2

EARTY MAHAYANA

Laying out the Field

PAUL HARRISON
Professor of Religious Studies, Stanford Unittersity

,63

OPENING REMARKS

When Richard Gombrich first approached me on behalf of the United

Kingdom Association of Buddhist Studies (UKABS) about arranging a
symposium on early Mahãyana in honour of the late Sara Boin-Webb,
I had some misgivings about the idea. Although I have great respect
for Sara and her work in making the pivotal contributions of Étienne
Lamotte to the field of Buddhist studies available to a wider, non-
Francophone audience, and was huppy to help to organise a conference
to honour her memory, I was less than enthusiastic about the proposed
topic, which, to some extent,I believed I had put behind me. That is to
say,I had grown accustomed to thinking that'early Mahãyãna' was a
little passé, in part because the search for origins has come to be seen
as intellectually suspect and unfashionable, and in part because I felt

7
 Early Mahãyana: Laying out the Field SETTING OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

there might not be very much more to say on the subject. Be that as it the second half of last century, and in their diluted popular form led
may, I said yes to Prof. Gombrich. to the simplistic and anachronistic perception that Indian Buddhism
The Early Mahayana conference did take place (in Cardiff, 7-S July somehow forked at a certain point in its development in two principal
zotz) and it fell to me to make some introductory remarks to frame directions, Theraváda and Mahayana. It is fair to say that this idea has
the issues that we hoped to discuss over that weekend. This chapter become so deeply implanted that even today I find it almost impossible
is a revised and updated version ofthat address. I should explain also to eradicate among my o\r¡n undergraduate students; they listen
that the conference was deliberately set up as a meeting of scholars politely enough to the lectures in which I explain the complexities and
who do not always see eye to eye, mixing people at various stages of nuances ofthe situation and all the recent advances in scholarship, but
their careers and with differing opinions, as opposed to convening a their essays more often than not fall into the same old binary thinking.
cosy reunion of senior scholars who have known each for a very long Thus even in the twenty-first century the 'Theravãda-Mahayana split'
time and are content to sing in harmony from the same hymn sheet. is alive and well, despite the move among scholars since the r96os and
In that regard the genesis of the conference lay not in Prof. Gombrich's r97os to embrace a more complex and nuanced picture of Mahãyãna as
invitation, but in the meeting of the International Association of pluralistic, as a loose set ofinterrelated doctrinal ideas, ritual practices
Buddhist Studies in Atlanta in zoo8, where on the last day I had the and literary forms rather than as a single bounded entity, as spanning
novel and bracing experience of sitting in the audience for a panel all the nikãyas and not institutionally separate from them (at least in
on Mahayana listening to junior scholars firing on the positions of India), as a movement or set of movements for renunciants, and not just
my generation, myself included. Two of the panelists - David Drewes for the laity (or not evenfor the laity), and as entailing different - and
and Douglas Osto - were among those invited to Cardiffl and their possibly more demanding - forms of selÊengagement and asceticism,
contributions to the meeting and to this volume testify to a level of rather than a wholesale turn to devotion. Now all these elements of
disagreement which I take to be a sign that the subject has some life the new scholarly consensus, which we can see taking shape with
left in it after all. the work of Heinz Bechert and others, turn on issues which are by no
I shall refrain here from giving a detailed history of scholarship in means beyond dispute, but they do show how our conception ofearly
this field and of the various ideas and theories that have formed around Mahayana at the beginning of the twenty-first century has moved a
the topic. Drewes (zoroa; zorob) has already done this for us and pro- long way from where it was in the middle of the twentieth century.
duced a very useful two-part article plotting the major developments, What I want to do now is look at some of those issues, to consider
and this can be taken together with a more recent contribution by him where the challenges lie as 'ü/e continue to refine and deepen our
on early Mahayana to the online Oxford Bibliographies project.2 I do understanding.
not always agree with Prof. Drewes's take on things, but he does do
a very good job in these pieces of outlining the main issues, among
.FOREST
them the notion that Mahãyãna Buddhism \¡/as a reaction, possibly THE HYPOTHESIS'
spearheaded by lay Buddhists, against monastic privilege and selÊ
absorption, and was moreover institutionally distinct from the nikayas, it is to disentangle these
The first thing to point out is how difficult
the ordination fraternities or lineages according to which Buddhist issues for separate analysis. For example, the whole question of
renunciants, members of the Sangha in the narrower sense of the word, lay-renunciant relationships is bound up with what we might call the
organised their communities. These ideas, extended and popularised principal thrust of the movement, or movements, we designate by
by Akira Hirakawa, Étienne Lamotte, and Edward Conze among the term 'Mahãyãna', and that in turn has bearings on its (or their)
others, but springing from the work of their predecessors (Eugène institutional emplacement. It may well be fair enough to say that the
Burnouf, V. P. Vassilief Thomas William Rhys Davids), held sway until defining characteristic of Mahãyãna Buddhism is a concern with the

8 9
 Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTTNC OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

pursuit ofthe bodhisattva path, but that does not get us very far, since to me more appropriate to imagine early Mahay-ana ara¡tyavasins as
we are not sure what that meant in concrete terms, apart from the people on whom the vinaya sat no more lightly than it did on their
fact that Mahãyana sutras have a lot to say about bodhisattvas. Here more traditional Mainstreama brothers and sisters, in other words
we run up against another tangled issue, which is how to read our as bhikçus (and possibly bhikçunîs) in good standing (prak¡tistha)but
sources, which consist primarily, but not exclusively as we shall see, pursuing a lifestyle that, then as norw, laid them open to suspicion,
in these Mahayana sutras, by which we mean afuzzily delimited set misunderstanding, and disrepute. with all of this David Drewes has
of texts supposedly assembled from pre-existing agama and vinaya problems, and his contribution to this volume addresses the issue. I do
materials and other elements of more indeterminate origin and not intend to mount a detailed defence of my position here, or attempt
purporting to record the sermons of Sakyamuni and his disciples, Iay a strategic withdrawal from it - a detailed response must await another

patrons and others, or conversations between these figures. Drawing occasion - but I would say that many years ago I came to two conclu-
an analogy with Rumpelstiltskin which I have used before, somehow sions, both of which have moved me somewhat closer to Prof. Drewes's
we have to spin the straw of this material - and there is certainly standpoint. The first is not controversial at all: early Mahãyãna was
plenty of it - into the gold of history, and that, not surprisingly, is an not a single movement, and so even if we posit the existence of
operation which rests more on the exercise of imagination than on groups with strong araryyavãsin self-identification, it is not the end
the processing of hard facts. One thing that more recent scholars have of the story.5 The second is a question I raise in Harrison zoo3 about
imagined, on the basis of their reading of Mahayãna sutras, is that our notion of what this so-called 'forest dwelling' actually means.6
the orientation of their compilers was monastic or, perhaps better, Making progress here would entail sorting out with greater precision
renunciant, and of a more rigorously ascetic cast. This has resulted the range of meanings and connotations the word arallya carries in
what has been dubbed the 'forest hypothesis', given that ara¡tyavasa the broader Indian cultural context, and then combing the relevant
or 'forest dwelling' is emblematic of a more ascetic set of options Buddhist sources for evidence ofparticular Buddhist understandings
for members of the Buddhist sangha (which are laid out in amplified and uses of the term. But even if we did this, one problem would still
form in the dhutagu¿ras, a list ofa dozen or so supererogatory ascetic remain, and that is the problem of translation: 'forest' conjures up a
practices). Like several others I myself have pursued this idea. Other range of associations and resonances for English speakers which might
important contributions include silk's (rgg4) work on the Ratnarãíi- be quite out of place for the Indian context two thousand years ago,
sr.¿frø, Nattier's (zoo3) on the ugra(datta)-paripyccha, and Boucher's and the alternatives - 'jungle', 'wilderness', 'the wild', 'countryside',
(zoog) on the Rãçlrapala-paripçccha. But the definitive work that and so on - are no less problematic. My own suspicion is that we have

