of mind (smṛtisaṃprajanya) and never forget bodhicitta as a single purpose (ekāgra). For the sake of beings who are (r2) undisciplined, not peaceful, unprotected, and untamed,46 I shall put on the great armor (mahāsaṃnāha), and in that way, I will enter the reflection of thought (cittanidhyapti).” Such thinking is the perfection of concentration (dhyānapāramitā). Again, he thinks: “This being is one with false insight (duḥprajña), he adheres to a self (ātmavāda), and dwells in the sphere in which such being is apprehended as an objective support. (r3) That is why he reviles me and abuses me. I shall rely on the true state of the dharmas (dharmatā). When he analyzes that who here is abusing and who is abused, he will find no such phenomenon of someone abusing or being abused.” Such tolerance that being free from false views does not apprehend the self or others (r4) is the perfection of insight (prajñāpāramitā). In that way, Sāgaramati, the bodhisatva, being skilled in means, after having heard harsh words from others and their ways of speaking that are abusive and offensive, fulfills the cultivation of those six perfections, and never forgets the great vehicle. This is (r5) the bodhisatva’s tolerance of violent words.47 What then is, Sāgaramati, is the tolerance of mental harassment of the bodhisatva?48 Even though any Māra is trying to separate you from the bodhicitta, you are still unwavering. Even though any opponent (parapravādin) attached to the preconceived viewpoints (upalaṃbhadṛṣṭi) is trying to make you disinterested (v1) in the thought of omniscience (sarvajñatācitta) that is entering the correct intention (samyagāśaya), you never forget it. Even if the Māra appears in the form of the Buddha (buddharūpa), he cannot destroy your thought equal to that which has no equal (asamasamacitta). With his magical powers (ṛddhi), the Māra may try to manipulate you like this: “You cannot establish the great vehicle (mahāyāna), so (v2) throw away your honor and give up making effort. The awakening is difficult to obtain. The qualities of the Buddha are also difficult to obtain. You will undergo a lot of sufferings of cyclic existence (saṃasāraduḥkha). Whoever attains extinction (nirvāṇa), they will be happy. Therefore, good man (satpuruṣa), you shall hurry up to attain the extinction.” O Sāgaramati, even if you are thus separated from, or thus lose your faith as the bodhisatva, the great being, you (v3) shall not discard your previous armour or become disturbed, thinking: “I shall conquer the place of awakening (bodhimaṇḍa). I shall subdue all the hordes of Mara and fully wake up to unsurpassed perfect awakening. I shall turn the wheel of the dharma (dharmacakra). I shall certainly declare the great religious discourses (dharmakathā) (v4) in the trichiliomegachiliocosm (trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu). I shall invite all beings and satisfy them by giving of the dharma (dharmadāna) …

3.3. Comments

Despite the fragmentary state of the present MS fragment materials, their significance is clear for the following three reasons:
(1)
The MS presents the first evidence for the parts of the lost Sanskrit original of the Sgm that are not represented in the quotations. With the exception of the second line of the recto, the entire text of MS 2381/146 does not appear in any later commentaries, including the ŚikṣSkt. Access to the original Sanskrit, even though the amount of text is very small, offers new insights into the textual and historical relationships among various extant sources.
(2)
The MS contains unique readings that do not appear in ŚikṣMS. For example, the fifth line of the recto of MS 2381/11 can be reconstructed as te asiśaktitomarapāliparigrhītā, “they hold swords, pikes, and lances in hands,” but ŚikṣMS reads te sarvve ’siśaktitomarapāṇayo, “they all hold swords, pikes, and lances in their hand (ŚikṣMS 88a3).” In his edition, Bendall made an incorrect emendation of the phrase, te sarve ’siśaktitomarapāliyogena, as he read it as te sarve ’siśaktitomarapala(śa?)yo. (Bendall 1902, p. 186, fn. 1).49 Another example is found in the first line of the verso of MS 2381/11. ŚikṣMS reads … śrutakuśalamūlacittaṃ votpādayiṣyati (ŚikṣMS 88a4), “one will produce … or the thought of the roots of good which consists in hearing,” and the same reading is given in other versions, namely thos pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba’i sems skye bar ’gyur ba, both in the ŚikṣTib and the SgmTib, “發 … 聞彼發起一善根心” in the ŚikṣChi and “發 … 乃至或聞發一善根心者” in the SgmChi II. However, the MS here reads śrutakuśalamūlacittotpādara .[n]. .. tpāda .., which can likely be reconstructed as śrutakuśalamūlacittotpāratn(am u)tpāda(yiṣyati?), “one will produce the jewel of the thought of good which consists in hearing.” Because the other versions all give the same reading here without the term -ratna, “jewel,” the unique reading of MS might be a scribal error. Nevertheless, one might interpret it as an editorial choice given the fact that the term ratna is often connected to the term citta within Mahāyāna contexts, even in the same paragraph (cf. ŚikṣMS sarvvajñatācittotpādaratne; ŚikṣTib and SgmTib: thams cad mkhyen par sems bskyed pa rin po che de ltar bskyed nas).
(3)
The present MS fragments show how Tibetan translators dealt with the omitted passages in the Sanskrit original that they used for producing the ŚikṣTib translation. Concerning the question of the integrity of the ŚikṣTib translation, two possible scenarios have been suggested so far. Braarvig, in his study on the Akṣayamatinirdeśa, argued that ŚikṣTib can be considered an independent witness, i.e., the Tibetan translators who worked on the Śikṣ made a new translation using the original Sanskrit of the source texts (Braarvig 1993a, p. xv). Against this argument, Silk maintains, based on his research on the Ratnarāśi, that the quotations in ŚikṣTib were modified or simply borrowed from the already existing Tibetan translations of the source texts, and thus, they cannot be regarded as an independent witness (Silk 1994, pp. 649–51). Harrison more recently examined this issue with a more systematic approach. First, he selected as a sample one chapter from the full text that contained an adequate number of citations taken from twenty canonical sources. Second, he categorized them into three groups, viz., (a) the wording of the citation from ŚikṣTib is the same as the Derge translation of the source text, (b) the wording of the citation from ŚikṣTib is broadly similar to the Derge translation of the source text and (c) the wording of the citation from ŚikṣTib differs from the Derge translation of the source text. Last, he analyzed the results of this investigation. If the citations fell into the first or second group, it indicated that the translators did not directly use the Sanskrit originals but consulted the relevant parts of Tibetan translations. In contrast, citations from ŚikṣTib that fell into the last group should be considered reliable independent witnesses because they were based on the original Sanskrit. Harrison concluded as follows:
“Category A and B outnumber Category C, but not by a significant margin…. That said, it is perfectly conceivable that when faced with passages in the Śikṣ from sūtras which had already been translated, especially lengthy passages, our team would have been reluctant to duplicate work already done, all the more so if they had done that work themselves, and would naturally have preferred to borrow the relevant sections of text as they were (Category A) or reshape them to fit (which could account for some of the Category B cases). With very short passages, however, this would hardly have been worth the trouble. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of our longer passages are Category A, while the shorter passages—sometimes no more than one or two verses—tend to fall into Category C.”
In MS 2381/11, in the third and fourth lines of the recto, there is a section that is found in ŚikṣTib but not in ŚikṣSkt. This suggests that the author of ŚikṣSkt omitted certain parts of SgmSkt, and that the Tibetan translators likely reinserted them, borrowing from the corresponding parts of the SgmTib translation. Such cases are also found in the cases of the Akṣayamatinirdeśa and the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā quoted in ŚikṣSkt and ŚikṣTib. However, that the quotations in the ŚikṣSkt are to a great extent identical to the MS fragments is surprising. It could be the case that the MS folios from which the fragments come, represent popular and much-quoted parts of the Sgm that were also preserved as quotations in śāstras as loci classici, and that the rest of the folios were lost at an early stage before arriving in Bamiyan.

4. Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we present a case study of what may be called the material or tangible versus the intangible heritage of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchāsūtra, as defined in the quoted UNESCO documents. The material heritage of the work is somewhat scanty, consisting of Chinese and Tibetan manuscripts and xylographs containing translations of the original Indic text, and in addition, other Indic manuscripts with quotations of the work. However, significantly, the material heritage of the work is also represented by the inscribed tablets from Kedah, providing further evidence of the cultural continuity between India and Śrīvijaya, a state formation in South-East Asia built on the marine control of the Malacca strait. The tablets can be interpreted as sailors’ votive gifts, referring to the main motif of the mentioned text, viz., the Ocean, sāgara—Śrīvijaya being heavily dependent on marine activities.
From this material evidence, or material heritage for that matter, intangible heritage can also be presumed, even though this heritage has now disappeared from its present whereabouts. The tablets found in Kedah are most likely related to the dynamic centers of Buddhist learning in Śrīvijaya and are thus part of the intangible heritage of this area, Although now lost, this heritage is likely better styled as narrative and intellectual heritage. However, because of the material heritage of the Mahāyāna Buddhist text, we may also to some extent construct the intellectual and narrative heritage of the work. Even though the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā is not among the most influential expressions of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it still plays a part in conveying the heritage of Buddhism, based on its material remains. The work has even been translated into English from its Tibetan xylograph in the 84000 project (https://84000.co/new-publication-the-questions-of-sagaramati (accessed on 13 April 2023), conveying its intangible heritage to a modern audience as narrative and intellectual heritage of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B.; investigation, J.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.H.; writing—review and editing, J.B.; supervision, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Chi.Chinese
DDerge Kanjur
FPhugbrag Kanjur
KTripiṭaka Koreana (the 2nd Koryŏ edition, available at https://kabc.dongguk.edu/index, accessed on 15 March 2023)
MSManuscript (but also referring to the collection of Martin Schøyen)
SStog Kanjur
Skt.Sanskrit
SgmSāgaramatiparipṛcchā
SgmSktThe Sanskrit Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā
SgmTibThe Tibetan Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā (‘phags pa blo gros rgya mtshos źus pa źes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, tr. by Jinamitra, Dānaśīla, Buddhaprabha, and Ye shes sde: D152, mdo sde, pha 1b1–115b7 (http://www.rkts.org/images.php?id=1%7CD%7CMW22084%7CI0943%7Cmdo+sde%7C1b, accessed on 15 March 2023); F153, mdo sde, pha (cha) 1b1–206b3; S134, mdo sde, ba 1b1–166a3; Ta1.4.0.15 (RN308: 31–33), Ta1.4.25.2 (RN309 and 315: 5657, 5(9), 64, 67, 76, 79, 83–84, 87(?), 88, 99, 12, 39, plus 2 folios with numbers missing)
SgmChi IThe Chinese Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā I (Haihui pusa pin 海慧菩薩品, T. 397(5))
SgmChi IIThe Chinese Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā II (Haihui pusa suowen jingyin famen jing 海意菩薩所問淨印法門經, T. 400; K1481 (https://kabc.dongguk.edu/viewer/view?dataId=ABC_IT_K1481_T_001&imgId=041_0027_b, accessed on 15 March 2023)
ŚikṣŚikṣāsamuccaya
ŚikṣBBendall’s edition of the ŚikṣSkt (Bendall 1902)
ŚikṣChiThe Chinese Śikṣāsamuccaya (Dashengji pusa xue lun 大乘集菩薩學論, tr. by Dharmarakṣa 法護, Richeng 日稱 et al., in the first half of the 11th century, during the Northern Song Dynasty, T. 1636)
ŚikṣMSA manuscript of the Śikṣāsamuccaya at Cambridge University Library (MS Add.1478: https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01478/1, accessed on 15 March 2023)
ŚikṣSktThe Sanskrit Śikṣāsamuccaya
ŚikṣTibThe Tibetan Śikṣāsamuccaya (Bslab pa kun las btus pa: D3940, mdo ‘grel dbu ma, khi 3a-194b; F272 mdo sde, a 164a1–443a8)
TaTabo Collection
Tib.Tibetan

Appendix A. Materials Relevant to the Study of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā Reception

Materials are placed chronologically:

Appendix B. Relevant Passages in the Tibetan Translation of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā

Note on the edition: Here we present the relevant passages of the present MS in the SgmTib. The edition is based on Derge Kanjur (Karmapa reprint, 1976–79), but the variant readings in Stog and Phugbrag Kanjurs and Tabo Collection are also collated and given in the apparatus. The portions in bold indicate the corresponding parts in the MS fragments. Digital images of the Tibetan materials used in this study are available from the Resources for Kanjur and Tanjur Studies (http://www.rkts.org, accessed on 14 February 2023).
(1)
SgmTib (D152, mdo sde, pha 13b7–15a7; F153 mdo sde, pha (cha) 26a27–28b4; S134, mdo sde, ba 19a27–21a6; Tabo RN315: 56a)
blo gros rgya mtsho ’di la byaṅ chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po thams cad mkhyen1 par sems bskyed pa rin po che de ltar bskyed nas | ’phags pa ma yin pa tshul khrims ’chal pa’i sems can rnams sam | bdud rnams sam | bdud kyi ris kyi lha rnams sam | bdud kyi byin gyis brlabs pa rnams sam | bdud kyi pho ña rnams kyis gtses sam | rnam par gtses sam | bskyod dam |2 kun tu bskyod dam | dkrugs sam |3 kun tu dkrugs sam | bsdigs sam | brdegs kyaṅ4 byaṅ chub tu bsam pa’i sems (D14a) bskyed pa de las mi6 phyed pa daṅ | sems can thams cad rab tu thar6 par bya ba’i sñiṅ rje chen pos7 brtson ’grus brtsams pa las mi phyed pa daṅ | dkon mchog gsum gyi rigs mi ’chad par bya bar brtson pa las mi phyed pa daṅ | saṅs rgyas kyi chos thams cad yaṅ dag par bsgrub pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba la sbyor ba las8 mi phyed pa daṅ | mtshan daṅ dpe byad bzaṅ po yoṅs su ’grub9 par ’gyur ba’i bsod nams kyi tshogs bsags10 pa las mi phyed (F26b) pa daṅ | saṅs rgyas kyi źiṅ yoṅs su sbyaṅ ba mṅon par sgrub par11 (J15b) brtson pa las12 mi phyed pa daṅ | lus daṅ srog ’dor źiṅ dam pa’i13 chos yoṅs su ’dzin14 par mṅon par (S19b) brtson pa15 las mi phyed pa daṅ | sems can thams cad yoṅs su smin par bya ba la mṅon par brtson źiṅ16 bdag bde ba la mi chags pa las mi phyed pa ste | de de ltar lhag pa’i bsam pa phun sum tshogs par gyur17 pas18 sems can thams cad kyis dpyas kyaṅ bzod | thiṅ slad byas pa daṅ | smaṅ ba daṅ | bśuṅ ba byas kyaṅ bzod | (24r1) sems can thams cad kyis19 spyos sam20 bsdigs sam21 ṅan du brjod dam | ṅan du smras pa’i tshig gi las22 yaṅ bzod | sems can thams cad kyi gnod pa yaṅ bzod | sems can thams cad kyi khur yaṅ bzod | sgrol bas kyaṅ skyo ba med |23 źum pa med |24 kun tu źum pa med | sgyid lug pa med | yi chad pa25 med kyi26 stobs ñe bar ston27 par byed | mthu28 (24r2) skyed par byed ciṅ brtson ’grus rtsom la29 rtul bas rtul30 bar byed de | spro ba skyed ciṅ rmoṅs pa’i sems mi ’dzin to || de spyos31 kyaṅ slar mi gśe | brdegs kyaṅ slar mi rdeg32 | khros kyaṅ slar mi khro | ’khrugs kyaṅ (Ta56b) slar mi ’khrug ste | de ltar sems can bgraṅ ba’i go cha gyon no || ’di lta ste |33 (F27a) theg pa chen po ’di ni (24r3) ’jig rten thams cad daṅ mi ’thun pa’i theg pa’o || de ci’i phyir źe na | sems can de dag ni rgyun gyi rjes su ’gro ba dag go ||34 bdag ni rgyun las ldog par rtsol bar35 ’dod pa’o || sems can de dag ni phan (D14b) tshun mi ’thun pa dag go || bdag ni sems can thams cad kyi mi ’thun pa (S20a) spaṅ ba’i phyir go cha (24r4) bgos pa’o || sems can de dag ni gnod sems la dpa’ ba dag go || bdag ni bzod pa daṅ |36 ṅes pa yoṅs su tshol ba’o || sems can de dag ni gcig la gcig yoṅs su ’drid par gnas pa dag go || bdag ni śes rab kyis ṅoms pa yoṅs (J16a) su tshol ba’o || gal te sems can de dag phyogs bcu’i rab tu dbye bas rab tu phye37 ba ji sñed pa de dag thams cad (24r5) ral gri38 daṅ | mduṅ thuṅ daṅ39 mda’ bo che lag na thogs te |40 bdag gi phyi bźin ’braṅ yaṅ |41 sa phyogs gaṅ42 du ’greṅ dam43 ’dug gam44 ’chag gam45 ñal yaṅ ruṅ ste | byaṅ chub kyi sems skye bar ’gyur ba daṅ | sbyin pa’i sems sam |46 tshul khrims kyi sems sam | bzod pa’i sems sam | brtson ’grus kyi sems sam | bsam gtan gyi sems sam | śes rab kyi sems sam | (24v1) thos pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba’i47 sems skye bar (F27b) ’gyur ba’i phyogs der48 bdag49 lus rgya shug gi lo ma’i brgya cha tsam du gtubs sam | rnam par gtor tam | rnam par bcom mam | sems can de dag thams cad las gźan mi byed par rgyun du gśe’am | bsdigs sam | smod dam | bshuṅ ṅam |50 tshig ṅan pa daṅ51 (24v2) ṅag rtsub po52 smra ba de ltar gyur kyaṅ53 bdag gis sems can ’ga’ la yaṅ54 ’khrug pa’i sems bskyed par mi bya’o || de ci’i phyir źe na | sṅon gyi mtha’ nas ’khor ba tshad med par byas te55 | gaṅ du bdag gis lus (S20b) ’di sems can dmyal bar soṅ ṅam | (24v3) dud ’gro’i skye56 gnas su soṅ ṅam | gśin rje’i ’jig rten du soṅ ṅam | mir gyur kyaṅ ruṅ ste57 ’dod pa’i zas kyi dri mas dri ma can58 du gyur nas59 chos thos pa daṅ mi ldan źiṅ60 yaṅ ba’i ’tsho ba’i spyod yul61 don med pas ’tsho ba can du gyur te62 yan lag daṅ |63 ñid lag brgyar gśegs śiṅ64 gtubs te65 phye źiṅ phral la66 bya ba rnam pa maṅ po67 byas kyaṅ68 bdag gis gźi de las (24v4) bdag gi don byas kyis69 gźan gyi don ma byas pa’i70 gal te71 sems can de dag thams cad kyis |72 phyi (D15a) ma’i mthar bdag gis73 lus gśags gtubs74 rnam par gtor75 (J16b) rnam par bcom pa de lta bur (F28a) gyur kyaṅ76 bdag gis thams cad mkhyen pa77 yoṅs su mi gtoṅ ṅo || sems can thams cad yoṅs su mi gtoṅ ṅo || dge ba’i chos la ’dun pa yoṅs su mi gtoṅ ṅo || (24v5) de ci’i phyir źe na | lus gtubs pa’i lus kyi gnod pa ’di lta bu78 thams cad ni79 sems can dmyal ba’i sdug bsṅal gyi |80 brgya’i char yaṅ ñe bar mi ’gro ba nas rgyu’i bar du yaṅ mi bzod do || bdag ni sems can dmyal bar gnas par spro’i81 | bdag gis saṅs rgyas kyi chos gtaṅ bar ni mi bya’o || sems can thams cad rab tu thar bar bya ba la dmigs pa’i sñiṅ rje chen po mi gtoṅ ṅo || de ci’i phyir źe na | de ni bcom ldan ’das kyis kyaṅ gsuṅs te | dge ba la ni bar chad maṅ ṅo || mi dge ba’i phyogs la ni grogs byed pa (S21a) maṅ ṅo || dge ba’i