examines the forest hypothesis is Ray 1994. This monograph was a here something oscillating between a stock trope and a reference to an

very solid contribution to the conversation, which moved it forward actual situation, but when there is an actual referent it is more likely to
by positing forest ascetics as a kind of third force in the development have been a monastery at some distance - but not too far - from cities,
of Buddhism, alongside laypeople and regular members of the Sar:ìgha towns and villages, of the kind which have left ruins in the hills above
in their monastic setting. while Ray was certainly right to draw our the Peshawar plain (Takht-iBahi and other such sites), rather than the
attention to the importance of forest ascetics, his portrayal of them isolated cave in the mountains or the idyllic sylvan clearing where
as a separate group arguably went too far. This is partly because he deer graze around the hermit's hut beneath trees heavy with mangosJ
ignored or glossed over references to vinaya observance on the part In any case rvve have to be careful about how we read our Mahãyãna
of arapyatasins in the historical records, references pointing to a state sutras, and where we may be unwittingly led by the language 1¡e use
of affairs which is, incidentally, consistent with what we know of the in our translations. I have raised similar issues with respect to our use
modern situation with regard to such people, as amply documented of the term'meditation', which in the Mahayana context seems to be a
in the work of Stanley Tambiah and Kamala Tiyavanich.3 It seems question - at least in some cases - of a kind of textual practice. Douglas

7l
10
 Early Mahayã.na: Laying out the Field SETTING OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

Osto's contribution to this volume provides a different perspective on ing Mahayãna sutras as historical evidence, and I think it fair to say
this, and although one might question the extent to which it explains that we have scarcely begun sorting out the hermeneutical problems
what is going on in certain Mahayana sutrâs, it illustrates once again here. Part of our predicament involves the patchy and incomplete
the need to interrogate our texts and try to get beyond the surface nature of the scholarship in this area, but we do appear to be making
meaning of the words and concepts they use.8 progress. More and more Mahãyãna sutras are being edited, translated,
and studied, and although some of the work in this area is not of
optimal quality,l0 we have gone well past the point of basing most
THE ROLE OF THE TAITY of what we say about early Mahayana on the Saddharma-pupf,arlka
(which is unlikely to be an early Mahayãna sutra any\À/ay, in my
Moving on from the 'forest dwellers', who, if David Drewes is right, opinion). This is progress. At the same time, the increasing amount of
were far less important in the early development of the Mahãyana this literature translated into modern languages exacerbates another
than some of us once liked to think, our problems are no less acute problem, and that is periodisation. In this steadily increasing profusion
when we turn to those who live in houses or homes (gyhin, gyhastha, of sources, how do we know what is early, what is 'middle period'
gyhapati, etc). These are the so-called laity; of whom Ugra is clearly one (whatever that means), and what is late. Clearly, this has implications
of the earlier examples in the Mahayána sutras which have survived, for our understanding of the development of this form of Buddhism
Bhadrapãla is another, and Vimalakirti a third, apparently not much as a whole, for the notoriously vexed problem of chronology, and for
later. What do these figures mean in historical terms? Even after we the need to move beyond what Peter Skilling once referred to as the
have said goodbye to the notion of a lay backlash against monastic 'tyranny' of the Chinese translation dates. The problem here goes
self-absorption and the grand opening of the treasury of Buddhism beyond the sutras, and encompasses íâsfras as well.
to the men in white, as well as their womenfolk and children, we still To give one example from my own research, I draw on some work
face the difficulty of interpreting our texts on this issue. And even if I did some years ago (but not yet published) on the Sutra-sørnuccaya
we grant that the appearance of the great householders in the texts attributed to Nãgãrjuna, which \Mas an outgrowth of my continuing
is not to be interpreted as a reflection ofreality on the ground, that interest in the Sikçõ-samuccaya of Santideva.ll Among other pieces of
it is straw which cannot be spun into gold, we have yet to work out evidence (stylistic elements, content and so on) that make the attribu-
what rhetorical agenda they served.e Was Vimalakirti a stick with tion of the Sutra-samuccaya (SS) to the author of the karikas highly
which one group of monks were attempting to beat another? Was unlikely, if not impossible, I considered the dating of a particular group
Ugra emblematic of an attempt to co-opt people outside the Sangha as of texts cited in it whose content seemed to be diametrically opposed
partners in a new set of textual and other practices? Was Bhadrapâla to the programme which Nãgãrjuna pursues in the Ratnavali and the
part of an elaborate strategy of captatio benevolentiae directed towards Suhrllekha. Here I went beyond the 'usual suspects' commonly brought
lay patrons with shifting religious interests and loyalties? And how up when people start wondering about the date of the SS, namely, the
would we even set about answering such questions? Here, too, more Lankavatãra and the Srlmala-devi(both first translated into Chinese
sustained and systematic investigations are required to clarify what in the first half of the fifth century) to include a whole list of other
these figures are doing and what their purpose is. sutras cited in the SS, including the following:

t. Maha-karupa-pupf,artka-sùtra12 (z citations in the SS), first translated

MAHAYANA SUTRAS AND THE PROBLEM OF PERIODISATION into Chinese by Narendrayaéas in 558 (T38o/Krro,13 Dabeiiing *-k¿*.9);
z. Tathagata-bimba-parívarfø (r citation), of which the Chinese transla-
These two issues point up some of the difficulties involved in interpret- tion was made by Tiyunboruo (*Devendraprajña? Devaprajña?)

12 13
 Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTING OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

in 69r (T6g4lK4r9, Dasheng zao xiang gongde jing kñtÈ4*,tll'Rbg); g. Akaiagarbha-sutra (r citation), first translated by Buddhayaéas
3. Srad dha-b ala dhanãv at ãra-mudra- sut r a (5 citations), fi rst translate d 4o8- 4t3 (T 4o 5 I K 62, Xukong z ang pu sa j ing,ffi ã ffi,# ffi ,$) ;
into Chinese by Dharmaruci in 5o4 or 508-534 (T3o5lK8r, Xinli t 4. (Daíacakra)Kçítigarbha-sutra (3 citations), first translated during

ruyin famen jín: Èù)\Vlh*PIå$); the period 397-439, translator's name lost (T4tolK58, Dafangguang
4. the related Niyataniyatavatãra-mudra-sutra (z citations), first shilun jins xrtM+W/ng).
translated into Chinese by Gautama Prajñãruciin 542 (76451K:ç.8,
Bubíding ruding ruyin jing 4{l.È^,Ë^ÉpåS); These are sutras whose point of view is radically at odds with the
5. Saddharma-smçty-upasthana-sutra(z citations), also translated by kind of agenda we see in other works whose attribution to Nágãrjuna
Gautama Prajñâruci in the period 538-541 (T7ztlK8or, Zhengfa rests on firmer grounds. My point here is that one text with a late
nianchu jing,Éi*AÆÆ); Chinese translation date is neither here nor there, but when one looks
6. Dharma-sanglti-sutra (z citations), translated by Bodhiruci I in 5r5 at the total picture, the implication is inescapable. However, that is
(T 7 6r l K 4o 4, Faj i j ing,*R #3); not all. When one examines two major commentaries translated into
7. PraSanta-viniócaya-pratiharya-samadhi-sùtra (3 citations), translated Chinese by Kumãrajrva at the very beginning of the fifth century
by Xuanzang in 6ó3 or 664 (T6q8lK+82, Jizhao shenbian sanmodí - the Da zhidu lun xæÈÉ# (T:5oglK54$, which is the well-known
jingñ-,WNW"nÆJùÆ); encyclopaedic commentary on the Larger Prajñãpãramitã, and the
8. Bodhi sattva-go caro pãy a-t íçaya-v ikurvã¡ta-nir de ía- sut ra / S aty aka- Shizhu piposha lun llt-ffi*ib-# (TUztlKSS¿), a commentary on the
parívarta (z citations), first translated by Gunabhadra in the period DaSabhumíkø, two commentaries packed with citations and both
435-443 (Tz7tlKt6z, Pusa xing fangbian jingjie shentong bianhua ascribed to Nãgãrjuna as well - not a single citation from any of the
jins # W 11 fr 1fr.ufr.F> i+ ñ W 4\.l.g)i fourteen texts listed above is to be found. Rather a revealing result for
g. *
araka-ratna datt a- sútra = B o dhisattva-c arya-nirdeía (r citation),
D a body of sutras which, if we were to accept the ascription of the SS
translated by Faxian/Tianxizai, in the period g8g-ggg (T488lKtzz7, to Nãgãrjuna, ought to have been in existence by the second century
Baoshou pusa putixing jing ffi &#ffi+ +þtr,Æ). or the early third. We get similarly revealing results when we start to
rc. Sagaramati-paripyccha-sttra (4 citations), first translated by plot the patterns of citations in commentaries written by scholars like
Dharmaksema in the period 4t4-426 (T997.51K56.5, Dafangdeng Asanga and Vasuba ndhu (Mahayana-sûtrãlarykara-bhaçya, Mahaydna-
daji jing haihuí pusø p¡n )çi€XHågWË#ffiñ). sarytgraha, Vyakhyaltukti, and so on).16
I dispense with the finer details here, since these examples are
Looking at the dates of their first translation into Chinese, one finds intended merely to be suggestive of the possibilities for further
that these sutras all arrived in China in the fifth, sixth and seventh research when one starts putting all the data together, something
centuries, or even later. More revealing still is a further set of texts which to my knowledge has not yet been attempted. I hope to have
connected with the Maha-samnipata compendium, which also reached shown, however, that what we need to do is develop a systematic and
China in the fifth and sixth centuries: detailed internal chronology of Mahayãna sutras using not simply
the íãstras which cite those sutras but also those Mahayãna sutras
n. Cøndragarbha-pariyarta (7 citations), first translated by themselves which cite or allude to other Mahãyãna sutras before
Narendrayaéas in 566 (T397.r51K56.15, Dafangdeng daji jing yuezang them - in effect a comprehensive mapping project which charts
.fen kiFXR{YAM"/ì); every nexus and link there is to be found. For example, the Bajaur
n. Suryagarbha-parivarta (t citation), first (?)15 translated by Mahãyãna Sütra presupposes the existence in one form or another
Narendraya6as in the period 584-585 (þg7talK56.14, Dafangdeng of the Ak;obhya-tathagatasya-tyuha, or at least the traditions that
daj i jing rízang fen Xì + r\Klrlg? ffi,/ì); passed into it, while the textual dependence of the Vimalakirti-

14 15
 Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTINC OUT ON THE GREAT WAY

nirdeía on the same source is apparent in a more straightforward connection between the Mahayana and the Mahasamghikas. Indeed,
way. The Druma-kinnarøraja-paripyccha makes a clear reference to it is true that there are many indications that the Mahasamghikas and
the Aj ãt a atr u-kaukyty ø- v ino dana. tt'e Mahãp arinirva1ta-m ahasut ra
É their various sub-schools have strong links with texts and ideas reflec-
(commonly referred to as the Mahayana Mahaparinirvãpa-sutra) tive of the Mahayana,2l enough for one to see how the idea that the
demonstrably owes a debt in various places to the Lolcanuvartana-sùtra. Mahayana was the exclusive outgrowth of the Mahasamghikas took
And so on. The degree of intertextuality in these works is in fact rather root, but our view today is much more cautious and nuanced. In short,
high, perhaps not surprising for a movement which we have begun to we assume that the Mahayana ran across nikãyaboundaries right from
imagine as a largely (but not exclusively) literary enterprise, involving the start, and was no respecter of such organisational distinctions,
a vigorous trafficking in textslT by the groups of people - or 'textual which pertained to a different level of involvement in Buddhism.2z
communities', âs some would call them18 - commifted to the ideas and That said, we still have to admit we have an imperfect understanding
visions they expounded, seemingly eager (or anxious) at all times to of how nikaya affiliation worked generally, especially when we come
assert the authority and primacy of their own particular formulations to the issue of the various canons which we assume the nikayas
of the Dharma.le The map of that intertextualit¡ once drawn, can then possessed, each with its own Sútra-pitaka, Vinaya-pitaka and (in most
be compared with the information we have about the Chinese transla- cases) Abhidharma-pitaka. This is in the nature of a convenient and
tions to see if any significant correlations are to be found, as well as tidy fiction: the more we know, the messier the actual state of affairs
factored into any discussion of doctrinal and other developments.20 appears to have been. This pertains to Indian Buddhism as a whole; it
Even then, when this is all done, we are still confronted with the is an area where Peter Skilling has made weighty contributions. But
hermeneutical challenge of how to read Mahayãna sutras so as to there is more. As far as the relationship between Mahayana and the
derive from them useful information and sound inferences. Here Mainstream canons is concerned, one conclusion we ought not to jump
there is much work to be done, although Nattier (zoo3) has made a to is that everything that is Mainstream or Srãvakayãna must predate
good start in her chapter on methodological considerations, with its everything that is Mahayana. Put this way it looks like a statement of
list of principles for, as she puts it, extracting historical data from the obvious, but it may in fact take some effort to envisage a far more
normative sources (embarrassment, irrelevance, counterargument, and complex situation where Mainstream and Mahayana texts developed
corroborating evidence). Other scholars have also touched upon the simultaneously, influencing each other.23lhe Abhidharma may have
problems involved, but the definitive contribution has yet to be made. been a particularly fertile site of an ongoing give-and-take in this
respect, and this is certainly one of the key implications of the chapters
by Shizuka Sasaki and Johannes Bronkhorst in this volume. The
NIKÃYA AFFTLTATION unfortunate upshot of such a situation, however, is that any attempt
to plot proto-Mahãyãna elements in the Nikãyas and Ãgamas of the
To scholars working in this field it is now self-evident that the kinds Mainstream canons, no matter how carefully carried out, is open to
of activities alluded to already - ascetic practice undertaken with the questions about the direction of influence.24 It is not easy to see how
ultimate intention of reaching the awakening of a buddha, that is, as a to resolve this problem, which is especially acute when the argument
bodhisattva; the solicitation oflay patronage; the production, circula- comes to rest on only one or two texts.
tion, and discussion of Mahayana sutras - were undertaken not by
lone individuals, but by communities of the sort addressed by Daniel
Boucher in his chapter in this volume. We also believe that those com- MATERIAL EVIDENCE
munities were never made up only of the members of one nikaya. And
this despite the fact that in the past scholars have assumed a special So far the evidence we have alluded to is primarily textual. If we want