phyogs la ni grogs byed pa ñuṅ ṅo82 źes gsuṅs pas83 bdag gis mi dge ba’i phyogs kyi grogs mi bya’i84 dge ba’i phyogs kyi grogs bya’o || sems can thams cad la bzod par bya’i85 gnod sems su mi bya’o || sems can de dag la gaṅ yod pa de ma byin na86 yaṅ87 bdag la gaṅ yod pa de bdag gis sbyin par bya ste | sems can de dag la gnod sems daṅ88 khro ba daṅ | ’khon du (F28b) ’dzin pa yod pa de dag89 de rnams kyis ma90 byin yaṅ bdag la bzod pa daṅ91 ṅes pa gaṅ yod pa de bdag gis sbyin par bya’o || bdag gis bzod pa’i stobs bstan par bya’i92 gnod sems ni ma yin no sñam mo || blo gros rgya mtsho lus daṅ srog ’dor ba’i byaṅ chub sems dpa’93 rnams la ni94 bla na med pa yaṅ dag par rdzogs pa’i byaṅ chub rñed par95 dka’ ba ma yin no || gaṅ gi gźi las gnod sems ’byuṅ ba’i chos de bdag gis spaṅ bar bya’o sñam mo || chos de gaṅ źe na | ’di lta ste96 lus la dga’ ba daṅ | (J17a) lus la gnas pa daṅ | lus la chags pa ste | lus btaṅ na97 gnod sems kyaṅ gtoṅ ṅo ||
1) mkhyen DFS: mkhyend Ta 2) dam | DFTa: dam S 3) sam | DFTa: sam S 4) brdegs kyaṅ DS: bdegs kyaṅ | FTa 5) mi DFS: myi Ta (hereafter not noted) 6) thar DFS: thard Ta 7) chen pos DSTa: chen po pos F 8) ba las DSTa: bas F 9) ’grub DSTa: grub F 10) bsags D: rtsogs F: bsogs S: scogs (?) Ta 11) mṅon par sgrub par D: mṅon par bsgrub par FTa: sgrub par (om. mṅon par) S 12) las DFS: la Ta 13) dam pa’i DFTa: dam bcas pa’i S 14) ’dzin DFS: ’dzind Ta 15) brtson pa DSTa: brtson par pa F 16) źiṅ DSTa: źiṅ | F 17) gyur DFS: gyurd Ta (hereafter not noted) 18) pas DSTa: pas | F 19) kyis DSTa: kyi F 20) sam DS: sam | FTa 21) bsdigs sam D: om. F: bsdigs sam | STa 22) las D: lam FSTa 23) med | DS: med F: myed | Ta (hereafter not noted) 24) | DFS: om. Ta 25) yi chad pa DTa: yid ’chad pa FS 26) kyi DFS: kyi | Ta 27) ston DFS: stond Ta 28) mthu DFS: mthu’ Ta 29) la D: la | FSTa 30) rtul DFS: rtuld Ta 31) spyos DS: spyod FTa 32) rdeg DSTa: brdeg F 33) | DFS: om. Ta 34) part corresponding to dag go || is damaged in Ta. 35) bar DFTa: bas S 36) | D: om. FSTa 37) phye DFS: dbye Ta 38) gri DFS: gyi Ta 39) daṅ D: daṅ | FSTa 40) | DFS: om. Ta 41) | Ta: om. DFS 42) gaṅ DSTa: om. F 43) dam D: dam | FSTa 44) gam DF: gam | STa 45) gam D: gam | FSTa 46) sam | DSTa: sam F 47) thos pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba’i DS: thos pa’i dge ba’i (om. rtsa ba’i) F: thos pa’i dge ba’i rtse ba’i Ta 48) phyogs der D: sa phyogs der de F: sa phyogs der | STa 49) bdag DFS: de bdag Ta 50) bshuṅ ṅam | DTa: saṅ śu’am | F: bshuṅ ṅam (om. |) S 51) daṅ D: daṅ | FSTa 52) rtsub po DSTa: rtsub pos F 53) kyaṅ D: kyaṅ | FSTa 54) yaṅ DFS: yaṅ | Ta 55) med par byas te DSTa: med pas byas te F 56) skye DFTa: skyes S 57) ste DTa: ste | FS 58) dri mas dri ma can DTa: dri ma can F: dri mas | dri ma can S 59) nas D: nas | FSTa 60) źiṅ DFS: źiṅ | Ta 61) yaṅ ba’i ’tsho ba’i spyod yul DSTa: yaṅ ba’i spyod yul (om. ’tsho ba’i) F 62) te D: te | FSTa 63) yan lag daṅ | D: yan lags daṅ F: yan lag daṅ S: yan lags (om. daṅ |) Ta 64) śiṅ DS: śiṅ | FTa 65) gtubs te DF: tubs te | S: gtugs te Ta 66) la DFS: la | Ta 67) po DSTa: pos F 68) kyaṅ DFS: kyaṅ | Ta 69) kyis DS: gyi | F: kyi Ta 70) pa’i D: kyi | F: kyis Ta: pa’i | S 71) Ta end here 72) | D: om. FS 73) gis D: gi FS 74) gtubs D: gtubs | FS 75) gtor DS: gtor | F 76) kyaṅ DS: kyaṅ | F 77) thams cad mkhyen pa DF: thams cad mkhyen pa ñid S 78) ’di lta bu D: ’di (om. lta bu) F: ’di lta (om. bu) S 79) ni DS: ni | F 80) | D: om. FS 81) gnas par spro’i DS: gnas par mi spro’o F 82) dge ba la ni bar chad maṅ ṅo || mi dge ba’i phyogs la ni grogs byed pa maṅ ṅo || dge ba’i phyogs la ni grogs byed pa ñuṅ ṅo DS: dge ba la bar chad maṅ ṅo || mi dge ba’i phyogs la grogs byed pa ni maṅ ṅo || dge ba’i phyogs la grogs byed pa ñuṅ ṅo F (place of ni) 83) pas DS: pas | F 84) bya’i D: bya’i | FS 85) bya’i DS: bya’o || F 86) na D: om. FS 87) yaṅ DS: yaṅ | F 88) daṅ D: daṅ | FS 89) dag DS: dag | F 90) ma DS: om. F 91) daṅ DS: daṅ | F 92) bya’i D: bya’i | FS 93) byaṅ chub sems dpa’ DS: byaṅ chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po F 94) ni DF: ni | S 95) par DS: om. F 96) gaṅ źe na | ’di lta ste D: gaṅ źe na ’di lta ste | F: gaṅ źe na | ’di lta ste | S 97) na DS: nas F
(2)
SgmTib (D152, mdo sde, pha 16b17–17b5; F153 mdo sde, pha (cha) 30b27–32b3; S134, mdo sde, ba 22b67–24b3)fn50
gźan yaṅ de1 ’di sñam du sems te | sems can ’di ni tshul khrims ’chal pa las ma mthoṅ ba ste | de ni bdag la gśe źiṅ sdigs pa’o2 || bdag ni tshul khrims daṅ brtul źugs yaṅ dag par blaṅs pa las mi ñams par bya’o || gnod (S23a) sems med par bya’o || byaṅ chub kyi sems yoṅs su bsruṅ bar bya’o || las kyi rnam par smin pa la bsten par bya’o3 sñam pa ’di ni de’i tshul khrims kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’o || gźan yaṅ de ’di sñam du sems te | sems can ’di ni źe sdaṅ gi śas che źiṅ gnod sems maṅ ba ste | de ni bdag la gśe źiṅ4 bsdigs pa’o || bdag ni bzod pa’i stobs maṅ du byas te | byams pa la gnas par bya’o sñam pa ’di ni5 de’i bzod pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’o || gźan6 yaṅ de ’di sñam du sems te | sems can ’di ni le lo can dge ba’i chos daṅ bral ba ste7 de ni bdag la gśe źiṅ bsdigs pa’o || bdag ni brtson ’grus brtsam par bya | dge ba’i rtsa ba yoṅs su btsal bar brtson pa la (F31a) mi ṅoms par bya ste | sems can ’di byaṅ chub kyi sñiṅ por sṅar je ’jug par8 byas la9 phyis bdag bla na med pa yaṅ dag par rdzogs pa’i byaṅ chub mṅon par rdzogs par ’tshaṅ rgya bar bya’o10 sñam du |11 de ltar go cha gyon pa ’di ni12 de’i brtson ’grus kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’o || gźan yaṅ de ’di sñam du sems te | sems can ’di ni brjed ṅas pa | śes bźin med pa | ñon moṅs pa ṅes par bsams pa13 ste | de ni bdag la gśe źiṅ bsdigs pa’o14 || bdag ni ñon moṅs pa ṅes par bsam par bya | dran pa daṅ15 śes bźin can du bya | rtse gcig tu byaṅ chub kyi sems mi brjed par bya ste | sems can (26r2) ma dul ba16 | ma źi ba |17 ma sbas pa |18 ñe bar ma źi ba19 ’di lta bu dag gi don du20 (S23b) bdag gis go cha chen po bgos te21 ’di ltar sems ṅes par (D17a) sems su gźug go ||22 sñam pa ’di ni23 de’i24 bsam gtan gyi pha rol tu phyin pa’o || gźan yaṅ de ’di sñam du sems te | sems can ’di ni śes rab ’chal pa | bdag tu smra ba | sems can du lta bar dmigs pa’i spyod yul ba ste25 de ni bdag la gśe źiṅ (26r3) bsdigs pa’o26 || bdag ni27 chos ñid la bsten par bya’ofn51/28 sñam ste29 ’di la gśe ba daṅ30 khro ba su yin źes (F31b) des yoṅs su tshol ba na31 gaṅ gśe ba daṅ32 khro ba’i chos de mi dmigs so || de bdag daṅ33 gźan mi dmigs par lta ba daṅ34 bral bar bzod pa (26r4) ’di ni de’i35 śes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’o || blo gros rgya mtsho de ltar na36 thabs la mkhas pa’i37 byaṅ chub sems dpa’ ṅan du brjod pa daṅ38 ṅan du smras pa’i tshig gi lam39 daṅ | gśe ba daṅ40 bsdigs pa dag pha rol las thos nas41 pha rol tu phyin pa drug bsgom pa yoṅs su rdzogs par ’gyur źiṅ42 theg pa chen po de las kyaṅ mi ñams te43 ’di ni (26r5) byaṅ chub sems dpa’i ṅag gi gnod pa bzod pa’o || blo gros rgya mtsho de la byaṅ chub sems dpa’i sems kyi44 gnod pa bzod pa gaṅ źe na | gaṅ bdud thams cad kyis byaṅ chub kyi sems de las phral yaṅ mi g.yo ba daṅ | phas kyi rgol ba dmigs par lta ba la mṅon par źen pa thams cad kyis yaṅ dag pa’i bsam par źugs pa45 thams cad (26v1) mkhyen pa’i sems de las mos pa bzlog kyaṅ mi brjed pa daṅ | saṅs rgyas (S24a) kyi gzugs su ’dug kyaṅ mi mñam pa daṅ46 mñam pa’i sems de las ñams par byed mi nus te47 bdud rdzu ’phrul rab tu chen po dag gis48 khyod kyis theg pa chen po yaṅ dag par bsgrub par mi nus kyis49 khyod kyis gces (F32a) par bya ba ’di thoṅ śig | (26v2) khyod kyis50 brtson ’grus ’di bor cig51 | byaṅ chub ni rñed par dka’ ba |52 saṅs rgyas kyi chos rnams ni rñed par dka’ ba ste53 ’dir ’khor ba’i sdug bsṅal maṅ du myoṅ bar ’gyur ro || gaṅ dag mya ṅan las ’das pa de dag ni bde ba yin gyis54 skyes bu dam pa khyod myur du mya ṅan las ’das par gyis śig ces de’i55 sems skul źiṅ56 sems dran par byed la | blo gros rgya mtsho gal te byaṅ chub (D17b) sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po la de ltar bral bar byed57 de ltar mos pa zlog par byed kyaṅ58 sṅon gyi go cha (26v3) mi ’dor źiṅ59 bsam pa rnam par ’khrugs par mi byed kyi60 de ’di sñam du sems te | bdag gis ṅes par byaṅ chub kyi sñiṅ po mnan par bya61 | bdag gis ṅes par bdud dpuṅ daṅ bcas par ’pham par byas te62 bla na med pa yaṅ dag par rdzogs pa’i byaṅ chub mṅon par rdzogs par ’tshaṅ rgya bar bya | bdag gis ṅes par chos kyi ’khor lo rab tu bskor bar bya | bdag gis ṅes par (26v4) stoṅ gsum gyi stoṅ chen po’i ’jig rten gyi khams su chos kyi gtam chen po brjod par bya | bdag gis sems can thams cad mgron du gñer la63 chos kyi sbyin pas tshim par bya’o || saṅs rgyas daṅ# byaṅ chub sems dpa’ (S24b) thams cad daṅ | (F32b) bdag daṅ gźan gyi sems rig pa’i lha rnams kyis byaṅ chub tu bsam pa rig gis | bdag gis thams cad mkhyen pa’i sems kyi gnod pa bzod par bya’o || saṅs rgyas rnams daṅ lha rnams daṅ sems can daṅ bdag la bslu bar mi bya’o64 sñam pa ’di65 lta bu ni | blo gros rgya mtsho byaṅ chub sems dpa’i sems kyi gnod pa bzod ciṅ |66 theg pa chen po de las mi phyed pa67 ste | blo gros rgya mtsho ’di ni thams cad mkhyen par sems bskyed pa rin po che de’i gnod pa bzod pa’o ||
1) de DS: om. F 2) sdigs pa’o DF: bsdigs pa’o S 3) bya’o D: bya’o || FS 4) źiṅ DS: om. F 5) ni DS: ni | F 6) gźan DS: om. F 7) ste D: ste | FS 8) sṅar je ’jug par DS: sṅar rje ’jug par F 9) la DS: la | F 10) bya’o DS: bya’o || F 11) | D: om. FS 12) ni DS: ni | F 13) bsams pa DF: ma bsams pa S 14) bsdigs pa’o DS: sdigs pa’o F 15) daṅ DF: daṅ | S 16) sems can ma dul ba DF: sems can thams cad ma dul ba S 17) | DS: om. F 18) | DS: om. F 19) ba DS: ba | F 20) don du DS: mdon du F 21) te D: ste | F: te | S 22) || D: om. FS 23) sñam pa ’di ni DF: sñam pa ’di dag ni S 24) de’i DF: om. S 25) ste D: ste | FS 26) bsdigs pa’o DS: sdigs pa’o F 27) bdag ni DS: bdag gi F 28) bsten par bya’o DS: rten par bya’o F 29) ste D: ste | FS 30) daṅ D: daṅ | FS 31) na DS: na | F 32) daṅ DS: daṅ | F 33) dmigs so || de bdag daṅ DS: dmigs śiṅ bdag daṅ | F 34) gźan mi dmigs par lta ba daṅ DS: gźan mi dmigs pas dmigs par lta ba daṅ | F 35) de’i DS: om. F 36) na DS: na | F 37) thabs la mkhas pa’i DS: thabs mkhas pa’i F 38) daṅ D: daṅ | DS 39) ṅan du smras pa’i tshig gi lam DS: ṅan du smra pa’i lam gyi lam F 40) daṅ D: daṅ | FS 41) bsdigs pa dag pha rol las thos nas DS: sdigs pa dag pha rol las thos na | F 42) źiṅ DS: źiṅ | F 43) te D: ste | F: te | S 44) kyi DS: gyis F 45) yaṅ dag pa’i bsam par źugs pa D: yaṅ dag par bsam par źugs pa F: yaṅ dag pa’i bsam par źugs pa | S 46) daṅ DS: daṅ | F 47) te D: te | FS 48) gis DS: gis | F 49) kyis D: kyis | FS 50) kyis DS: kyi F 51) ’di bor cig D: ’di ’or cig FS 52) | DS: om. F 53) ste D: ste | FS 54) gyis d: gyis | FS 55) de’i DS: de las F 56) źiṅ D: źiṅ | FS 57) byed D: byed | FS 58) mos pa zlog par byed kyaṅ D: mos par zlog pa byed kyaṅ | F: mos pa zlog par byed kyaṅ | S 59) źiṅ DS: źiṅ | F 60) bsam pa rnam par ’khrugs par mi byed kyi D: bsam pa rnam par dag ’khrugs par mi byed kyi | F: bsam pa rnam par ’khrugs par mi byed kyi | S 61) sñiṅ po mnan par bya D: sñiṅ po la gnas par bya F: sñiṅ po gnon par bya | S 62) ’pham par byas te D: pham par byas te | FS 63) la DS: la | F 64) saṅs rgyas rnams daṅ lha rnams daṅ sems can daṅ bdag la bslu bar mi bya’o D: saṅs rgyas rnams daṅ | lha rnams daṅ | sems can thams cad daṅ | bdag la slu bar bya’o || F: saṅs rgyas rnams daṅ | lha rnams daṅ | sems can thams cad daṅ bdag la bslu bar bya’o S 65) ‘di DF: de dag S 66) | D: om. FS 67) mi phyed pa DS: mi byed pa F