76 17
 Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTINC OUT ON THE GREAT WAY

to think about 'Mahãyãna on the ground', we need to look at the mate- if it means 'supreme lay practitioner' (i.e. referring to the king, the local
rial evidence. We must turn finally, therefore, to the archaeological ruler or some other dignitary of high status), then we might draw quite
and art-historical record for early Mahãyãna, which up until recently different conclusions about its significance.2e
was confidently asserted by some to be virtually non-existent. The only real exception to this picture of total radio silence in the
In this area few scholars have been as influential as Gregory Schopen, early epigraphical record, at least at the time when Schopen first
and I refer in the first instance to his ry7g paper'Mahãyãna in Indian addressed this question, was an inscribed pedestal of an image of
Inscriptions', a paper he wrote while still a graduate student.2s Schopen's Amitãbha, discovered in Govindnagar near Mathurã in t977, with a
paper was indeed groundbreaking at the time, since it attempted to assess date that came out as This could scarcely be ignored, but Schopen
153 cE.

the hard evidence, as it were, for Mahayana in India, and its effect was to (1987) also strove to demonstrate the 'limited and uninfluential' role
contribute to the notion that Mahãyana was, at least at the beginning, of Amitãbha it betokens. His most striking claim is that the formula
and perhaps until the fifth or sixth century, marginal in the land of its sarva-buddha-pujãye,'for the worship of all buddhas', found in this
birth, its advocates being prophets without honour in their own country. inscription is, where it occurs elsewhere, invariably associated with
Like much of Schopen's work, the inscriptions paper was animated 'non-Maháyãna groups'like the Sarvãstivãdins, the Kãéyapiyas and so
by the intention to problematise and, if possible, overturn established on, and so he draws from this a conclusion he regards as 'in some ways
assumptions. Indeed, most of Schopen's work on the Mahayana seems obvious: the setting up of the earliest known image of a Mahãyãna
intent on minimising its importance in the grand scheme of things buddha was undertaken for a purpose that was specifically and
Indian and Buddhist, dominated as it is for him by inscriptions and explicitly associated with established non-Mahayana groups' (Schopen
the Mulasarvastivãda-vinaya.However, as influential as it has been, the t987 tzz; zoo5: 267). The precise meaning of sarva-buddha-pujayeis,to
paper is not without its problems. It basically proceeds by establishing be sure, open to question, but it is remarkable that Schopen overlooks
a correlation between various forms of a supposed Mahayana formula26 the fact that Sarvãstivãdins are just as capable of being Mahayanists
and certain terms for donors (namely, iakya-bhikçu and Sakya-bhikçuftl as anybody else, so intent is he on his long-term project ofcutting the
for monks and nuns and paramopãsaka and pararnopãsikã for lay men Great Vehicle down to size.30 A second inscribed image of a partly pre-
and women) and then locating this correlation in mostly later inscrip- served triad that was taken by some to tell a different story was later
tions, the first of them in the fourth century, but most much later than despatched by Schopen & Salomon (zooz), who maintained that the
this. The term 'Mahäyãna' itself does not appeff in inscriptions until alleged references to Amitãbha and Avalokiteévara were nothing of the
the sixth century. Schopen's identification of the terms íakya-bhikçuand sort. The paper makes a strong case as far as Amitãbha is concerned,
íakya-bhikçupl as referring exclusively to Mahãy ti,ta sangha members but its tentative reading of oloiÉpare as a place name is less compelling.
has been accepted by some27 but questioned by others such as Cousins Schopen's various papers have thus been extremely influential in
(zoo3) - drawing a spirited response in Schopen zoosi 244-246, along establishing the notion that the Mahayana was marginal in the land
with an admission that more recent fi.nds necessitate a revisiting of of its birth until a fairly late date, around the fifth or sixth centuries.3l
the issues. But Schopen's assumption that the terms paramopãsaka More recent discoveries, however, are not entirely consistent with this
and pøramopãsika refer to any male and female lay supporters of the picture, which will, as Schopen himself has pointed out, inevitably
Mahayana certainly requires further thought. Schopen draws conclu- have to be revised to accommodate them. Of particular note is a stone
sions about the significance of these latter terms without discussing their inscription from Endere in Xinjiang from around the middle of the
precise meaning, a curious omission in the circumstances. Not once third century which describes a king (Ar.ngoka) as one who has set out
does he hazard an actual translation, but his paper implies - if I read it in the Great Vehicle, or on the Great Way (mahayana-salnprøsthita), a
correctly - that paramopasakø means something like 'lay practitioner term which is also applied to the second-century Kusãr,ra king Huviska
of the supreme'(i.e. the supreme teaching of the Mahayâna).28 However, or Huveska in a manuscript fragment dated to around the fourth

18 \9
 Early Mahãyãna: Laying out the Field SETTINC OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

century (on these two finds see Salomon 1999 and 2ooz respectively). departure, but widens its focus to include all complex steles known to
Even more impressive, although somewhat later (the likely date is us (i.e., the ones whose provenance is relatively secure). The number
49zl4g3 ce), is a copper scroll inscription recording the donation of of extant examples is not small, and the range of types raises many
stúpas and mentioning a number of Alchon Hun rulers, including interesting questions. Sadly, inscribed examples are rare. It is not the
Toramãqa, which quotes part of a Mahayana sutra as well as the place here to go into the details of this research, but if it is accepted,
famous opening verses of Nagarjuna's Mula-madlryamaka-kãríkas (see as we propose, that these steles are indicative of Mahayãna ideas and
Melzer & Sander zoo6). Especially in the area which we have taken practices, then at least in this part of India, the northwest, Mahãyãna
to calling 'Greater Gandhãra' the epigraphical evidence is increasing has in fact left plenty of traces. Schopen's magisterial articles may
and becoming ever more interesting. have distracted our attention from the elephant in the room, so that
Inscriptions are, however, not everything. There is another very it vanished from our sight, but sure enough, it is right there where it
substantial body of archaeological evidence that consists in images. always was.3a
Here we have the real elephant in the room, at least in the room known Recent manuscript discoveries from this area also provide a steadily
as Greater Gandhãra: hundreds of images of bodhisattvas, men in growing amount of evidence for the presence of Mahayana literature,
the full flower of manhood and decked out in a prodigious amount of which means, in turn, evidence for the existence of communities
jewellery, as befits gods or kings, or at least princes. These can hardly producing and using this literature. Indeed, it is an indication of how
all be images of Siddhartha Gautama before the Great Renunciation, quickly things can change that until the end of last century we \¡/ere
and even if they were, we would still be hard pressed to come up with interpreting the absence of any Mahayana texts in Kharosthi script
a convincing explanation in religious terms for their abundance.32 and the Gandhãri language as corroboration of the marginality thesis.
In fact we are fairly sure that some of them are Maitreya, and there Then suddenly they began to appear, either because ofnew discoveries,
are other candidates for identification too, although here it starts to or as a result of the identification of manuscript fragments in existing
become very difficult to say anything with complete assurance. finds. By 2ou4we had the fragmentary remains, on either birch bark or
Among this profusion of statuary not all pieces are inscribed, so palm leaves, of at least eight Mahayãna sutras, several of them quite
when it comes to identification we must often rely on inference, which extensive; for the details at that point see Harrison & Hartmann 2ol4i
is to say, guesswork.33 The Amitãbha pedestal discussed in Schopen xvi. Now, at the time of writing, the number is nine, but it will surely
1987 was a rare and lucky find, and if the dating to r53 cn is correct, it go on rising:
is rather early too, but apart from that there is little in the way of clear
inscriptional evidence to assist us. However, new pieces are surfacing KNOWN TEXTS
all the time (and some of them are genuine!), so there is always P raj ñãp ãramifa [published]35
hope of finding something more solid to go on. Juhyung Rhi's paper B o dhi s att t a- p i! ak a- sut ra [published]36
addresses the problems of interpretation in this area, but for the time ßh a dr akalp ik a- sut r q [publishe d]3?
being I would say that if we set aside the problem of identification of S art a- p uryy a- s amuc c ay a- s am õ dhí- sut ra [published]38
*
this or that image, the sheer number of them must mean something. Sucinti-sutra [not yet published]3'
Otherwise we end up not seeing the forest for the trees. Pr aty utp ann a- b uddh a- s arymukh av asthit a- s a m adh i- sut ra [not yet
Recently, Christian Luczanits and I have been trying to explore publishedl
this forest, joining his expertise âs an art-historian to my interest in
the texts, with a project on complex Gandhãran steles. A preliminary TEXTS HITHERTO UNKNOWN
statement of our findings can be found in Harrison &.Luczanits zotz. Unidentified Mahãyãna sutra with Sariputra as the interlocutor
Our project takes the famous Muhammad Nari stele as its point of [partially published]ao

20 2t
 7
Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTING OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

Unidentified Mahãyana sutra referring to the decline of the Dharma opening address to the Cardiff conference and ofthis introductory
[not yet published] chapter. 'Laying out the field', in the sense of determining the field's
'Bajaur Mahãyãna Sutra' [partially published] boundaries and the disposition of its elements, invokes a metaphor
which scholars of Buddhism will readily recognise, given the impor-
Ingo Strauch addresses the 'Bajaur Mahayana Sutra'in detail in his tance of the notion of ks.etravyuha in Mahayãna discourse, and I have
contribution to this volume, and further information on it can be found tried to do that, although the result may not have been a particularly
there. As the most extensive Gandhari text of this sort to be discovered splendid aïray. However, 'laying out' also refers to preparation for
so far, it is especially important, but the testimony of the other items burial, and it is therefore appropriate to conclude by asking whether
in the list, some of them mere fragments, is also significant. In terms we should consign this field of study to its grave and concentrate our
of dates they range from the first to the third centuries cn, some of attention on other, more pressing matters. I would say the answer is
them being written in a partially Sanskritised Gandharl. They also no, especially in the light ofrecent archaeological and codicological
provide evidence of something we already knew from the Chinese discoveries, which indicate that we have, after all, not been barking
translations of the late-second century: that by this time Mahãyana up the r'Ã/rong tree, still less a puny weed of no particular historical
Buddhism had already undergone considerable development. Here significance struggling to strike root in Indian soil. Furthermore, the
'ù/e are seeing not the first tentative gestures in the direction of the continuing study of Mahayana Buddhism in its early phases promises
bodhisattva path, but sophisticated and complex documents in which to throw light on some important aspects of Buddhism as a whole, for
a whole range of literary devices and doctrinal elements are clearly example, the development of the nikãyas and their literatures, the use
working together in a way which is already well established. What of writing alongside oral techniques for the transmission of scripture,
precedes them we can, at this stage, only guess. Peter Skilling would the evolution of liturgical and other ritual forms, and the development
like to apply the term 'Vaidalya' to this proto-Mahayana phase (see of iconography. Having said that, one thing we can lay to rest is the
Skilling zor3), although in my view this may not be the best strategy.al idea that Mahayana Buddhism can be clarified in and of itself. If we
But setting that problem aside, the fact that we are turning up have learned anything, it is that this form of the religion can only be
Gandharl fragments of previously unknown texts, with no parallels understood in terms of the matrix in which it developed, and indeed
in the Chinese and Tibetan canons, suggests an iceberg phenomenon: in terms of the matrix of Indian culture more generally, still woefully
these manuscripts are indicating that below the waterline, as it were, neglected by Buddhist scholars. Mahayana has no svabhavø, no unitary
there is an enormous quantity of Mahayana literature which must and unchanging essence, so we should stop fixating on it as a singular-
have existed during this early period and has now been lost. As my ity, and start seeing it as an aspect of Buddhism as a whole, focussing
joint paper with Luczanits ends up by observing, there is a steadily on continuities rather than discontinuities.a2 In fact, these continuities
growing body of evidence to suggest that, at least in the northwest of run both ways, both backward towards Sakyamuni himself and the
India, during the early centuries of the Common Era, the Mahayana earliest formulations of his teaching by his followers, and forward in the
may not have been so marginal after all. We look forward, therefore, direction of Padmasambhava and Kamalaéila, or any other Vajrayãna
to new discoveries in this area and elsewhere on the subcontinent, and luminary one cares to name.a3 Seen in that light, early Mahayãna is not
to fresh interpretations of the material we already have. a single, sudden turn in a new direction at one particular stage on the
road taken by Buddhism, but a nexus of multiple impulses combining
and unfolding in a long historical trajectory which began before the
CLOSING REMARKS Common Era and continued well into the first millennium. Prolific in
its creativity, and exerting a profound influence on the forms which
In closing, let me return to the deliberate ambiguity in the title of my Buddhism has taken since that time, it is unlikely to lose its fascination.

tq 23
 Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTINC OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

at our own risk. More serious difficulties attend the use of 'Nikãya Buddhism',
It remains for me to offer thanks, in the fi.rst instance for Sara 'sectarian Buddhism', 'Early Buddhism' and, worst of all, 'Hinayãna', which should
Boin-Webb's contributions to the field of Buddhist studies, to which not be used as a historical descriptor. There is no easy solution to this problem of
this volume stands as a memorial. Speaking as one who, as a graduate nomenclature, of how to refer to ordinar¡ standard, 'vanilla' Buddhism without
student, was greatly inspired by the work of Étienne Lamotle, and the optional extras that Mahãyãna offered. Note, by the way, that'Mainstream Bud-
dhism' as a technical term ought ideally to be capitalised, so that 'mainstream' in its
now, as a teacher, find that my students frequently do not have a no¡mal sense can continue to be used, but not all scholars observe this convention.
strong reading knowledge of French, I concur wholeheartedly with 5 And it might not be the beginning of the story either. At this stage we can
Russell Webb's assessment of the value of Sara's translations. More scarcely know what impulses set off the developments that culminated in
Mahâyana Buddhism as we know it, or as it emerged into the historical ¡ecord in
particularly, I would like to acknowledge her generosity in leaving
the first and second centuries cr.
a sum of money in her will to the United Kingdom Association for ó See Harrison 2oo3: 132-133.
Buddhist Studies (UKABS), a bequest which provided a substantial 7 Revealingly, the Tibetan equivalent for ara¡tya, dgon pa, 'solitary place', 'desert',
part of the funding for the symposium in Cardiff. Second, I thank 'wilderness' is also the standard term for a monastery. In his chapter in this volume
Ingo Strauch observes that this usage is already attested in Kharosthr documents,
Richard Gombrich and other office holders of UKABS for entrusting so it is clearly very old.
me with the responsibility for organising this symposium and for s Another trope that we may have to be more careful about - although here our
editing this volume, and for waiting so patiently during the delays translations do not complicate the problem as they do with arallya - is that of the
despised and embattied minority, struggling against the rest to assert the authen-
which attended the latter undertaking. A third debt of gratitude is
ticity of their teachings. The authors of Maháyana sutras seem to have kept this up
owed to the staffof Equinox who assisted me with such consummate for a very long time. Cf. Ruegg zoo4: t7-t9 & n.23.
professionalism in this endeavour, especially Janet Joyce, Valerie Hall, e For some aftempts in this direction, albeit not very conclusive, see Harrison 1995:
and Sarah Lee. Fourth, I would like to thank Adeana McNicholl for 67-68.
t0 That said, even a bad translation can be useful, as it provides more readers with
helping with the compilation of the index for this volume. Finally, I
faster and easier access to what is in the text, even if they may end up having to
salute my colleagues, and thank them for their contributions. We do retranslate the passages that interest them.
not always share the same opinions, but we are one in our abiding 11
This research was first presented in the paper entitled'On Authors and Authori-
conviction that the study of the Buddhist tradition is worth a lifetime's ties: Reflections on Sùtra and Sãstra in Mahãyãna Buddhism', given in Tokyo on 19
May zoo6 at the 5rst Symposium of the International Conference of Eastern Studies
devotion, a conviction that Sara Boin-Webb manifestly shared. (Tohö gakkai), and has subsequentiy been presented in revised forms at Smith Col-
lege (zoo7) and at Princeton University (zor5).
1' To be distinguished from the Karultapu¡tQarIka-sutra, for which see Yamada 1968.
13
For each text listed numbers are given for the Taisho shinshu daizokyo (T) and the
NOTES
so-called Tripitaka Koreanø according to Lancaster 1979. Translation dates follow
1 It was also intended that Jan Nattier and Florin Deleanu the latter source, and may require adjustment in some cases, but this will not affect
would participate in the overall picture.
the conference, but both had to pull out for personal reasons. taDescribed in the introduction to the recently published translation by Lozang
2 Accessed 3r May 3r. Last modified zz ApríI zor3. Also of use is the Oxford Bibli-
Jamspal (zoro: xv) as an 'early Mahãyãna sùtra', a claim which, without founda-
ographies article 'Mahayana' by Daniel Boucher (last modified z8 July zor5).
3 Cf. Harrison 2oo3i r2g n.24, r3r. Cf. also Sasaki zoo4, which provides ample tion though it may be, is - alas - entirely predictable. Unexpectedly, however, the
author goes on to develop the hypothesis that this text was compiled around the
evidence that arar,tyattasø and obse¡vance of the vinaya went together, and also
time of the reign of Aóoka, since'[t]here is considerable evidence to indicate that
deals with Buddhist definitions of aranya itself .
a I continue to use this term, which as far as I know was inventecl by Eric the compilation of the Satyakawas influenced by the Edicts of Aéoka or vice versa'
(xlviii).
Cheetham, for non-Mahãyana Buddhism, despite the fact that it has its critics, 15
The similarly titied text translated by Dharmaks ema 4t4-426 (TSSl.rS) is appar-
none more persuasive than Peter Skilling (see especially Skilling zor3: ror-ro3). a parallel to the text cited in the SS; cf. Nattier Lggli L72 n.6r. Further work
ently not
At present, the supposedly neutral alternative favoured by many in our field is is needed to clarify the situation.
'Srãvakayãna', but in my view that term is not free of problems either: it was coined 1ó
Again, with the singular doubtful exception of the Srlmala (doubtfui in that the
by Mahayanists to denote a particular religious aspiration (arhatship) and the path
citation in question cannot be traced in any existing version of the text), not one of
to it, so its original sense was rather specific and narrow; we apply it more widely
the texts listed above features in any of these commentaries, which we presume to

24 25
 Early Mahãyana: Laying out the Field SETTING OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

date from around the fourth century. sional reference in Indian inscriptions is not entirely clear'. That said, the numerous
17
It is important to make it clear that I do notmean by this the so-called'cult of parallel epigraphical expressions cited in Cousins 2oo3i L4 &. n.5z (parama-saugata,
the book', at least not as it is commonly conceived. Cf. Drewes zoo7. parama-ta.tha7ata, p arama-laiçpatta, p aramadityabhakta, etc.) do seem to indicate
18
Led, we imagine, by the figures referred to as dharmabhAnakas in the texts that the reading of the compound as a karmadharayø is valid: the term magni-
themselves. See Drewes zorr and earlier work by Shizutani Masao, e.g. Shizutani fies the donors, not the object of their devotion, in a way which is not altogether
ry54 andry74. unfamiliar in the inscriptions of our own day (donors designated'platinum level'
le And not simply to their Mainstream coreligionists. Numerous Mahayãna sutras, or 'diamond circle' and so on, with their names written in a bigger font size).
and portions of many others, are clearly addressed primarily to othe¡ followers 30
This tendency to slip into representing the Mahãyãna as a school on the same
of the G¡eat Way and provide evidence of internal disputes within or between level as (and thus opposed to or distinct from) the various nikayas, which then be-
Mahãyãna communities. come the 'other schools' or the 'non-Mahãyãna schools', is also encountered in the
20
It goes without saying that until such a project is carried out, we should refrain inscriptions paper (see, e.g., Schopen 2oos; 233 î.22, 234 1t979. ro n. zz, n)). Found in
from the reckless affixing of the label 'early' to every Mahãyána sutra that takes much scholarly writing, it is evidently a habit very difficult to break.
our fancy. 31
That is to say, the Mahãyãna, at least in its earlier phases, emerges as an assort-
'zl See, e.g., the work of the sixth-century scholar Bhãviveka or Bhavya, and his ment of small bits and pieces not amounting to anything much, around which some
citation of texts belonging to various Mahasaryghika sub-schools which are clearly grand fantasies have been elaborated by modern scholars. This appears to be the
connected with Mahãyãna sutras in his autocommentary on his Madhyamaka- implication of the title of the ¡elevant volume in the series of Schopen's collected
hydaya-karikalr ('Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way'), the Tarka-jvala ('Flame papers, Figments and Fragments.
of Reason'); cf. Eckel zooS: esp, i66ff. See also my work on the Lokanuyartana, 32
Nor do Mahãyána sutras themselves help us to account for them, at least not
translated as a Mahãyãna sutra in the late second century by Lokakçema, and in explicit terms. On this point see the illuminating remarks in Schopen zoo5:
cited or alluded to extensively in the Mahaparinirvar.ra-mahasutra (as mentioned ro8-r53 ('On Sending the Monks Back to their Books: Cult and Conservatism in
above), but to which a similar set of connections pertains, to the Mahãsãmghika- Early Mahayana Buddhism').
Lokottaravãdins (as seen in the Mahayastu) and to the Púrvaéailas, according to 33
Cf. Schopen rg87: rr7-trï lzoo5: z6z-264] for remarks on the inscribed images of
Candrakirti (Harrison 198z). Kuçãna Mathurâ.
2'¿
This is why the use of 'Nikãya Buddhism' for non-Mahãyãna does not work: we 3a
Dating these mo¡e complex Gandhãran images remains a problem, it being quite
assume that all Mahãyãnists who were ordained belonged to one or other of the possible that most are to be assigned to the third century or later, Nevertheless, if
nikayas. On this and other related conceptual issues see especially Silk zooz. .,¡/e accept that they reflect Mahäyãna ideas, it becomes more difficult to assert that
23
Thus the citations of the Lokanuyartana-sutra in the Mahayastu may be read Mahayãna was little more than a textual movement.
35
as Mahãyãna influence on one branch of the Mahãsamghikas, rather than a See Falk & Karashima zotz and zor3. This is sometimes referred to as a Gãndhãri
Mahasamghika foreshadowing of Mahayãna. Without any real evidence as to the manuscript of the Açlasahasrika,bú although the text does correspond to the work
relative date oftexts, which alternative is to be preferred? we know under this name, it is clear enough that it could not have borne that title,
2a
Note, for example, the excellent work done in this area by Bhikkhu Anãlayo; see since it would have been significantly shorter. It is therefore anachronistic to refer
especially Anãlayo zoro and zor3. to it as the A$/a.
2s
Reference to this paper here will be to the version reprinted in Schopen's zoo5 3ó
See Baums, Braarvig et al. zo16. This sutra is not to be confused with the
book, Figments and Fragments of Mahayana Buddhism ín India. Bodhisattvapifaka as a class oftexts.
2ó
Schopen initially suggests that the association of this formula with the 37
See Baums, Glass et al. zot6. The assignment of this text to the Mahãyãna is
Mahãyãna has no firm evidential basis (zoo5: z3o-4r), but his argument proceeds not without problems, although it is certainly designated as a Mahäyãna sutra in
by throwing its weight on the question of 'me¡it-transfer'. This is a red herring, the various editions ofthe Kanjur.
more salient issue surely being whether anuttara-jñãna is justifiably to be taken as 38
See Harrison et al. zo16.
another way of referring to anuttarã samyak-sar.nbodlrl (especially when shared with 3e
The fragments correspond to parts of a sutra preserved in three Chinese
all living beings). Schopen passes lightly over this question, but after querying the translations (TqZZ-+lS), which appears to presuppose the existence of the
*Sucintin (Gãndhãrî, Suciti), is the
linkage of the formula with the Mahãyãna, goes on to take it as read for the rest of Vimalaklrtinirdeíø, since the principal character
the paper. son of Vimalakirti. See also Salomon 2ot4i g-ro.
27
See e.g. Cohen zooo, who, following Schopen's lead, takes íakya-bhikçu as a0
Four fragments discovered by Kazunobu Matsuda in the Hirayama Collection.
equivalent to bodhisattva. While it draws attention to the importance of kinship See Matsuda zor3. One of these fragments, however, may belong Io the Bodhisattva-
language in Buddhism, this paper adds littie ofsubstance to the debate. pilaka-sutra.
28
Schopen nowhere says this, so my inference may be incorrect. a1
First, because we are not altogether sure what the term's referent would have
2e
Cousins zoo3 is useful in this regard, although it too lacks an explicit analysis been during this early period, that is, which doctrines, practices or literary forms it
of the meaningof paramopasaka(it is rather more detailed on the sense of !;akya- may have denoted, and second, because Vaidalya (Pali, Vedalla) and its associated
bhikçu). As Ruegg (zoo4: t3 n. 17) observes of both sets of terms, 'their exact exten- terms Vaipulya (Pali, Vepulla) and Vaitulya (Pãli, Vetulla) went on being used to re-

26 27
 Early Mahayana: LayinE! out the Field SETTINC OUT ON THE CREAT WAY

fer to the Mahayána, both within its ranks and outside them. Especially significant A Study and Tianslation of the Ráçtrapälapariprcchã-sútra' Honolulu: Univer-
is their continuing employment by Theravádins and other Mainstream Buddhists, sity of Hawai'i Press.
enabling them to refer to the Mahãyãna without using the word and thereby ap- Cohen, Richard S. zooo. 'Discontented Categories: Hinayãna and Mahãyána in
pearing to accept the claim to supremacy which it embodies. Naturally, they would Indian Buddhist History'. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. fi(r):
have avoided the derogatory term Hînayãna even more assiduously. (I owe this 7-25.
point to Peter Skilling, private communication.)
a'z
Cousins, Lance. zoo3. 'SakiyabhikkhulsakyabhikkhulSdkyabhikçu: A Mistaken Link
Cf. Ruegg zoo4:56-57.
to the Mahãyãnú' Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Sattbhaça
a3
Already in the second century we can see the foreshadowings of the central
23: L-27.
Vajrayãna project of selÊdeification, to say nothing of other things that some might
think of as'tantric'(e.g. the use of mantras and dharaltrs). It remains difficult to Drewes, David. zoo7. 'Revisiting the Phrase "sa pfthirlpradeíaí caityabhuto bhat¡et"
and the Maháyána Cult of the Book'. Indo-Iranian Journal 5o(z): rcvr43.
locate the point in history at which Maháyána becomes Vajrayãna, and the attempt
to do so is perhaps misconceived. zoloâ. 'Early Indian Mahãyãna Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship'. Religion
Compass 4þ):55-65.
-
2orob. 'Early Indian Mahãyãna Buddhism II: New Perspectives'. Religíon
Compass 4(z):66-74.
- 'DharmabhaTakas in Early Mahãyàna'. Indo-Iranian Journal 54(4)t
BIBTIOGRAPHY
33r-372.
-2ort.
Eckel, Malcolm David. zoo8. Bhattiveka and His Buddhist Opponents. Cambridge,
Abbreviations MA: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.
Falk, Harry and Seishi Karashima. zotz. 'A First-Century Praiñaparamita Manu-
script from Gandhãra - parivartar (Texts from the Split Collection )'. Annual
K text numbers according to Lancaster, Lewis R. 1979. The Korean Bud-
Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka
dhist Canon: A Desuiptive Catalogue. Berkeley: University of Cali University 15. r9-6t.
fo¡nia Press. 2oL3.'A First-Century Prajñaparamifa Manuscript from Gandhára - parittarta
T Takakusu, Junjiro and Kaigyoku Watanabe (eds.). ry24-t934.
- 5 (Texts from the Split Collection z)'. Annual Report of the International Re-
Taisho shinshu daizokyo, roo vols. Tokyo: Taishõ shinshü daizökyö search Institute for Adttanced Buddhology at Soka University t6: 97-169.
Harrison, Paul. 1982. 'sanskrit Fragments of a Lokottaravádin Tradition'. ln Indo'
kankokai.
logical and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his
Sixtieth Birthday, ed. L. A. Hercus et al., zrt-234. Canberra: Faculty of Asian
Studies.
Works Cited tgg5. 'searching for the Origins of the Mahayana: What Are We Looking For?'
The Eastern Buddhist, New Series, z8þ): 48-69.
-
Anãlayo, Bhikkhu. zoto. The Genesis of the Bodhisattya ldeal, Hamburg: Hamburg zoo!. 'Mediums and Messages: Reflections on the Production of Mahãyãna
University Press. Sútras'. The Eastern Buddhist, New Series, 35(r-z): rr5-r5r.
-
Evolution of the Bodhisattva Concept in Early Buddhist Canonical Lit- Harrison, Paul and Jens-Uwe Hartmann (eds.). zor4. From Birch Bark to Digital
Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the
-'TheBhikkhu ln
erature'. ldea: Essays on the Emergence of the Mahayana,
The Bodhisattt¡a ed.
Nyanatusita, 165-2o8. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State ofthe Field, Stanford, June ry-t9

Baums, Stefan, Andrew Glass, and Kazunobu Matsuda. zo16. 'Fragments of a zoog). Beiträge zur Kultur-und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, 8o; Denkschriften der
Gandhari Version of the Bhadrakalpikasütra'. In Manuscripts in the Schøyen philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 46o. Vienna: Österreichische Academie der
Collection: Buddhist Manuscripts 1I{ ed. Jens Braarvig et al., 183-266. Oslo: Wissenschaften.
Hermes Publishing. Har¡ison, Paul, Timothy Lenz, Lin Qian, and Richard Salomon. zot6. 'A Gandhari
Baums, Stefan, Jens Braarvig, Timothy J. Lenz, Fredrik Liland, Kazunobu Matsuda, Fragment of the Sarvapu+yasamuccayasamádhisùtr a'. In Manuscripts in the
and Richard Salomon. zoró. 'The Bodhisattvapitakasütra in Gândhã¡l'. In Schøyen Collection: Buddh¡st Manuscripts II{ ed, Jens Braarvig et al., 3rr-3r9.
Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection: Buddhist Manuscripts II4 ed. Jens Oslo: Hermes Publishing.
Braarvig et aI.,267-282. Oslo: Hermes Publishing. Harrison, Paul and Christian Luczanits. zorz. 'New Light on (and from) the Muham-
Boucher, Daniel. zoo8. Bodhisattttas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahayana: mad Nari Stele'. In zott nendo dai ikkai kokusai shinpojiumu puroshldingusu:
Jodokyo ni kansuru tokubetsu kokusai shinpoiiumu. BARC International Sym-

28 29
 Early Mahayana: Laying out the Field SETTINC OUT ON THE GREAT WAY

posium Series r: Special International Symposium on Pure Land Buddhism. More CollectedPapers. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Kyoto: Ryukoku University Research Cente¡ for Buddhist Cultures in Asia; Schopen, Gregory and Richard Salomon. zooz. 'On an Alleged Reference to
69-rz7 (English text); r3r-r94 (Japanese translation); Lg7-2o7 (plates). Amitãbha in a Kharosthi Inscription on a Gandhãran Relief'. Journal of the
Jamspal, Lozang. zoto. The Range of the Bodhisattva, A Mahayana Sutra (Arya- International Association of Buddhist Studies z5(r-z): 3-3t.
bodhisattva-gocara): The Teachings of the Nirgrantha Satyaka. New York: The Shizutani, Masao. 1954. 'Hosshi (dharmabha'laka) ni tsuite - shoki daijö kyöten no
American Institute of Buddhist Studies, Columbia University Center for Bud- sakusha ni kansuru shiron'. Indogaku bukkyogaku kenkyu 3(t): :3r-t32.
dhist Studies, and Tibet House US. Shizutani, Masao. :974. Shoki daijo bukkyo no seiritsukatel. Kyoto: Hyakkaen.
Lancaster, Lewis R. tg79. The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptitte Catalogue.Berke- Silk, Jonathan. 994. "Ihe Origins and Early History of the Mahãratnaktrta Tradl-
ley: University of California Press. tion of Mahãyana Buddhism with a Study of the Ratnarãéisutra and Related
Matsuda, Kazunobu. zor3. 'Hirayama korekushyon no Gandárago baiyo shahon- Materials. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.
dankan ni tsuite'. Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu ('On Gãndhãrî Buddhist Silk, Jonathan. zooz. 'What, if anything, is Mahayana Buddhism? Problems of
Manuscript Fragments in the Hirayama Collection'. Journal of Indian and Definitions and Ciassifications'. Numen 4y 3SS-4o5.
Buddhist Studies) 6z(r):þ75)-(r83).
Skilling, Peter. zor3. 'Vaidalya, Mahayana, and Bodhisattva in India: An Essay
Melzer, Gudrun and Lore Sander. zoo6.'A Copper Scroll Inscription from the Time towards Historical Understanding'. In The Bodhisattva ldea: Essays on the
of the Alchon Huns'. In Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection: Buddhist Manu- Emergence of the Mahayanø, ed. Bhikkhu Nyanatusita, 68-t64. Kandy: Bud-
scripts III, ed. Jens Braarvig et aI., z5t-278, Oslo: Hermes Publishing.
dhist Publication Society.
Nattier, Jan. r99r. Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline. Yamada, Isshi. r9ó8. Karu¡tapu¡r|arlka: Edited with Introduction and Nofes. z vols.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
zoo3. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattta Path According to the 'Inquiry of Ugra'
(t lgraparipTccha-sutra), Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
-
Ra¡ Reginald. ry94. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orienta-
fions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ruegg, David Seyfort. zoo4. 'Aspects of the Investigation of the (Earlier) Indian
Mahãyana'. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies z7j):
3-62.
Salomon, Richard. rygg.'A Stone Inscription in Central Asian Gãndhari from En-
dere (Xinjiang)'. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series 13, 1-13.
Salomon, Richard. zooz.'A Fragment of a Coliection of Buddhist Legends, with a
Reference to King Huviska as a Follower of the Mahayãna'. In Manusuipts
in the Schøyen Collection III: Buddhist Manuscripts 1I, ed. Jens Braarvig et al.,
255-267. Oslo: Hermes Publishing.
Salomon, Richard. zor4. 'Gandhãri Manuscripts in the B¡itish Library, Schøyen
and Other Collections'. ln From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in
Buddhist Manusuipt Research (Papers Presented at the Conference, Indic Buddhist
Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 6-t9 zoog), ed. Paul Harrison
and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, r-r7. Beiträge zur Kultur-und Geistesgeschichte
Asiens, 8o; Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 46o. Vi-
enna: Österreichische Academie der Wissenschaften.
Sasaki Shizuka. 2oo4. 'Ara¡tya Dwellers in Buddhism'. Buddhist Studies/Bukkyo
kenkyu 3zt 1-t3.
Schopen, Gregory. ry79.'Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions'. Indo-Iranían Journal zr
r-r9. Reprinted in Schopen zoo5: zz3-246.
Schopen, Gregory. ry87.''Ihe Inscription on the Kuçãn Image of Amitãbha and the
Character of the Early Mahãyana in India'. Journal of the International As-
sociation ofBuddhist Studiesrc(z): gg-134. Reprinted in Schopen 2oo5:247-277.
Schopen, Gregory. zoo5. Figments and Fragments of Mahayana Buddhism in India:

30 3r