Notes

1
Cf. Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2022 version, and Textes fondamentaux de la Convention de 2003 pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel, Édition 2022, Paris 2022, available online at https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention (UNESCO 2022). See also https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003, for the definition, and https://ich.unesco.org/en/intangible-heritage-domains-00052 for applications. A research bibliography is available at https://ich.unesco.org/en/2003-convention-and-research-00945 (all accessed on 15 March 2023).
2
In this paper, we prefer to use the spelling “bodhisatva” with a single rather than a double “t,” which is the form found in manuscripts and inscriptions written in Buddhist Sanskrit and Gāndhārī. For more discussion on the spelling of “bodhisattva” with a double “t” being a scholarly convention of modern editors, see Bhattacharya (2010).
3
For more details on the Mahāsaṃnipāta corpus, its structure and its content, cf. Kurumiya (1978); Braarvig (1993b); Saerji (2005, 2019).
4
For the definition of the term dharmaparyāya as designating the early Buddhist texts, see (Skilling 2021, pp. 37–40).
5
For the general reception of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā in later Buddhist tradition, see Skilling (2018). An English translation of the entire text is available at 84000 Translating the Words of the Buddha (https://read.84000.co/translation/toh163.html, accessed on 18 January 2023).
6
For the locations where the manuscripts of the Śikṣāsamuccaya and the Ratnagotravibhāga were found, see (Bendall and Rouse 1922, p. v; Takasaki 1966, p. 5, fn. 1), respectively.
7
The script was initially proposed by N. P. Charkavarti to be of the early 6th century (Wales 1940, p. 9), but this was later refuted by J.G. de Casparis, who noted that “the script of the Buddhist tablets of Sungai Bujang, Kedah, however, does not appear to belong to this period, but must be considerably later … This is clearly a form of Later Pallava of the same type as that used in the Śrīwijaya inscriptions of the last quarter of the seventh century” (De Casparis 1975, p. 20).
8
For a summary of the history of research on Bujang Valley in Kedah, see (Murphy 2018, pp. 373–81).
9
The study of the stone tablet from Sungai Mas is presented at a seminar, “Prasasti Sungai Mas II: Satu Tinjauan Paleografi (Sungai Mas II Inscriptions: A Paleographic Survey),” organized by the Malay Institute of Nature and Civilization, 12–13 July 2010. The full paper is available online (http://historianlodge.historiansecret.com/?p=1385, accessed on 16 January 2023).
10
These differences suggest that the text might have undergone substantial revision, or rather has gradually developed, as seen with many other Mahāyāna sūtras (cf. Braarvig 1993b, pp. xli–xlix).
11
Skilling (2018) already mentioned the possible uses of the verses as part of “a curriculum of Sanskrit philosophical training” in the early Southeast Asian countries (p. 445).
12
The Schøyen Collection is a large private collection of historical manuscripts, documents and artifacts that were collected by Martin Schøyen, a Norwegian businessman and bibliophile. The collection comprises over 20,000 manuscript items that encompass a wide range of materials, from ancient Egyptian papyri and cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia to medieval European manuscripts. It also includes more than 3000 fragments of Buddhist manuscripts from Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Research on these Buddhist manuscripts has been carried out since the late 1990s to the present day, led by Jens Braarvig (Oslo), Paul Harrison (Stanford), Kazunobu Matsuda (Kyoto), Jens-Uwe Hartmann (Munich) and Lore Sander (Berlin). The final results of this research have been published under the series “Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection” (Braarvig et al. 2000–2016). The research on the Bamiyan Buddhist manuscripts was approved by the previous Afghan Government, and a representative selection of manuscript materials was returned to the National Museum of Afghanistan in 2005. For more information about the Schøyen Collection, see the following website: https://www.schoyencollection.com (accessed on 10 March 2023).
13
For the list of the Sgm citations in various Indian scholarly works, see (Braarvig 1993b, p. xxvii). All the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese citations of Sgm are collected in the appendices of (Saerji’s 2005, 2019) works.
14
The Schøyen Collection is a large private collection of historical manuscripts, documents and artifacts that were collected by Martin Schøyen, a Norwegian businessman and bibliophile. The collection comprises over 20,000 manuscript items that encompass a wide range of materials, from ancient Egyptian papyri and cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia to medieval European manuscripts. It also includes more than 3000 fragments of Buddhist manuscripts from Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Research on these Buddhist manuscripts has been carried out since the late 1990s to the present day, led by Jens Braarvig (Oslo), Paul Harrison (Stanford), Kazunobu Matsuda (Kyoto), Jens-Uwe Hartmann (Munich) and Lore Sander (Berlin). The final results of this research have been published under the series “Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection” (Braarvig et al. 2000–2016 [M1]). The research on the Bamiyan Buddhist manuscripts was approved by the previous Afghan Government, and a representative selection of manuscript materials was returned to the National Museum of Afghanistan in 2005. For more information about the Schøyen Collection, see the following website: https://www.schoyencollection.com (accessed on 10 March 2023). We are grateful to Dr. Gudrun Melzer for identifying the fragments and making a preliminary transliteration.
15
In this paper, all symbols and sigla follow the conventions of BMSC (cf. Braarvig et al. 2000–2016, p. xv).
16
MS 2381/11 belongs to the left part of the folio. Folio number 24 here is partially preserved at the left margin of the recto.
17
It is uncertain whether MS originally had a punctuation mark, a vertical daṇḍa or both together. It is attested in MS that a punctuation mark and a daṇḍa are used together (see the fifth line of the recto of MS 2381/146). The same is applied to the reconstructed daṇḍa in r4.
18
This part is not quoted in the Śikṣ but is reconstructed on the basis of Tib: ’di lta ste theg pa chen po’i mdo ’di ni ’jig rten thams cad daṅ mi mthun pa’i theg pa’o || de ci’i phyir źe na (D152, 14a7).
19
The metaphor of being clad in armor (Skt. saṃnāhasaṃnaddha; Tib. go cha bgos pa) used for the bodhisatva’s vow often occurs in Mahāyāna texts, particularly in the Prajñāpāramitā corpus. For a more detailed discussion on the armor metaphor used in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and related texts, see (Han 2021a, pp. 62–68).
20
The ŚikṣMS reads te sarvve ’siśaktitomarapāśayo, and Bendall emended it to te sarvve ’siśaktitomarapāliyogena (Bendall 1902, p. 186, fn1). Neither of these agrees with the reading of MS.
21
The ŚikṣMS reads śrutakuśalamūlacittaṃ votpādayiṣyati, which is also found in other versions. For details, see the comments below.
22
The same phrase asatyābhir vā paruṣābhir vāgbhiḥ samudācareyur appears in AdsP (cf. Conze 1974, p. 27). The ŚikṣMS reads samuccareyur here.
23
Reconstructed based on the context and repetition of the text. Cf. the corresponding Tib. dud ’gro’i skye gnas su soṅ ṅam | gśin rje’i ’jig rten du soṅ ṅam | mir gyur kyaṅ ruṅ ste, appearing in both the SgmTib (D152, 14b6) and ŚikṣTib (D3940, 104b5).
24
Cf. Tib. gal te in both Tibetan versions.
25
Note on the translation: The translation of this paper follows the SgmTib, which differs in several places from the present MS. The original ŚikṣMS and the Sgm quoted in the ŚikṣTib is also consulted in the cases when parts of the text are omitted in the ŚikṣSkt. The Tibetan text on which this translation is based is provided in Appendix B. For all the textual materials related to the Sgm quoted in the Śikṣ, including Tibetan and Chinese parallels, see Braarvig and Han (Forthcoming). In translation, the passages written in small letters are the parts omitted in the ŚikṣSkt, which were inserted by the translators of the ŚikṣTib. The parts corresponding to the reconstruction of MS are given in bold. The Sanskrit equivalents are proposed in parentheses when it is possible to assume them with high certainty.
26
The ŚikṣSkt has ākrośa, and the ŚikṣTib has its equivalent, mtshaṅ brus. However, there is no equivalent of ākrośa in the SgmTib. Cf. SgmTib. sems can thams cad kyis spyos sam (D 152, 14a4); ŚikṣTib sems can thams cad kyis mtshaṅ brus sam spyos sam (D3940, 104a4–5).
27
Cf. the SgmTib. mthu skyed par byed ciṅ brtson ’grus rtsom la rtul bas rtul bar byed de | spro ba skyed ciṅ rmoṅs pa’i sems mi ’dzin to (D152, 14a5–6); ŚikṣTib. mthu skyed par byed ciṅ brtson ’grus rtsom par byed la | brtul bas brtul bar byed de de spro ba skyed ciṅ rmoṅs pa’i sems mi ’dzin to (D3940, 104a6–7). The Chinese equivalents of Skt. vīryam ārabhate are T. 397 qinjia jingjin 勤加精進; T. 400 yongqi jingjin 勇起精進; and T. 1636 yongmeng jingjin 勇猛精進.
28
For the expression, sa ākruṣṭo na pratyākrośati, the SgmTib has de spyos kyaṅ slar mi gśe, but the ŚikṣTib has mtshaṅ brus kyaṅ slar mtshaṅ mi ’bru ba, a similar expression of which is found in the Akṣayamatinirdeśa 149: ākruṣṭo na pratyākrośati cittasya māyopamaprativedhatayā (Skt. reconstructed by Braarvig based on Tib. sems sgyu ma daṅ mtshuṅs par rab tu rtogs pa’i phyir, gśe ba la phyir mi gśe daṅ).
29
The meaning is uncertain. SgmTib has de ltar sems can bgraṅ ba’i go cha gyon no, “in this way, he puts on the armour of calculating living beings (satvagaṇana),” but SgmChi II (T. 400) has wojin yingbei dacheng renkai 我今應被大乘忍鎧 “Now I shall put on the armour of the tolerance of the great vehicle (mahāyānakṣāntisaṃnāha).” Here, Chinese translators of SgmChi II may read cittagaṇanāsaṃnāhaṃ as—ahaṃ, which corresponds to wu 我.
30
Both Tibetan versions, ŚikṣTib and SgmTib, have ’jig rten thams cad daṅ mi ’thun pa; SgmChi I yushi gongzheng 與世共諍; SgmChi II yuzhushijian jixiangwei 與諸世間極相違.
31
Both Tibetan versions have go cha bgos pa’o, but there is no equivalent in any Chinese version.
32
The text written in small letters is the parts omitted in the ŚikṣSkt that were supplied by the translators of the ŚikṣTib. The ŚikṣSkt does not give pe or peyālam, and the ŚikṣTib has de bźin du sbyar te, even though there is no omitted passage there.
33
The ŚikṣTib adds tshul khrims kyi sems sam | bzod pa’i sems sam | brtson ’grus kyi sems sam | bsam gtan gyi sems sam, corresponding with SgmTib. SgmChi II contains the complete list of six perfections (或修持戒忍辱精進禪定智慧心者), but ŚikṣChi follows the reading of ŚikṣSkt.
34
ŚikṣMS does not have the word ratna here, but there is in this citation a similar expression cittotpādaratna, sems bskyed pa rin po che, in Tibetan (cf. ŚikṣMS sarvajñatācittotpādaratne; ŚikṣTib thams cad mkhyen par sems bskyed pa rin po che; SgmTib thams cad mkhyen par sems bskyed pa rin po che de).
35
In both SgmChi I and II, the term egui 餓鬼 (Skt. preta) is used instead of yamalokagati (yanmoluo jie 琰魔羅界) as a closer equivalent of yāmaloka.
36
Lit. irregular, viṣama in Skt. However, it is yaṅ ba in both Tib and xie 邪 in T. 1636 and T. 404.
37
The phrase rgyu’i bar du yaṅ mi bzod do, found in both ŚikṣTib and SgmTib, corresponds to the phrase yāvad upaniṣadam api na kṣamate, but this is not recognized by Goodman (2016, p. 393), who states that this passage corresponds to narakāvāsam apy aham utsahe. The phrase bdag ni sems can dmyal bar gnas par spro’i “I delight living as an inhabitant in the hell” is the equivalent of narakāvāsam apy aham utsahe “I am able to endure living in the hell.”
38
Ārambaṇa in the Śikṣ; dmigs pa in Sgm, and there is no equivalent in ŚikṣTib; suoyuan 所縁 in T. 1636 and T. 400.
39
There is no translation of the phrase sarvasattvārambaṇā in ŚikṣTib, but SgmTib has sems can thams cad rab tu thar bar bya ba la dmigs pa’i sñiṅ rje chen po mi gtoṅ ṅo, “I will not abandon the great compassion which is the basis for the deliverance of all beings.” ŚikṣChi also has the phrase dabei suoyuan yiqie zhongsheng 大悲所縁一切衆生 as its equivalent.
40
Reconstructed based on the folio number of the other fragment (MS 2381/11).
41
ŚikṣMS has pe here, omitting the phrase sa mām ākrośayati paribhāṣate, which is again supplied by the Tibetan translators (cf. de ni bdag la mtshaṅ ’bru źiṅ gshe ba’o, D3940, 105b2–3). For more details on the process of translation, see the comments below.
42
This line is omitted in ŚikṣMS but supplied in ŚikṣTib. The Sanskrit is reconstructed based on the corresponding Tibetan ’di ni de’i śes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’o || blo gros rgya mtsho in SgmTib. (D152, 17a2–3).
43
Cf. SgmTib. thams cad mkhyen pa’i semssaṅs rgyas kyi gzugs (D152, 17a5).
44
Cf. SgmTib. thoṅ śig | khyod kyis brtson ’grus ’di bor cig | byaṅ chub ni rñed par dka’ ba | saṅs rgyas kyi chos rnams ni rñed par dka’ ba ste (D152, 17a6–7).
45
Cf. SgmTib. stoṅ gsum gyi stoṅ chen po’i ’jig rten gyi khams su (D152, 17b2).
46
The translation is based on the reading of SgmTib and ŚikṣTib: sems can ma dul ba | ma źi ba | ma sbas pa | ñe bar ma źi ba (cf. D152, 16b7; D3940, 105b4). There is no Sanskrit equivalent of Tib. ñe bar ma źi ba in the ŚikṣMS. Given the general tendency of the Tibetan translators to borrow passages from already existing canonical translations when these are available, it is likely that the word ñe bar ma źi ba is not directly translated from ŚikṣMS but borrowed from SgmTib.
47
Cf. SgmTib. byaṅ chub sems dpa’i ṅag gi gnod pa bzod pa’o (D152, 17a4).
48
The following sentence can be reconstructed as tatra sāgaramate bodhisatvasya cittapīḍāsahanaṃ based on the corresponding part of SgmTib: blo gros rgya mtsho de la byaṅ chub sems dpa’i sems kyi gnod pa bzod pa gaṅ źe na (D152, 17a4).
49
The Tibetan versions, SgmTib and the ŚikṣTib, both have -lag na thogs te, “to hold in the hand.” The Chinese versions have “執諸器仗逼逐 (ŚikṣChi, T. 1636, 112a1)” and “執持器仗隨逐 (SgmChi II, T. 400, 479a10),” neither of which provides verbatim translations of the Sanskrit.
50
The corresponding portion is not included in the Tabo collection.
51
Despite Derge and Stog both reading bsten par bya’o, we emend it to brten par bya’o in accordance with the reading of the ŚikṣMS (pratisariṣyāmaḥ), ŚikṣTib (brten par bya’o) as well as all the Chinese versions (T. 397 yi fajie 依法界; T. 400 yi fa 依法; T. 1636 yi ci fa 依此法).

References

  1. Bendall, Cecil. 1902. Çikshāsamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching. St. Petersbourg: Imperial Academy. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bendall, Cecil, and William Henry Denham Rouse. 1922. Śikshā-Samuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhist Doctrine. London: John Murray. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhattacharya, Gouriswar. 2010. How to justify the spelling of the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit term bodhisatva? In From Turfan to Ajanta: A Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Eli Franco and Monika Zin. Rupandehi: Lumbini International Research Institute, vol. II, pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  4. Braarvig, Jens. 1993a. Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra: Volume 1: Edition of Extant Manuscripts with an Index. Oslo: Solum. [Google Scholar]
  5. Braarvig, Jens. 1993b. Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra: Volume 2: The Tradition of Imperishability in Buddhist Thought. Oslo: Solum. [Google Scholar]
  6. Braarvig, Jens, and Jaehee Han. Forthcoming. Two Fragments of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā. In Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Edited by Jens Braarvig, Paul Harrison, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Kazunobu Matsuda and Lore Sander. Oslo: Hermes Publishing, vol. 5.
  7. Braarvig, Jens, Paul Harrison, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Kazunobu Matsuda, and Lore Sander. 2000–2016. Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection Vol. I–IV. Oslo: Hermes Academic Publishing.
  8. Chen, Ruixuan, and Diego Loukota. 2020. Mahāyāna sūtras in Khotan: Quotations in chapter 6 of the Book of Zambasta (II). Indo-Iranian Journal 63: 201–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chia, Stephen, and Naizatul Akma Mohd Mokhtar. 2011. Evidence of iron production at Sungai Batu, Kedah. In Bujang Valley and Early Civilisations in Southeast Asia. Kuala Lumpur: Department of National Heritage, Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture. [Google Scholar]
  10. Conze, Edward. 1974. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, Chapters 70 to 82, Corresponding to the 6th, 7th and 8th Abhisamayas. Roma: ISMEO. [Google Scholar]
  11. De Casparis, Johannes Gijsbertus. 1975. Indonesian Palaeography: A History of Writing in Indonesia from the Beginnings to CAD 1500. Leiden: Brill, vol. 4. [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, Ivor Hugh Norman. 2011. Papers on the Ethnology and Archaeology of the Malay Peninsula. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published 1927. [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodman, Charles. 2016. The Training Anthology of Śāntideva: A Translation of the Śikṣā-samuccaya. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guy, John. 1995. The Dorothy and Horace Quaritch Wales Bequest: A Note. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 5: 91–92. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25183731 (accessed on 8 January 2023).
  15. Han, Jaehee. 2021a. The Sky as a Mahāyāna Symbol of Emptiness and Generous Fullness: A Study and Translation of the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. [Google Scholar]
  16. Han, Jaehee. 2021b. The Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā and the Sky as a Symbol of Mahāyāna Doctrines and Aspirations. Religions 12: 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Harrison, Paul. 2018. A Reliable Witness? On the Tibetan Translation of the Śikṣāsamuccaya. In Reading Slowly: A Festschrift for Jens E. Braarvig. Edited by Lutz Edzard, Jens Borgland and Ute Hüsken. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 227–42. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hassan, Nik, Shuhaimi bin Nik Abd Rahman, and Othman bin Mohd Yatim. 1990. Antiquities of Bujang Valley. Kuala Lumpur: Museum Association of Malaysia. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jacq-Hergoualc’h, Michel. 1992. La civilisation des ports-entreôts du Sud Kedah (Malaysia) Ve–XIVe siècle. Paris: L’Harmattan. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kanō, Kazuo, and Xuezhu Li. 2021. 梵文校訂『牟尼意趣荘厳』第一章(fol. 64r2–67v2) -『中観光明』佚文・行者の直観知と無自性論証 (Critical Edition of the Sanskrit text of the Munimatālamkāra chapter 1 (fol. 64r2–67v2): Excerpts from Kamalaśīla’s Madhyamakāloka on yogipratyakṣa and sarvadharmaniḥsvabhāvatva). Mikkyo Bunka 246: 78–112. [Google Scholar]
  21. Khaw, Nasha Rodziadi, Gooi Liang Jun, Mohd Mokhtar Saidin, Naizatul Akma Mohd Mokhtar, and Mohd Hasfarisham Abd Halim. 2021. The Sungai Batu Archaeological Complex: Re-Assessing the Emergence of Ancient Kedah. Kajian Malaysia: Journal of Malaysian Studies 39: 117–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kurumiya, Yenshu. 1978. Ratnaketuparivarta: Sanskrit Text. Kyoto: Heirakuji-Shoten. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lamb, Alastair. 1960. Report on the Excavation and Reconstruction of Chandi Bukit Batu Pahat, Central Kedah. Kuala Lumpur: Museums Department Federation of Malaya. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lamb, Alastair. 1961a. Miscellaneous Papers on Early Hindu and Buddhist Settlement in Northern Malaya and Southern Thailand. Kuala Lumpur: Museums Department Federation of Malaya. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lamb, Alastair. 1961b. Pengkalan Bujang: An Ancient Port in Kedah. Malaya in History 7: 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  26. Low, James. 1849. A Translation of the Keddah Annals. Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia 3: 1–23, 90–101, 162–81, 253–70, 314–36, 467–88, Reprinted in the Marong Mahāwangsa. The Keddah Annals. Bangkok: Vajiranana National Library. 1908. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mokhtar, Naizatul Akma, Mokhtar Saidin, and Jeffrey Abdullah. 2011. The Ancient Iron Smelting in Sg. Batu, Bujang Valley, Kedah. Postgraduate Student Forum Presentation. Chinese University of Hong Kong, China. Available online: https://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ant/PostgraduateForum2011/Arch/NaizatulAkmaMOKHTAR.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2023).
  28. Murphy, Stephen A. 2018. Revisiting the Bujang Valley: A Southeast Asian Entrepôt Complex on the Maritime Trade Route. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 28: 355–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Peacock, Brian A. V. 1970. New Light on the Ancient Settlements in Kedah and Province Wellesley. Malaysia In History 13: 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  30. Peacock, Brian A. V. 1974. Pillar base architecture in ancient Kedah. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 47: 66–86. [Google Scholar]
  31. Saerji. 2005. <大方等大集經>之研究: A Study of the Mahāvaipulya-mahāsamnipāta-sūtra. Ph.D. thesis, Peking University, Beijing, China. [Google Scholar]
  32. Saerji. 2019. <大方等大集經> 研究: A Study of the Mahavaipulyamahāsamnipātasūtra. Shanghai: Zhong xi shu ju. [Google Scholar]
  33. Samat, Narimah. 2013. Estimating the Size of Human Settlement of Bujang Valley, Kedah Using Geographic Information System. International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation 1: 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sander, Lore. 2000. A Brief Paleographical Analysis of the Brāhmī Manuscripts in Volume I. In Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Edited by Jens Braavig, Paul Harrison, Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Kazunobu Matsuda and Lore Sander. Oslo: Hermes Publishing, vol. I, pp. 285–300. [Google Scholar]
  35. Silk, Jonathan. 1994. The Origins and Early History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism: With a Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. [Google Scholar]
  36. Skilling, Peter. 2018. Sāgaramati-paripṛcchā Inscriptions from Kedah, Malaysia. In Reading Slowly: A Festschrift for Jens E. Braarvig. Edited by Lutz Edzard, Jens Borgland and Ute Hüsken. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 433–60. [Google Scholar]
  37. Skilling, Peter. 2021. Questioning the Buddha: A Selection of Twenty-Five Sutras. Somerville: Wisdom Publications. [Google Scholar]
  38. Takasaki, Jikido. 1966. A Study on the Ratnagotravibhāga:(Uttaratantra) Being a Treatise on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Roma: Istituto italiano per il Medio de Estremo Oriente. [Google Scholar]
  39. UNESCO. 2022. English version: Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2022 Version; French Version: Textes fondamentaux de la Convention de 2003 pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel, Édition 2022, Paris. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  40. von Hinüber, Oskar. 2013. The Gilgit Manuscripts: An Ancient Buddhist Library in Modern Research. In From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research. Edited by Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 79–135. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wales, H. G. Quaritch. 1940. Archaeological Researches on Ancient Indian Colonization in Malaya. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 18: iii–xiii, 1–85. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, Junqi, Meifang Zhang, Xiaofang Lü, Xin Song, Kawa Sherab Sangpo, and Dazhen. 2020. A Preliminary Study on a Newly Discovered Sanskrit Manuscript of Nāgārjuna’s Sūtrasamuccaya. Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka 17: 89–100. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wheatley, Paul. 1961. The Golden Khersonese: Studies in the Historical Geography of the Malay Peninsula before AD 1500. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Han, J.; Braarvig, J. Material Heritage of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā: Manuscripts and Inscribed Tablets. Religions 2023, 14, 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040544

AMA Style

Han J, Braarvig J. Material Heritage of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā: Manuscripts and Inscribed Tablets. Religions. 2023; 14(4):544. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040544

Chicago/Turabian Style

Han, Jaehee, and Jens Braarvig. 2023. "Material Heritage of the Sāgaramatiparipṛcchā: Manuscripts and Inscribed Tablets" Religions 14, no. 4: 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040544

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop