JIABS 14-2

THE JOURNAL

Of THE .INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BUDDHIST STUDIES

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Roger jackson Dept. of Religion Carleton College

Northfield, MN 55057 USA

EDITORS

Peter N. Gregory University of Illinois

{Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Alexander W. Macdonald Universite de Paris X

Nanterre, France

Steven Collins University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois, USA

14 1991

Ernst Steinkellner University of Vienna

Wien, Austria

jikido Takasaki University of Tokyo

Tokyo; japan

Robert Thurman . Columbia University

New York, New York, USA

Number 2

THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL OF BUDDHIST STUDIES, INC.

This Journal is the organ of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Inc. It is governed by the objectives of the Association and accepts scholarly' contributions pertaining to Buddhist Studies in all the various disciplines, such as philosophy, history, religion, sociology, anthropology,. art, archaeology, psychology, textual studies, etc. The }JABS is published twice yearly, in the summer and winter.

Manuscripts for publication (we must have two copies) and correspondence concerning articles should be submitted to the JIABS editorial office at the address given below. Please refer to the guidelines for contributors to printed on the inside back cover of every issue. Books for review should also sent to the address below. The Editors cannot guarantee to publish reviews unsolicited books nor to return those books to the senders.

The Association and the Editors assume no responsibility for the views expressed by the authors in the Association's Journal and other related publications.

Editor's Address

Roger Jackson }JABS c/o Dept. of Religion Carleton College Northfield, MN 55057 USA

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Andre Bareau (France)

M.N. Deshpande (India)

R. Card (USA)

B.C. Cokhale (USA)

John C. Huntington (USA) David Snellgrove (u.

P.S. Jaini (USA) E. Zurcher (Netherlan

--------------------------------

Both the Editor and Association would like to thank Carleton College for its financial support in the production of the Journal.

Copyright © The International Association of Buddhist Studies 1991 ISSN: 0l93-600X

Indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, American Theological Library; Association, Chicago, available online through BRS (BibliographiC\ Retrieval Services), Latham, New York, and DIALOG Information5; Services, Palo Alto, California. '~

Composition by Ann Flanagan Typography, Berkeley, CA 94710. Printing by Thomson-Shore, Inc., Dexter, MI 48130.

CONTENTS

1. ARTICLES

l. Reflections on the MaheSvara Subjugation Myth: Indic Materials, Sa-skya-pa Apologetics, and the Birth ofHeruka). by Ronald M. Davidson 197

2. A Newar Buddhist Liturgy: Sravakayanist Ritual in Kwa Bahal;, Lalitpur, Nepal, byD.N. Gellner 236

3. Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions and the San-chieh-chao, by Jamie Hubbard 253

.4. An Old Inscription from AmaravatI and the Cult of the Local Monastic Dead in Indian Buddhist Monasteries, by Gregory Schopen 281

II. BOOK REVIEvVS

1. Buddha in the Crown: Avalokitesvara in the Buddhist Traditions qfSri Lanka) by John Clifford Holt (Vijitha Rajapakse) 331

.2. High Religion: A Cultural and Political History qf Sherpa Religion) by Sherry Ortner (Alexander W. Macdonald) 341

3. Miidhyamika and Yogiiciira: A Study qf Mahiiyiina Philosophies) by Gadjin M. Nagao (Paul J. Grilli ths ) 345

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 349

fiReflections on the ~Mahesvara Subjugation Myth: ~~ndic Materials, Sa-skya-pa Apologetics, ~~nd the 'Birth of Heruka * ~fi~ '. ~lf; ~(::' ,

~i;'~

~JbyRonald M. Davidson

~~"' . ff,/: _

~t [:lPerhaps one of the least examined topics in Buddhism is the .' tlitilization of myth in service of clerical values. Myth, of course, ~i~'intimately connected with all the varieties of praxis, yet to i!Pead many descriptive analyses of the Buddhist dispensation, ~the nonspecialist might rapidly come to the conclusion that ~Biiddhism has few concerns outside of doctrine. This impresr~ion is reinforced by both the Eurocentric proclivity to see reli~'gion in doxographical terms and by the modern Buddhist ~apologia-especially prevalent in the Theravada world-that :';!3uddhism is in reality not a religion but a philosophy. Bud~~hist specialists have frequently been seduced by either the i1udeo-Christian models, which continue to exert influence in f!ge . quest for underlying unity in religious phenomena, or by ;ihe modern Buddhist desire to appear outside the pale of the 'Set of behaviors subsumed under the term "religion." Thus, the ~~xploration of Buddhist myth-along with ritual and other ~forms of activity-has taken a back seat to doctrinal formula- . ~tions, many of which are recast in a twentieth century philo~~ophical diction that can be quite misleading in its implication ~of set and setting. . . *~ Myth, in fact, has been and continues to be extraordinarily iimportant to Buddhists. Yet the mythic functions are not prel~isely those found in the Near Eastern religions-Judaism, ~9hristianity, or Islam. Specifically, the ideology of an encapsu;JCited temporal sequence, involving a definite creation event, a :~~losed revelation, and an approaching millenium, are all for't:ign to Buddhist mythic processes, which verify an open-ended 4~ ,

197

198 JIABS VOL. 14 NO.2

spatio-temporal system wherein all phenomena continually participate in the expression of truth. In general, BUddhist myth does not reveal a cosmology of creation and judgement· with all the attendent personality issues of creator and soul: Instead, it seeks to focus the attention of the audience on paradigms exemplifying the potential for immanent rectifica_ tion, irrespective of eschatology. Thus, as may be seen in rnost institutional religions, Buddhist myths partly reinforce and are partially informed by the doctrinal structure; for the Mahayana this frequently invokes mythic expressions of the interpenetration of the relative and absolute spheres.

Such an ideology lends a peculiar polyvalence to Buddhist . myths. They tend to serve an astonishing variety of functions , and, perhaps in keeping with the doctrine of existence without essence, Buddhist myths freely float from one milieu to another, sometimes being caught in the act of simultaneously serving multiple masters. The myth under consideration herethe subjugation of MaheSvara and the birth of Heruka-is one of these. We will see that it developed out of a source myth of VajrapaI).i taming MaheSvara in the TattvasaT(lgraha and was used in service of establishing authenticity for another body of literature, the CakrasaT(lvara complex. It completed the cycle of hermeneutics in Tibet by affirming the authoritativeness of an entirely different system, the Hevajra, itself the scriptural base for the Lam-)bras system of Sa-skya-pa meditative praxis. The· first part of this paper will examine these three forms of our myth, tracing the development from one form to the next, starting with the eighth century Indic locus classicus and finishing with fifteenth century Tibetan materials. The second part of the paper, Interpretive Strategies, will present an analysis of the lndic and Tibetan forms according to a tripartite consideration of history, literature, and doctrine, followed by final conclusions.

The Locus Classicus: Sarvatathagata-tattvasarpgraha

An three source traditions- TattvasaT(lgraha) CakrasaT(lvara, and Hevajra-are members of the larger set of Buddhist systems known as the [Guhya-]Mantrayana, the Path of Secret Spells, or the Vajrayana, the Lightning Path, in turn considered an

THE MAHESVARA MYTH 199

ension of the Great Vehicle, the I\1ahayana. Like other . ets of the Buddhist tradition in Asia, the Mantrayana tempted to justify the inclusion of its scriptures into the open ddhistcanon. For acceptance as the "word of the Buddha," ~rature must verify that it represented the direct perception 'absolute truth by the (or a) buddha, that it was preached by at buddha to a specific assembly, that it was collected by an thentic master of the dispensation, and that it was received . a current representative of the tradition through an 'thoritative lineage of Buddhist masters, however these latter eunderstood. 1

;\,Frequently, the crux of the matter was the verification of e circumstances of a scripture's preaching and collection. u'ddhist innovators commonly identified a narrow range of ~arilatic moments when a new scriptural genre was expounded an assembly and ultimately compiled into an authentic pronncement. One of the more curious facts of the Mantrayana that, unlike most other lndic Buddhist traditions, it came up th multiple scenarios which purported to identify the cir-mstancesofthe preaching of the system's scriptures-known sutra, tantra, mahakalpa, dharar;z, etc., depending on the genre period of composition. Most of these scenarios are lineage-

'ecific; they discuss the preaching of the great central scripe (in later literature known as miila-tantra) , often followed by

.summary scripture (which is the received text) and the ancil~ a.ry exegetical scriptures (akhyana-tantra) utilized by the memf~rs of a specific contemplative tradition. The lineages of the uhyasamiija, for example, established the preaching of the tantzs in conjunction with the myth of Indrabhuti, the legendary 'ng of D<;lc;liyana in the Northwest of India. 2 The lineages of e Kalacakra maintained two traditions: that the primo~dial ddha preached the great scripture to King Sucandra of Sam

hala at the stiipa of Dhanyakataka-thps tying the proclamaon of the faith to the fabled land of Sambhala-or that the ddha preached the Mahakalacakra in Sambhala itself.3

..•... The most commonly employed Mantrayana myth, ho~\ier, is developed from various sections of perhaps the most ~fluential text of esoteric Buddhism: the Sarvatathagata-tattva

Y[lgraha, the Summary qf All Tathagatas' Reality (abr. Tattva'r[l,graha) , codified in the early eighth century. Traditionally,


the text is understood as the complex interweaving of myths and ritual, all under the directorship of the cosmic buddha, Vairocana. Of particular interest to those in the business of Mantrayana apologetics are chapters one, six, and the epilogue. Chapter one delineates the culmination of the career of the bodhisattva Sarvarthasiddhi. 4 He has reached the apex of his natural ability to attain supreme awakening and has proceeded to the tree of awakening. All the buddhas then appear to hirn and break the news that he cannot achieve his goal through his current concentration: he needs the consecrations obtained by the contemplations transforming his body, speech, and mind into adamant (vajra) . These he secures, and accordingly becomes the buddha Vajradhatu, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Subsequently, he follows all the tathiigatas back to the Adamantine Jeweled Palace at the summit of Mt. Sumeru to take his rightful place. The body of the TattvasarlJgraha discusses the rituals and mystic circles (mar;rjala) focused on enlightenment and concludes, some twenty-six chapters later, with Vajradhatu turning the wheel of the dharma and returning to the tree of awakening to perform the acts of the Buddha in accordance with the worldly understanding of the Buddha's progress. 5 Most importantly for us, chapter six introduces what was to become perhaps the most influential myth of esoteric Buddhism-the subjugation of the god Siva (Mahesvara) .

Synopsis: Tattvasa:rp.graha6

On the peak of Mt. Sumeru, all the tathiigatas requested the bodhisattva Vajrapa1!i, the master of mysteries, to produce the divinities of his clan (kula) for the mar;rjala. Vajrapa1!i, however, declined, saying that there yet existed criminals, such as MaheSvara and other gods. So _Vairocana utter~d the mantra OAf SUMBHA NISUMBHA HUAf ... VAjRA HUAf PHAT, and forms of Vajrapa1!i issued forth from the hearts of all the assembled tathiigatas, coming together to create the body of Mahavajrakrodha. Vairocana intoned the mantra OAf TAKKI jjAlj, which is known as the disciplinary ankus of all the tatMgatas. By this utterance the criminals, MaheSvara and the like, were all dragged to the AdamantineJeweled Palace on Sumeru. Vajrapa1!i then commanded them to accomplish the Buddha's


teaching by taking refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and the sarrzgha, and by obtaining the gnosis of omniscience.

But MaheSvara replied to VajrapaJ;li, "Hey, you're just a local spirit (yak.fa)! I'm the creator and arranger of the triple world,' the master of all spirits, the highest God of gods. Why should I do as you, a local ghost, commahd?" So Mahesvara turned to Vairocana, "Just who does he think he is, giving orders to God?"

Vairocana responded, "I'd really do what he says, friend, and go for the refuges! Don't make VajrapaJ;li, this cruel, mean, angry spirit, destroy the whole world with his flaming vajra."

MaheSvara, however, decided to show VajrapaJ;li what fear is all about, so he displayed his great wrath and cruelty in the form of Mahabhairava, flames spurting out, with Maharaudra's laugh, together with all of his minions: "Hey, I'm the Lord of the Triple World! You do what I command!"

They then exchanged more mutual challenges and insults and VajrapaJ;li returned to Vairocana. "Well, Lord, he's not paying homage to the teaching, being God and all. Now what do I do?"

Again Vairocana intoned the mantra OAf NISUMBHA VAjRA HUAf PHAT, and VajrapaJ;li added his own adamantine

. HUAf. Immediately, all the gods, MaheSvara, etc., fell down on their faces, uttering a cry of pain, and went for refuge to the Lord VajrapaJ;li. MaheSvara alone remained fallen on the ground, unconscious, and there he perished. Vairocana lectured the other gods about the virtues of the Buddhist perspective and they became entirely restored, happy and virtuous.

Then Vairocana addressed VajrapaJ;li: "If we revive His Deadness, he could _become a real person." So VajrapaJ;J.i iJ],toned the correct VAjRAYUlj, and Mahesvara was brought back from the dead.

He wanted to stand. up but couldn't, and demanded, "What are you trying to teach me?"

Vairocana responded, "You still haven't done what he said to do. It's his business, not mine."

"But aren't you supposed to protect criminals like me?" MaheSvara asked.

Vairocana replied, "1 can't. He is the Lord of All Tathagatas."

VajrapaJ;li then intervened: "Why don't you just do what I tell you?"


When Mahesvara heard Vaj rap a:r;ti , he again becarn\ ~ncensed and violent, displaying .his form as Maharaudra, sa;i mg, "I can endure death,but I WIll n9t do as you command!";;

With that Vajrapa:r;ti uttered the appropriate mantras, and., while the world laughed, MaheSvara and his consort, Drna ;:: were both dragged stark naked feet first before Vajrapa:r;ti, wh6J stepped on MaheSvara with his left foot, while standing ou' Vma's_bre;,asts with his right. Then he uttered the mantra OM: VAjRAVISA HANAYA TRAAf TRAT and MaheSvara started~ beating his own thousand heads with his own thousand armS;; while all his minions outside the palace gave a great roa"r ot;; laughter and said, "Look at our Lord being disciplined by this .~~ great being!" ;~

Then Vairocana took pity op Mahesvara and, ~ith the~ mantra OAf BUDDHA MAITRI VAJRA RAK$A HUAf, the touch of Vajrapa:r;ti's feet became the consecration allowed him to obtain the level of the Tathagata. Abandoning his form of Mahadeva, MaheSvara passed beyond countless world systems and was reborn into the world known as smacchanna as the tathiigata BhasmeSvara-nirghci~a.7

At that point, Vajrapa:r;ti commanded all the other "Friends, enter into the great circle of the adamantine assembly of all tathiigatas and protect that assembly!" And they replied in" assent, '~s you inform us, so we. will perform!" Then all the gods and goddesses-Mahesvara, Vma, and the others-were given new names and positions in the mystic circle.

This comical tale of direct competion between the Saiva and Bauddha traditions recognizes the homogeneous nature of many of their rituals and symbols. As story, it was to prove extraordinarily successful: MaheSvara became one of the great scapegoats of Buddhist Mantrayanaliterature, an evil buffoon like Devadatta, the "gang of five bhik~us" in early Buddhist literature, and Mara in virtually all strata of the literate tradition. Indeed, it is clear that MaheSvara became the "Mara" of the Vehicle of Secret Spells, and the similarities between the Buddha's conduct with Mara and the treatment of MaheSvara were quite explicit, as we shall see.


;:gow Heruka Was Born- Cakrasan:wara 1v1ythology '" ., ,

.;The success of this myth is reflected in the multiple versions that 'i>spread almost as quickly as the Mar:trayana .itself. Approxi~n1ately the same stratum of the myth IS found m the TrazlokyavijOJa-mahii~alparaja, whose C~inese. tra~slation is ~scribed. to ArnoghavaJra (705-774).8 ThIS verSIOn IS more bemgn, endmg

:'with the submission of all the divinities; it completes the story ~with the assurance that the gods obtain amnesty from execu

tion by their enunciation of a specific mantra. 9 Alternatively, a. ; longer rendering of the Tattvasa11Jgraha version was added to the yajrafekhara-mahiiyoga-tantra, but without the frame story of Sarvarthasiddhi/Vajradhatu. lO Presumably, these versions hearken back to an oral epic, which continued to develop in associ

.. ;ation with the written forms. Beyond this stratum was the \rendition of the Candraguhyatilaka-mahiitantrariija, which gives ;"more prominence to sex and violence.!! Chapter six of the Can-

draguhyatilaka identifies the protagonist as Mahasamantabhadra, who sends forth the wrathful Vajrabhrkutlkrodha to

. subjugate all the worldly gods and steal their women, finally 'bringing the gods back to life through the production of divine

nectar, while Vajrabhrkutlkrodha laughs with Heruka's voice. Clearly, this direction was mythically profitable, as the motifs were further accentuated in the Guhyagarbha-tattvavinifcqya,

. where chapter fifteen has Mahesvara spawned as one of the denizens of hell.!2 Heruka, the cosmic policeman, seizes

·".¥aheSvara and his entire retinue, rips out their internal ; organs, hacks their limbs to pieces, eats their flesh, drinks their

blood, and makes ritual ornaments from their bones-a model of thoroughness. Having digested all these gods, Heruka

.•.. excretes them into an enormous ocean of muck, which one of his henchmen, Ucchu~makrodha, drinks up. The gods are then revived. Properly grateful for what can only have been an extraordinary experience, MaheSvara and his minions beseech Heruka and the divinities of his mar;qala to accept their wives, mothers, and daughters as ritual consorts while they take their

• correct places as the seats of the divinities in the mar;qala. Appa}ently, the very vital forms of the myth found in the mDo dgongs ··pa iius pa and the fourteenth-century Thangyig gter-ma cycles of


the rNying-ma-pa take their impetus from the branch of the story initially exemplified by the Candraguhyatilaka and the Guhyagarbha. 13

Yet another version of the myth verified the teaching of th~ most influential oftheyoginz-tantras: the Cakrasa7[lvara. The birth of ~eruka is. taken. i~ t~e Cakrasa7[lvara system as the necessary antIdote for InstabIhty In the world, and Heruka has preached· the yoginz-tantras specifically to convert all those addicted to .. perversity. Heruka intentionally imitates their behavior and' espouses its practice to win their commitment to the BUddhist dispensation. The source for this version of the myth is actually quite curious; so far as I am able to determine, fully developed forms occur only in indigenous Tibetan language materials and the text of a Tibetan author of the twelfth-thirteenth cen~ turiesappears to be the earliest version.14

rJe-btsun rin-po-che Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (1167-1216), the grandson of the founder of Sa-skya Monastery in southcentral Tibet, is accounted by the standard Tibetan representatives the third of the "five great teachers of Sa-skya," being son of Sa-chen Kun-dga' snying-po (1092-1158) and the younger brother of bSod-nam rtse-mo (1142-1182), the two prior litterateurs of the monastery. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan . also the codifier of much of the Sa-skya-pa understanding Mantrayana as a whole. How Heruka Was Born-his of the preaching and collection of the develops a version of the cosmic drama very different from those seen above in the previous lndic sources. Heruka as the protagonist and MaheSvara as the antagonist are depicted in ways dissimilar from the prior images. The plot, too, unfolds in an entirely different manner, devoid of the fast dialogue of the preceding versions.

Synopsis: How Heruka Jil.izs Born 15

There are three parts t9 his story: I. the eulogy of the good qualities o~ the teacher Sakyamuni, II. the manner of the emanation of SrI Heruka, and III. how the tantra-riija has been uttered by him.

I. The Bhadrakalpika-Mahiiyiina-siitra relates how the teacher Sakyamuni generated the thought of awakening and then per~


fected himselffor three incalculable aeons through the accumulation of merit and knowledge. Overcoming the four Maras, he obtained complete awakening in the final reality (nztiirtha) of Akani~tha, where he worked for the benefit of bodhisattvas of the tenth level. At the level of provisional meaning (neyiirtha) , he emanated himself in different places and taught diverse teachings to beings of djsparate capacities. In particular, there was his

. manifestation as Sri Heruka.

II. At the beginning of this Kaliyuga, beings started contending with each other through their common animosity. As the bodies started piling up from their mutual slaughter, they were removed to the various directions and the eight great charnel grounds formed. From the corpses ran blood, and as its vapor rose into the sky, the eight clouds evolved. When the clouds gave off rain, the eight rivers developed, and in them the eight

. divine snakes (niigas) arose. Mists came from the rivers and the

. eight trees grew, each of them with its own protector. Then, to the south ofSumeru, in the continent of Jam bud

vJ:pa, Mahdvara's emanation arose. Now in the various directions, there are twenty-four self-originated places. Within each of these, twenty-four ferocities (bhairava) arose, each with his own.consort:

A. The four chief gods (deva) and four attendant gods were emanations from the mind of Mahdvara and came to operate in Jambudvlpa from out of the sky, thus identified as the eight skygoing ferocities (*a~ta-khecara-bhairava) .16 They were blue beca:Use they represented a predominance of anger and were located in specific self-originated places: 17

East-Pulllra Malaya North-Jalandhara West-O<;l<;liyana South-Arbuda

SE-GodavarI SW - RamdvarI NW - Devlkota NE-Malava

}

}

Places of the four gods. In the language of the gods, these places are called pztha.

The four attendant . gods. In the language of the genii (gandharvas) , these are called upapztha.

B. The two chieflocal spirits (yak~a), the two attendantyak~a, the two chief demons (riik~asa), and the two attendant riik~asa were emanations from the speech of Mahesvara and came to operate in Jambudvlpa on the surface of the earth, thus iden-

206 ]IABS VOL. 14 NO.2

tified as the eight earth-going ferocities (*OoIta-bhiicara-bhairava) They were red because they represented a predominance of desire. .

East-Kamarupa North~Oc;lra

West-Trisakuni South-Kosala

SE-Kalinga SW-Lampaka

NW-Kafici NE-Himalaya

}

}

}

}

2 chief yak.ia, from the north. IS

Called k.[etra in yak~a language.

2 attendantyak.ia. Called upak.ietra inyak~a language.

2 principal riik~asas. Called chandoha in riik~asa language.

2 attendant riik.iasas. Called upachandoha in riik~asa language.

C. The two chief divine snakes (niiga), the two attendant niiga, the two chief demigods (asura) and the two attendant asura were emanations from the body of MaheSvara and came to operate in Jambudvipa from below the surface of the earth, thus identified as the eight below-the-earth-going ferocities (*a~ta-piitiilacara-bhairava). They were white because they represented a predominance of ignorance.

East-Pretapuri North-Grhadevata } 2 chief niigas, from the ocean.

Called meliipaka in niiga language.

West-Saura~tra } South-Suvan:u;.advlpa

2 attendant niigas. Called upameliipaka in niiga language.

SE-Nagara SW-Sindhu } 2 chief asuras, from below Sumeru.

Called fmafiina in asura language.

NW-Maru-deSa } 2 attendant asuras. Called NE-Kulata upafmafiina in asura language.

D. Following the emanation of these twenty-four bhairavas and their consorts, Mahadeva arose on the peak of Mt. Sumeru, having four heads, twelve arms, naked, black, with his hair tied. up in matted locks and smeared with ashes. His consort, Vma' DevI, was red with one face and two arms, and they were in sex-; ual union.

E. In conjunction· with MaheSvara, his four Uma and eight Matrka emanated. The four Uma derived from the qualities " (guTJ.a) of MaheSvara and were yellow because of a predomi-l nance of malignity. 19 •

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

Front-*Ni:larahu (sGra gcan sngon mo)20 Left-*Haritoparahu (Nye ba'i sgra gcan ljang gu) Behind-*Raktandhika (Mun pa dmar pO)2! Right-*PItopandhika (Nye ba'i mun pa ser po)

207

f 'The 'eight Matrka came from the activity ofMahadeva. They were variously colored because of a predominance of envy. 22

East-Kakasya (Raven-headed mother) North-Vlukasya (Owl-headed mother) West-Svanasya (Dog-headed mother) South-Sukarasyii (Pig-headed mother)

The four intermediate directions were occupied by the four *Ardha-manuva-mukha-rupinz (mother having a half humanheaded form?).

As a shrine (caitya) for each of these bhairavas, Mahesvara gave them twenty-four lingams in the forms of self-produced stones, each in different shapes, from the shape of the top of his head in Pullira Malaya to the shape of, his knee in Kulata. Offerings were continually made to these bhairavas inhabiting the twenty-four lingams.

Once established in Jambudvlpa, MaheSvara and his minions began to conduct themselves in a most irregular manner. For food they ate human flesh and drank human blood as their drink. They made ornaments of human bone-circlets, ear-

,rings, necklaces, bracelets, and belts-all smeared with the ashes of human bone. Frqm human hair they wove their brahminical threads and fashioned garlands of human skulls.

Now in order to bring them under control, the "causal form of Vajradhara" -the experiential body (sambhogakaya) in Akani~tha heaven-manifested sixty-two varieties of the emanation body (nirmii'TJo,kaya) as the "resultant Vajradhara."23 In opposition to MaheSvara and Vma Devi were Heruka and his consort. In opposition to the four Vma were the Mahasukhadev!. In opposition to the twenty-four bhairavas and their consorts were the twenty-four pairs of heros and heroines, in physical, vocal, and mental grades (manoviik-kaya-vzriivzra).24 And in opposition to the eight Matrka were the eight Samayadev!. For each of these manifestations ofVajradhara, the color and number of heads and arms were in accordance with the demonic entity to be tamed.

The actual effecting of their conversion was brought about in three stages: behavior, absorbtion, and subjugation. First, Heruka and his retinue imitated the behavior of these fiends-


they began to drink human blood and eat human flesh in ritua! assemblies (gaTJacakra): th~s sec~~i~g. them the epithet of: GlorIOUS Bunch of Blood-drmkmg DIVInItIes (dpal khrag 'thu~; gi lha tshags : *snherukadevagaTJa). Then, stealing all the orn!! ments, Heruka and his retinue decked themselves out lik'~ MaheSvara and his minions, with garlands of human headsej: dhotis of tiger skins, etc. They then supressed Mahadeva '. his minions by causing their consciousnesses to be into the clear light, so that in the future Mahadeva become the tathagata *BhasmeSvara, as the Buddha had dicted. Then, in order to demonstrate their victory, and his retinue each took the cadaver of his opposite as a platform, which is why it is said that they reside on a platform. 25

Yet all these distinctions of subjugater / subjugated or verter / converted operate only in the realm of meaning (neyartha); according to the definitive (nftartha) , they are to be understood as non-differentiated. Thus the Guhyasamiija-tantra states:

As physically adamantine, he has become Brahma; As the vocal teacher, he is MaheSvara; As the mental teacher, he is Vi~l)U. 27

So all the bhairavas and everybody else are emanations MaheSvara, whereas MaheSvara himself is an emanation Vajradhara. All the converting divinities are emanations Heruka, who is himself an emanation of Vajradhara. Thus, according to the definitive meaning of this story, all the ters are essentially (svabhavatas) Mahavajradhara.

III. Finally, there is the teaching of the tantra-riija and the unlocking of its intention by the lineage of exegetes. Having conquered MaheSvara, Vajradhara first preached to the five families of heroes and heroines a version of the scripture in one hundred thousand chapters. But during the time of the Kaliyuga, he summarized it into a version in one hundred thousand Finally, because these could not be accomplished during this Kaliyuga, he preached a version of one hundred thousand ters, collected into fifty-one chapters. In addition there are thirty-two explanatory tantras and innumerable scriptures. All of these, Vaj rap ani collected into texts rendered into letters following their preaching. Eventually, the teaching survived in the literature of the four major systems of Cakrasan:wara exegesis-those of'Luhipada, Ghantapada, KaQ.-


hapada, and Savara. Each of them has utilized the three princi-. pal scriptures of the system, the Tantrariija-Laghusar[lvara (To . • 368), the Abhidhiinottara-tantra (To. 369), and th~ Yoginisaficarya

tantra (To. 375). This elucidation of the birth of Sri Heruka was culled from the speech of the teacher. ~.

~~~' Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's reporting of the myth in the Cak'tWar{lvara arena is reflective of a number of concerns which will r~biexplored below (Interperative Strategies) when the three appli~~li.tions of the myth will be discussed in conjunction with each ~~ther. In his framing of the narrative, we notice the decided ~~ck of identified antecedents; it is simply "culled from the ~peech of the te~cher."28 The only .se~s~ we get that his version ~follows a BuddhIst textual format IS III ItS reference to the Bhad~~(jkalpika-mahiiyiina-Si1tra. While the use of frame and embedded ~ltory is similar to that in the classical versions, the plot struc~tdre follows meditative materials closely, giving the impression f$fan oral explanation of the mar;¢ala praxis.·

I~t; . ~.ti:tm-'bras and Ngor-chen's synthesis ~~;' f1~¥he tradition of the Path/Fruit was one of many extraordinar~lly fnigile yogic systems that found their way into Tibet in the ~;~leventh ,century. Ostensibly, the Lam-'bras was based on the ~iJIevajra-tantra and its ancillary scriptures, the Sa'J!lputodbhiivat~~alpa-rqja (To. 381) and the l)iikinz-vajrapanjara-tantra (To. 419). ~Yle have no sense, however, that the Lam-'bras enjoyed the ~:popularily or prestige in India accorded to those meditative ~practices developed out of the scriptures of the Tattvasa'J!lgraha, :ithe Guhyasamiija, or the Cakrasa'J!lvara-quite the opposite, in l~fact, since the Lam-'bras was a secret set of practices which pur;I,:portedly passed through relatively obscure figures. Moreover, i;itwas decidedly later than most of the widely disseminated sys::tems and was initially not given in Tibet the esteem and accep-1~ability granted those more popular traditions. y Accordingly, the Lam-'bras utilization of the MaheSavra ~subjugation myth followed a more tortuous path than did the ~Cakrasamvara version. Each of the Lam-'bras strata was verified ~,by a sy~tematic hermeneutic of authentication. Such hermen- . ::eutics marked the system's movement into an increasingly ',~~,'

f:'_'·


complex institutional milieu. The earliest Lam-Jbras hermeneu~r~ tic .on the HevaJ.ra was a minor work by ~a-chen. Kun-dga;~ snymg-po, a pnmary exegete of the ~am--bras. HIS Heruka~:~ Prior Epiphany is focused on the mythic explanation of thJ;~ mar;,qala, rather than an explicit justification of the preaching of the Hevajra-tantra. _ "';'

Synopsis: HerukaJs Prior Epiphanf9

During the practice of generating -the visualization of the; maTjr/ala (utpattikrama) , one should be aware of three specific:;' teachings: the way that such visualization purifies the personal_' ity processes, how the goal is accomplished, and the manner in;: which that epiphany previously occurred. While the former --; two were explained elsewhere, this opportunity is nQw taken to explain the latter. 30

Within the three realms of existence, the formless realm had no master, whereas the realm of form was ruled by Brahma, and the realm of desire by Kama-Mahesvara. While Mahesvara's minions executed his rule throughout, he stayed inIsana, overseeing his domain extending from the top of Mt. Sumeru to the four continents. Primary among his retinue were, his eight "Big Worldlies" ('jig-rten chen po brgyad), each with his own consort and incalculable henchmen, all of whom jeered at and challenged the emanation body (nirmiiTjakqya) of the Tatha- ~ gata. In order to subdue this ungodly army, the Lord manifested his wrathful form and the eight goddesses, these latter having the same names as the eight consorts of th~ "Big Worldlies": Vetal!, GaurI, CaurI, GhasmarI, PukkasI, Savarl, CaJ!.9alI, and pombini. The major retinue of MaheSvara was overcome by Heruka while MaheSvarahimself and the seven i

remaining "Big Worldlies" and their consorts were overcome by the the eight Buddhist goddesses. The subsidary minions were all finally collected into the eight great charnel grounds at the periphery of the maTjr/ala. This being done, each of the Buddhist goddesses had the title '~damanti~e" prefixed to her name, so that they become Vajra-GaurI, and so forth. The goddesses' names indicate their represeptative castes; Vajra-Ghasmarl was the actual subjugatrix of ISana-Mahesvara, while Heruka converted Indra,. Brahma, Mara, and the like: thus their posi- • tions as seats of the deities in the maTjr/ala. 31 This arrangement is in accord with the explanations of the teachers of the tradition, and the chronicle is derived from the TattvasaT[lgraha, the Vajrafekhara, the Trailokyavij'aya, and the Candraguhya-tilaka.


.. Missing from Sa-chen's discussion are the many particulars Which hav~ made t~is myth p.owerful: ~here is no dis~ussio~ ~f ffiepreach~ng of scnpture or Its collectlOr: by a cotene of diSCl~!Ies· we lack any sense of a drama unfoldmg. Furthermore, the hif~cation into levels of reality, seen earlier in Grags-pa rgyalffi'tshan's version of the myth, is entirely absent. Into. this her}rieneutical breach stepped Ngor-chen Kun-dga' bzang-po :(}382-1456), the founde: of Ng?r E-wam chos-ldan Monas~~I;"y (1429) and the most mfluentlal Lam-'bras figure of the 15th ~entury. ~~'i While still at Sa-skya in 1405, Ngor-chen wrote a. short work which already displayed his penchant for harmonizing hie exegesis of all his available sources, rejecting outright those ~hich did not fall into the range of acceptable variation. In his }tl'sage, "acceptable" primarily denoted material reproduced by ~he great teachers of the early Sa-skya-pa: Sa-chen, bSod,;1~ms rtse-mo, and Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan. 32 The text Ngorth,~n produced, the Amazing Ocean, delineates that aspect of the }Lam- 'bras tradition particularly concerned with the exegesis of Kis putative scriptural source, the Hevajra Tantra. Traditionally, [S.a~skya-pa scholars have considered this the "Exegetical Sysitem" ('grel-lugs) of the Path/Fruit tradition; it relied on scripItural exegesis rather than on the meditative instructions (man~gag) of the "root" text (Lam-'bras rtsa-ba, To. 2284) which ;properly belongs to the other branch of the Lam-'bras, the "Inistructional System" (man-ngag lugS).33 Both, though, traced !theirlineage to the siddha Vinlpa, the legendary source for the !£am-.'bras. As a chronicle of the Exegetical System, the Amazing ~Ocean orders itself along the lines of traditional certifications of 2~uthenticity: it explores the circumstances of the preaching of i;the Hevajra-tantra, its collection, the transmission of its exegesis ~i~ India and Tibet, and the manner of its proper explanation. iiyve will be concerned with the earlier sections of the work, since hhey preserve the mythic materials concerning Mahdvara.

Synopsis: Amazing Ocean 34

The a.bsolute body of the Buddha (dharmakiiya) is Hevajra (Heruka) who is the penetration of naturally occurring exalted gnosis into all aspects of reality, pure and impure. The tantra is the absolute, being preached by the absolute to the absolute


through the presentation and dissolution of all events with":'~ 1· . In·; ~~ . ~

, In the pure realm of Akan~~tha-Ghanavyuha, the experie~f~ hal body (sambhogakiiya) ofVaJTadhara known as *Candraka']~~ tamaI).iprabha resides, with eig~t hea~s and, sixteen arnl1.f,~ surrounded by tenth-degree bodhzsattvas lIke Vajragarbha, coIJ:2-i! tinually teaching them the holy scriptures ofHevajra,:(,~

Now Isana~MaheSvara is the lord of this r~alm of desid~l from the summIt of Sumeru on down and ~as an mner circle ofl four principals (gtso~bo bzhi) and an outer cIrcle of eight arrogant~~ henchmen and sultry goddesses. Because they are so insatiable~i they sp~nd all of their time-walking, sitting, standing, or lyini~ down-In s~xu~l ~mbrace. Because:theJ:' are s? perverJely angry;]~ they sport In kIllmg humans, playmg m theIr blood. They art~'~~ utterly ignorant about the ethical law of cause and effect, and:J;~ are entirely given to excess. They control all the people of this world system and spend their time touting their superior power:

Not willing to leave well enough alone, Heruka as the expe~ rienti'al body (as depicted above) entered into the contempla tion of "Playful Adamant" in order to subdue MaheSvara and his gang. From each of the pores of his body he emanated ma1Jrfalas of divinity into the four islands of a billion world systems. In this Jambudvlpa, he especially manifested as the emanation body (nirmiir;akiiya), the resultant form of Heruka: Hevajra with eight faces and sixteen arms,35 "Just as Sa-chen had explained," Rudra himself was overcome by Ghasmari while the four worldly gods of his inner circle were overcome by Heruka, and the rest of the retinue were overcome by the other seven of the Buddhist goddesses. 36 By assigning MaheSvara'" incalculable retinue to the eight great charnel grounds at th. periphery of the ma1Jrfala, Heruka overcame their anger. By kissing, fondling, and other forms of great bliss, he suppressed their desire. 37 By mantras and all varieties of speech, he tamed their,. Ignorance.

Then, immediately following this subjugation, the teacher Bhagavan Hevajra took residence in the palace found in the Vagina of Adamantine Women, and to his supramundane retinue he preached the Hevajra Tantra in 700,000 verses and in, 500,000 verses, as 'well as the ancillary scriptures: the Mahamudriitilaka (To. 420), d:~e }iiiinagarbha (To. 421), the }iiiinatilaka (To. 422), the Sampu{a, and so forth. According to the commen~l' tary on the I)iikiir1Java-tantra (To. 1419) there were preached six "root" tantras: the Ocean if Yoga, (yogiir1Java) the Ocean if Gno~is,:


UiiiiniirTfava) the Ocean of Discipline (sa'f[lvariirTfava) , the Ocean of Ritual (kriyiirTfava) , and the Ocean of Reality (tattviirTfava) , these five being collectively equivalent in size to the large [JiikiirTfava (Ocean if Dakas) in 3,600,000 verses. The Hevajra-tantra in 500,000 verses was the text identified as the Ocean ofGnosis, thus being one of the vast scriptures revealed to the goddess Vaj-ravarahi and others. .

Sakyamuni was the emanation body preaching all of these scriptures in a former time, later pretending to pass through the stages of a buddha in this world system to demonstrate the proper method for obtaining enlightenment. The great scriptures (Hevajra and the rest) were preached at the former time when the Buddha really obtained his enlightenment, and the received texts are but mere shadows of the source versions (mulatantra). The process of collection was effected, naturally, by a supernormal being who was not subject to the little merit of this degenerate age: the Hevajra and Samputa-tantras were collected by the bodhisattva Vajragarbha, who acted as interlocutor, while the Vajrapaiijara was brought together by Nairatmya. These, of course, represent the extensive versions-at least for the Hevajra-which have not been revealed during this time when life spans are short and beings are addicted to study and consideration, but without ever arriving at the experience of the taste of deep contemplation. Thus, the source versions of the grand scriptures have remained hidden so that beings will not be seduced into scholarship without meditative practice.

Finally, all the ideas of who preached what, where it was . preached, who collected it, and so forth are details. From the perspective of reality's direct expression (nftiirthatas) , all the beings-teacher, audience, gods, devils, ghosts and saints-are merely manifestations of the teacher Sakyamuni's gnosis. Thus Hevajra II.ii.39:

I, the teacher; I, the teaching; I, the listener with fine retinue. I, the proposition; I, the instructor of the world; I am the world and the things of the world. 38

Ngor-chen treats the episode in almost as offhanded a manner as Sa-chen. He is much more concerned with the entire cosmic relation among the various bodies of the buddha, and the tantra as a fragment of an oceanic text expressing innate gnosis. The formal myth merely serves as door for the manifestation of gnosis in the world.


Interpretive Strategies

Tucci, Stein, and I yanaga have made contributions to au' understanding of the various moments in the myth, whether iJ; India, Tibet,. or China and Japan. 39 All . three have rightly; remarked on the theme of the transmutatIOn of Mahesvara's' hubris into the position of.buddhahoo~. Both ~tein and Iya-; naga, however, have questIOned the pnma faCIe explanation' that the story reflects the opposition of Buddhism to Hinduisrn' and was developed to demonstrate the superiority of the BudC;~ dhist dharma. 4o Furthermore, having maintained that extrapo~~ lating doctrinal significance based on a modern perspective' appears impossible-and is in any case illegitimate-Iyanaga:::l appears to subvert his own rule by maintaining that the char .. ~ acters depicted in the story are symboliG or allegorical rep!~ resentations, allegory also being a primary theme in Stein's;'-' interpretive strategy. I yanaga goes even further. He propose8~ that, as MaheSvara passes through moments-from being an\~ obstruction to the dharma to becoming a buddha-MaheSvara's';.1 submission graphically demonstrates the nonoppbsition orJ\' Buddhism and other religions. Following this approach, the~ Buddhist and the nonbuddhist, Mara and the Buddha, the paso',; sions and the wisdoms, are all fundamentally identical. Thus,'? far from being a tale of the irreconcilable opposition of the two,'~ the myth demonstrates their essential equivalence. 'i

While there is much in these explanations that appears'jus- '.}, tified by the data, I believe that the conclusions could be further refined and I would resist the assumption that modern assessments are illegitimate. I propose an analysis of the versions of the myth by milieu: I. the Tattvasa11Jgraha in India and II. the Cakrasa11Jvara and Lam-'bras systems in Tibet. In each case, the analysis considers the myths from three perspectives: a. socio-historical, b. literary, and c. doctrinal.

I. Indian Myth: Tattvasarpgraha

a. There can be little doubt that the Indic story indicates the real tension between Buddhist and Saiva factions. Buddhism in India has had a long history of weaving tales of the conver- . sion of heretical leaders, beginning with Uruvilva Kasyapa,


of five hundred mat-haired ascetics who performed sacrifice. 41 Furthermore, no one familiar with the

. literature of India could doubt that Saiva and ascetl~s-in particular, the Kapalikas-were the pritargets· of the Buddhists' competitiveness.42 Buddhist

. at this period had become enormous landed insti- . that controlled great economic resources but had a

relationship to the wider· society, somewhat like Christian monasteries and modern universities. The of the Vajrayana, however, does not reflect the values

institutions, but stems from village and hermitage-locales. where wandering Buddhist ascetics were but

variety of siidhu found in many of the same environas Saiva and Sakta yogins. At this level of society, the . of superiority is informed by oral literature, the ulti

source of the genres of written literature such as the the puriirJas, the epics, etc. While the episode is clearly

after similar episodes in puriiTJas such as the Devf-. ly noticeable in the mantric invocation of

great antagonists, Sumbha and Nisumbha-the cirof the utilization of the myth are quite different.

example, the religious position of MaheSvara is unlike that by the foes of DevL 43 Thus, at the socio-historicallevel, we

understand the MaheSvara myth in the Tattvasarrzgraha a straight-forward defensive technique of the Buddhists to

the superiority of their gods over MaheSvara, , Vi~~u, etc., in an attempt to retrieve some of their lost

I-'V"~.~"'H in unsophisticated circles in India, whether at DevI-Vara~asI, Patna, or wherever. The noticably increased

and symbolic orientation of the Vajrayana brought with both the strength of dramatic images and the weakness of

. to follow pre-established models of myth, which were Hindu. Thus, this strategy vitiated Vajrayanists' efforts

increasing their visibility and position, since they began to ar homogeneous with the more extensive Hindu mythic

. We realize that they were ultimately unsuccessful in endeavor and may appreciate the threat by considering the displacement of Buddhist cave structures in Ellora

the more mythically-oriented Saiva and Vai~~ava versions the intrusion of Vai~~ava brahmans into the Mahabodhi

• ... UJL)J~'-' at Bodhgaya.


b. The literary techniques employed, as Iyanaga has rightl observed, include material from both the Devzmahiitmya and thY Buddha's subjugation of Mara. Like th.ese, of course, the rnyt~ works at several levels, including a literal one. Essential to the Indian understanding of story is that it be predicated as real not regarded as a spiritualized allegory. Indeed, one could make the case that traditional India does not recognize a strict distinction between ideals and reals, the supposition being, for example, that the Meghaduta and the Lokaprajiiapti reflect the real landscape of the world, their cosmology indicative of the way things really are, despite appearances.

By the same token, events, in order to be real, must fall into certain ideological frameworks. Should events in the world not correspond to the ideology, then the world is out of balance and must be brought into harmonic resonance with the ideal. Concerns of this variety motivate mythic cycles of world re~ newal, and Hindu renewal myths-such as the Devfmahiitmya'---' are devoted to the rectification of the imbalance among the demons, gods and humans. Differences, of course, abound, and we note that the Buddhist version, in which MaheSvara is included into the mar;r/.ala and eventually liberated, differentiates Hindu themes of naked power from Buddhist models of compassionate activity. Buddhist systems of reform, moreover, go back at least as far as the purar;as, and the principle of economy would ask us minimally to examine Buddhist literature for prototypes.

The correspondence between Mahesvara and Mara can be seen from internal scriptural statements-as in the Mahavairocana-abhisambodhi-siitra-and from later hermeneutics, which we will see when we turn to the Hevajra materials, below. 44 However, the Mara story is that of the unenlightened Bodhisattva overcoming the threats and temptations of the Lord of Desire. "Mara," of course, is derived from the root V m,(, to die, so that the Bodhisattva becomes awakened by overcoming the potential for death and subsequent rebirth. Mara never becomes converted, and in Buddhist legend remains until it comes time for him to talk the Buddha into passing into final nirvar;a. Conversely, early Buddhist literature is replete with examples of demonic individuals who became converted and who subseguently won either nirvar;a or extraordi-


.. ' greatness-AI,lgulimala, Asoka, etc.-as opposed to '. 'D vadatta, who is like Mara in his intractability.

e The Mahe§vara episode, in fact, sets up two levels of story. First, there is th~ frame story of ~he ~btainment of enlightenment by the bodh~sattva Sarvarthaslddhl, who ne~ds th.e :-"orldly gods integrated mto the mar;.rJala to compl:te hIS actlvlt~ as a

.... buddha and teach the world. Then, there IS the converSIOn of Mahe§vara, who keeps the world out of balance by his activity.

>The first is brought to fruition by the resolution of the second, embedded, story. In a sense, the interrelation of the two-what

...... ever their prototypes-is patterned after the episodes in the >legend of t~e Buddha, and particularly t~ose of t?e Vinqya,

.;where teachmg can only be effected followmg the dIspersal of '. a behavioral aberration, in this case, Mahesvara's unattrac··.tive habits.

Just as important is the retention of struggle and resolution in the Vajrayana context. The universalization of buddhaness (buddhatii) in the form of the cosmic buddha Vairocana obviates any immediate personal difficulties-Vajrayana, with its con-

• cern for postulating an enlightened ground, could not include .. ;' Mahavairocana in an individual struggle against his own

obscurations. He could, however, become involved in the elimination of other beings' difficulties by reason of his great compassion, but his activity is mediated through VajrapaI,li-

. Mahavairocana does not himself subjugate Mahesvara. Thus, the dramatic requirements of cosmic mythology are fulfilled in the TattvasaT(lgraha by the scripture's refusal to depict Mahavairocana as an abstract entity. Instead, he works

". through VajrapaI,li for the salvation of beings from their own rude behavior-even if such behavior is as degenerate as that .of Mahesvara-insisting finally on their integration into the balanced array of reality's mar;.rJala.

c. Doctrinally, the TattvasaT(lgraha is not complex, and clearly does not invoke the multi-valued structure Iyanaga would have

" us believe. We get no sense from the text of a dual-truth struc-ture, as is explicit in the exegesis of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan and Ngor-chen. The simple doctrine is that the dharmadhatu mar;rJala is the essential means for obtaining enlightenment, that any being-Mahe§vara included-may obtain the enlight

. ened condition, and that the mar;.rJala is the direct expression of


salvific reality, established 'by the eternally awakened himself. The means for their conversion is the power of the living word, the mantra, which is the key to locking the palace of awakening. A subtext is that even killed in the name of religion will be saved in the next idea strictly accepted by early Tibetan religious, and one may be inferred in India by the subsequent reembodiment Mahesvara as the buddha BhasmeSvara. I yanaga was correct in interpreting MaheSvara's death and resurrection a dramatic symbol for' the transformation of defilement gnosis, but this, too, is a symbolic sub text to the main line of world-reform through the mar!4ala display.

II. Tibetan Modijication-CakrasaT[lvara and Hevajra

a. We can detect two primary motives for the mythic exegesis Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan and Ngor-chen: the desire for logical and ritual closure at the textual level, and verification of scriptural-lineal authenticity that textual closure provides.

In the case of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, closure of and ritual holes in the heritage of the 'Khon family was ofprimary importance. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan was instrumental putting together much of what is now considered the or1thc)dclX Sa-skya-pa perspective on the Vajrayana, and integrated many·" fragile meditative systems into the widely respected, if pugnaciously secretive, Lam-'bras. In this endeavor, he utilized the rule already established by other early teachers in southern" Tibet, including his father and elder brother: orthodoxy is verified by a system's Indian antecedents. Where those antecedents were accepted or unassailable, he paid scant attention. Where the antecedents of his system might have been considered controversial, he takes some pains to demonstrate their validity.45 He did this in a quite systematic way for the Lam-'bras, and the development of the Mahesvara subjugation myth appears to have proceeded on similar lines. Clearly, Grags-pa rgyalmtshan did not invent the application of the" myth to the prea"ching of the CakrasaT[lvara. Altho~gh not cited by him, commentaries by both Indrabhuti and Suravajra make the subjugation of MaheSvara part of the lore surrounding the advent of


;"i ;that tantra. 46 Yet the jump from the paucity of lndic materials ..... t the well-developed scenario evident in Grags-pa rgyal.' " 0 tshan's text is comprehensible if we surmise that the lndic <~~orytell~rs~vove their tales on a speedy loom, for, a~ I have · lready mdlcated, the author declared that he receIved the '.:tory from his teachers. I believe that Grags-pa .rgyal-mtshan."~.already removed by some decades from the Indlc and Nepalese Y'/sourcesof his tradition-found himself in possession of an i"enormous quantity of cosmological, hagiographical, ritual, >and meditative material, as did most lineage holders in south-

ern Tibet at this time. The resulting textual production was a c/'response to the fear for the imminent demise ofthe lore-Tibet

ans being quite aware of current Islamic incursions-the measure of its quantity, and the need to verify its authenticiy.47

. This brings us to the second point: the validation of the · system as a whole. Contrary to the stereotypes of popular lit". erature, Tibetans have not always been benign, smiling moun'taineers. Competition for economic resources traditionally has ..•.• been intense, and the early Tibetanhagiographical literature ;>.clearly indicates an aspect of the culture obsessed with intrigue,

black magic, challenges, occasional religious wars, and hostility between certain members of the Buddhist hierarchy. In such an environment, the myth of MaheSvara's subjugation

'was not, so far as I know, interpreted to allow the suppression of personal enemies-as it might have been, given Christian

•. eschatology of the Antichrist-but was utilized to bolster the position of families and monastic institutions in specific ways.

,;<:', There were, of course, no serious chall~nges to the organ-

'ized monastic structure from devotees of Siva in Tibet. The · myth became instead a vehicle for verifying the greatest concern

of institutional Tibetan culture: lineages of authority, a reflection of the extraordinary conservatism of Tibetan civilization. The actual mechanism of verification must appear bizarre. Each of the mar;,r/alas implicated in the myths under discussion -that is, the Sa-skya use of the Luhipada Cakrasarrzvara meditation and the Hevajra maJf<;lala of the 'Khon-lugs of Lam-'brasrelate that the particular divinities are visualized trampling on Hindu gods and goddesses, in particular MaheSvara. Additionally, Tibetans had passed down oral materials taken from India and Nepal on the internecine strife among Bauddhas,


Saivas and Saktas, including oral and written information on the mythology of Mahesvara's subjugation. Moreover, the apologia of the written myths of the scriptures' preaching certainly was communicated by the Indian and Nepalese source monasteries. Consequently, Tibetans understood quite well that the verification of their own lineage of meditative praxis was dependent in some measure on the utilization of this myth for the verification of a specific lineage of exegesis. For the exegesis of a scripture to be viable, the scripture itself must be tied to the great cosmic event of the tantra's preaching as a <considered act of world reform. Tibetans thus quite handily made the jump from Hindu gods appearing in their ma1Jr/alas as divine throw rugs to the verification of their familial and monastic institutions as designated heirs of cosmic renewal.

Challenges made from one lineage to another in Tibet were usually on exactly these lines: did the tradition in question draw from an authentic Indic Buddhist background or was it tainted with the pollution of heretical lineages through Hindu rather than Buddhist teachers? Tibetans were quite aware that well-meaning members of the Tibetan clergy fell victim to unscrupulous Indian and Nepalese teachers who represented themselves in areas beyond their authority. For example, Kayastha Gayadhara is said to have misrepresented himself to 'Gos lo-tsa-ba Khug-pa lhas-tsas as being Maitripa in the flesh. 48 Tibetans were equally aware that certain of their own compatriots were not above misrepresenting what they had learned and from whom. Nag-tsho lo-tsa-ba was known to have challenged the claim that Mar-pa studied directly with Naropa. 49 Thus, the clergy in Tibet continued to question systems and lineages-a system might be authentic but the lineage of instruction questionable or fabricated, or the entire edifice might reflect non-Buddhist values. Moreover, the bickering evident between the Mar-lugs and the Rwa-lugs, between the Rwa-lugs and the 'Gos-lugs, or between such teachers as dGebshes Khyung-po grags-se and Zur-chung Shes-rab grags-pa, . certainly must have presented the Sa-skya masters with the motivation to limit their own vulnerability.50

Although we appear to have no record of a direct challenge to his Cakrasan:wara lineage, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, did take some pains with


lithe Cakrasan:wara materials at his disposal. 51 He discussed the ••.• hagiography of.the Indian teachers and their Tibetan fo~lowers

~. t some length III three separate works, devoted respectlvely to l;;:he lineages ofKa:t;lhapada, Ghan~apada, .and Luhip~da.52 T~e iesult of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan s mythIc and haglOgraphIc :ritings was mixed. While gZhon-nu dpal's Blue Annals proba'bly made use of his hagiographies, the mythic form of theori-

,gin of the Cakrasan:wara explored by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan • was not the one to obtain widest currency in Tibet. 53 Such cur

<;feney derived from the textual and oral materials assembled . and amplified by Bu-ston Rin-chen grub (1290-1364); his yersian was followed by many subsequent authors. 54

If closure was Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's primary concern, defense appeared to be Ngor-chen's. The Sa-skya-pa had en

..... joyed a special postion in Tibet sir:ce the mi~dle of the thir..... teenth century, when Sa-skya Pa:t;l<;hta was desIgnated the first

monk-ruler of the Snowy Mountain. While the Sa-skya hegemony fragmented around 1358-59 and the Yuan Dynasty collapsed in 1368, the Sa-skya-pa still enjoyed a special position of power and wealth which attracted the criticism of other orders, especially in the face of the excesses of privilege that had occurred. 55 The backlash against the Sa-skya-pa-intellectual as well as political-must have been intense, and the Sa-skya-pa themselves attempted to retain control of Tibet's intellectual direction by polemics. It is between the years 1404-1406 (ages twenty-two to twenty-four) that we find Ngor-chen involved in the first of his two periods of apologetics. In 1404 he wrote his defense of the superiority ofVajrayana enlightenment-the theory that buddhahood obtained by the Path of Secret Spells is more exalted than that obtained by the standard Mahayana perfections. 56 In 1406, he defended the

.' orthodoxy of the Hevajra-tantra itself against those who main

. tained that, because the scripture speaks primarily of allembracing gnosis and because Virupa is rumoured to have been the Vijiianavadin monk Dharmapala before his conversion to the lightning path, the Hevajra must be of the class of texts reflecting the "mind only" conceptualization of reality and therefore inferior·to the orthodox Madhyamaka view. Although the chronologies are confused, Ngor-chen's hagiog-

'raphies speak of his defending the Sa-skya-pa position in central


. Ti~et a~ainst vociferous critics. 57 Doubtless, his Amazing Ocea1i~ WrItten III 1405, a~so reflected these sa.me concerns, despite the;~l fact that the text IS not overtly polemI<;al and does not SpecifiJ~ cally identify an antagonistic position, as do the 1404 and 1406'(~ apologies. . §~t

Who were t~ese param~t~-based critics of the ~a-skya sys0! tern? Modern TIbetan relIgIOus folklore often rerfies _ all sa.'j~l skya-pa critics into dGe-Iugs-pa monks and, in the case ()Bl Ngor-chen, into mKhas-grub dge-Iegs dpal-bzang-po (l385.3~ 1438).58 Certainly, mKhas-grub-rje was one ofNgor-chen's cri~!~ tics in his later life and clearly did maintain, for example, tM;~ doctrine that there was no difference in result when buddha1¥~ hood is obtained by either the perfections or the Path ofSpells.59;.~1 However, the circumstances were more complex than reificai:fl tion into a single antagonist. 60 For example, the dates them~;i~ selves are difficult-in 1404, mKhas-grub-rje turned 19 years'~~ of age and was still a good Sa-skya-pa monk studying with'l~ Red--mda'-ba; he did not even visit Tsong-kha-pa until 1407.61~ Moreover, Tibetan proclivity towards oral exaggeration cer:16 tainly exacerbated the problem, some members of the. clergy'Ji assuming that the refutation of a facet of a practice indicates ait wholesale condemnation of the tradition. Red-mda'-ba was a'~ prajiiaparamita master and is said to have held that Dharmapala's~1 view was idealist, but we have no s~nse that he extended this"~ critique to the Hevajra-tantra itself, although some of his morel rash followers may have done SO.62 Clearly, mKhas-grub did![~ not. 63 Ex~ggeration, in fact, led mKhas-grub to complain. that;fj people saId he refuted the Lam-'bras, a charge he hotly demed-~l~ he had called into question two specific practices. 64 However:;l the polemical stage was set: once N gor-chen produced the veri-)~ fication of the Hevajra in its mythic setting, his sense of closure;~ became the standard for Sa-skya-pa savants. We find 'Jarri~~ mgon A-mes zhabs, writing his masterpiece of Lam-'bras lore in '7~ 1621, specifically reproducing Ngor-chen's mythos, relying on'~j his prestige.65 . .'Jj

~~'",f,4}

i~ii

b. The literary shift from the snappy dialogue of the Tattva-'~ sa'T{lgraha to the cosmic diagram of the Cakrasa'T{lvara ma'fJrfala is <:~ in some measure dependent on the shift from an Indian milieu;~~

.,)~~ );i: ":~

"p1

;~~~ . ':Z~\::i:


Sa-skya-pa system in Tibet. Whereas rNying-ma-pa continued the use of vital dialogue, Sa-skya-pa authors

UJ."'~--'- it in favor of the codification into diagrams. Why difference? Again, social values and levels are at the heatt

the issue. Village culture supports the wandering bard, presence serves to alleviate oppressive boredom and message imbues meaning into the lives of the audience.

many rNying-ma-pa literary genres were closely influ-by oral and bardic literature. The Sa-skya-pas, con. made the transition to textually-based monastic

; their myths directly expressed the importance of the presence of texts in the institution rather than

the drama of unfolding awareness. For the rNyingthe drama of the struggle in multiple episodes was the

for the Sa-skya-pa, the goal of the received text as the of gnosis was paramount .

. Turning to the plot, we notice that MaheSvara and crew directly included into the dharmadhatu marpfala of the Tattva

while neither the CakrasaT(lvara nor the Hevajra utilize or other divinities as anything but adversaries.

Sa-skya-pa myths make allowance for the ultimate libera-of the Hindu divinities, but neither allows them a formal

Jv>OJ, .... vu in the marpfala as exemplars following the universal . The Sa-skya-pa formulation more closely follows the

of the Buddha's victory over Mara, and the indebted-of both the CakrasaT(lvara and Hevajra episodes to the Mara

is explicit. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan specificially introhis version with a Mara-myth reference; the four figures

on by Hevajra are Mara, MaheSvara, Indra, and while HT Liii.l7 is explicit that Hevajra destroys the

Maras. Thus, the dramatic device-of the contentious among Mahavairocana, Vajrapa1).i, and MaheSvara, by the reincarnation and liberation as denouement

not essential to the plot. Rather; the given qualities of the 'viduals, being the ground of conversion, are the essential

for the unfolding of the drama. Symbolically, this is out in the direct imitation of one deity by another: Vaj~ does not imitate MaheSvara, but Heruka does. The

is developed in recognition, specified time and in the texts of the Sa-skya-pa, that the tantras of the Anut-

224 JIABS VOL. 14 NO.2·

tara-yoga class have been preached to attract those beings filled . with all the various defilements and who do not wish to abanS

don their preferred behavior. 'k:

As a corollary, the later myths imply that the lowest varietY~ of behav~or leads to the highest enlightenm~nt. We have every! expectatIOn that the tellers of such myths enJoy~d the spectacle! of the lowest fiends and their dastardly crimes, with the gallant Heruka coming to the rescue of all beings·. Clearly, Heruka and· his retinue do not enjoy acting in a manner similar to that of MaheSvara but have undertaken .this form of divine activity to! attract those addicted to perverse behavior. We are thus im-' pressed by how far the Buddha's compassion extends, includ~ ing even degraded beings. As an antidote to personal guilt, the· scenario is as attractive to the myth's listeners as Amitabha's' saving power in another era-no one need feel irredeemable , whatever their crimes may have been.

I:o the Cakrasar[wara system, the exact locales are important, . and their specification is an extension of that lineage's concern for the integration of the macrocosm and microcosm, each of the twenty-four external locales being identified with i

an internal locale within the body of the yogin. While the pre-, cise Indic source for identifying a system of twenty-four lir;.gams· and bhairavas is obscure, it cannot be immediately assumed that it was a popular Hindu system subsumed into the Buddhist fold. Virtually none of the more famous "lin,gams of light"! Uotirlihga) belong to the Cakrasa7[lvara formula; I have encoun-' tered no list in pura~ic literature which corresponds to either: the number twenty-four or the places identified. Closest in spirit are the various Buddhist places of pilgrimage specified. frequently in most of the tantras concerned with ¢iikinfs: the Cakrasa7[lvara, Abhidhiinottara, Hevajra, etc. 66 T~e Buddhist mythic contention that these places were initially Saiva cannot be accepted as fact, or even that they existed outside of the·' minds of the storytellers, although some clearly did. Instead, the list is developed out of such geographical lists of places noted in esoteric Buddhist literature as early as the Mahiimiiyilrf-vidyii-rajiif-dhiirar;.f. 67

As a meditative technique, the identity of macrocosmic! locales with microcosmic structures is striking. It allows the: meditator to understand the cosmic drama as internal as well .


'external, MaheSvara as an extension of his own proclivity '~'defilement and Heruka as the resonance of the Buddha in ~i own stream of being. As literature, the specification of 6cales is equally dramatic and is a technique frequently used {{'Indian and Tibetan tales, whether in the Puriinqs or the Epic fGe-sar. For a village-bound audience with little opportunity 'resources for travel, the identification of all the places of the

. own world by the wandering teacher must have seemed at ~~st as romantic and exciting as travel stories are for us today. 68

o find, moreover, that the entire itinerary is lo~ated within rie's own psycho-physical continuum must have been a stunt g validation of the listener's existence .

. No such literary devices are available to Ngor-chen; his "ork invokes neither the quick repartee of the Tattvasa'T[lgraha ~~brthe grand schematism of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's work. n all fairness, the subjugation of MaheSvara is not his real oncern; Ngor-chen just wants to get the tantras preached and hthenticated, so that he can discuss the scriptural relations

d proceed to the hagiographies bf the saintly lirieage. We get ttle sense that Ngor-chen appreciates the literature of his

. ythic inheritance. Rather, he appears solely concerned with ~~J,;Verifying its reality on a scale of values developed by the lJinstitutional requirements of his day. As a result, Ngor-chen's i~!;iis the dryest expression of a juicy story.

~rThe doctrinal framework of the Tibetan versions of the myth if;~~~ explicit and, in the Hevajra telling, quite essential to the story. ~~:Clearly, the expression of multiple levels of truth-further i~trifurcated in the Cakrasa'T[lvara ma1JtJala into. physical, vocal, i;~nd mental-brings out the necessity of admitting the mythic ~~ifeality into the ordinary world. Here, MaheSva:ra and his I~~tetinue really perform all their actions, which are countered by 1'J,1eruka and his ma1JtJala: evil is supressed, defilement purified, i~lind the cosmos realigned into the universal form. Much more l~idifficult is the myth as the expression of absolute truth. Gragsi;,;pa rgyal-mtshan stresses the drama of subjugation when he ~ft:~xtends the movement of reality from Vajradhara to MaheS~;yara. Conversely, Ngor-chen emphasizes the process of teachf1ing as an act of nondifferentiated communication, although he ~i,·.clearly includes MaheSvara in the ground of being as ~~.emblematic of defiled existence. The hermeneutic of mythic

I


nondifferentiation raises a fundamental soteriological and ontological question: IfMaheSvara and the demonic horde are merely facets of the teacher's gnosis, ,then does the absolute body of the Buddha emanate evil? .

Ngor-chen attempts to circumvent the problem by main_ taining that both pure and impure elements of reality are penetrated by the dharmakaya. I find this explanation intellectually problematic. If the entire process of defilement and awaken_ ing-either cosmically or personally-operates absolutely undifferentiated from the absolute body of the Buddha, then the Buddhist has as little claim to solve the problem of evil as does the theist. Indeed, the personality and activity of the eternal Buddha come to center stage, since the drama is enacted at his pleasure. If the Buddhist replies that such a drama is a play to lure beings away from defilement, then the equivalence of the microcosm and macrocosm cannot be maintained. In this instance, external defilement is unreal while internal defilement is real; the internality and symbolic reality of the myth are futile and cannot be reenacted in the discharge of personal awakening.

Buddhist soteriology has yet to come to grips with the' problems evoked by art open-ended cosmological system. The apparent sophistication of its doctrine still masks an incomplete exploration ofthe philosophical implications of its mythic' structure, partially because it has recourse to a series of soteriological postulates buttressed by the irrefutable invitation to try it for oneself. Yet when the system attempts to identify itself with the ordinary-language images of the individual, which are required in the mythic process, we obtain a curious reversal: the system, as it were, meets itself coming and goingdenying the individual while relying on the individual's selfdelusion to eliminate the potential for further delusion. If there are no real individuals, however, we revert to a soteriological autokinesis wherein the absolute deludes itself and awakens itself.

So, while mythically powerful, this inversion of agent, from the individual to the absolute body of the Buddha, is problematic in an intellectual culture of agentlessness. The myth has drawn the tradition into the implications of the identity of the two levels of truth, but bringing the absolute into the


tion of relative truth, which reverses the vector of stanBuddhist hermeneutic. Traditionally, Buddhist thought

de constructed the categories of relative truth to arrive at . identity' ,of the two truths. Here, Buddhist myth constructs

of the absolute truth in order to arrive at this identhe absolute taking on characteristics of relative pro'cess .

. while Ngor-chen has ignored the myth as literature, his ,vOlcaLlUll of the doctrine of the Buddha's bodies is quite to the

problem is gnostic embodiment as a response of the uu.,~ •. -. Space prevents a more thorough examination of the

but we note that the requirements of textual authenticity closure propelled Tibetans to a land seldom visited. Exefound themselves hovering on the periphery of myth, at

to manipulate images which did not invoke their ideas working in a curious twilight between symbol and theory.

mitigating the tension between myth and doctrine is Budliterature's playful willingness to eradicate ultimate cateand turn the devil into a Buddha with the stroke.of a pen.

The extraordinary popularity of the Buddhist myth of the 'ugation of MaheSvara-whether at the hands of Vajrap a:gi Heruka-has much to do with its ability to invoke several

of meaning simultaneously. As a story, it is a classic tale of values,overcomiI}g the power-oriented behaviors still

among Saiva and Sakta practitioners. As soteriology, it L111IJU',':> that no depravity is irredeemable; indeed, it affirms

the defiled condition will be answered by the insistent t towards awakening, becoming finally the stuff of

itself. As doctrine, particularly in Tibet, it the interpenetration of all elements of reality and their interdependence. And, as history, it leads us to under

the internal and external forces that affected the Buddhist ,VUJLUU.UH· ties in India and Tibet, and gives us more insight into

process whereby Buddhist communities developed tools of in the face of fissiparous forces. .

228 JIABS VOL. 14· NO.2·

NOTES

*A preliminary version of this paper was read,at the Annual Meeting Ofth\ Association of Asian Studies, San Francisco, February, 198~. Further research" on the Lam-'br~s and t~e early Sa-.skya-pa .was suppor~ed III pa:t by a grant' from the Amen can InstItute of IndIan StudIes and a FaIrfield Umversity SUIll> mer Research Stipen~. In a general vein, I must acknowledge my debt to Ngor' Thar-rtse mKhan Rin-po-che (1933-1987), who gave me the bellefit of hi" instruction in Sa-skya-pa and Lam- 'bras traditions for over a decade. I also wish\ to thank John Thiel for his excellent criticism ofa preliminary draft of this pape~~"

. ABBREVIATIONS

HT David L. Snellgrove, The Hevajra Tantra, London Oriental Series:; Vol. 6 (London: Oxford University Press, 1959). ,

TTP Daisetz T Suzuki, ed., Tibetan Tripi{aka, Peking Edition (Toky6:~. Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1956) .cj

SKB bSod-nams rgya-mtsho, ed., The Complete Works qfthe Great Master?' qfthe Sa Skya Sect qfthe Tibetan Buddhism (Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968); r

T J. Takakusu and K. Watanabe, eds., Taisho Shinsh";;. Daiz;okyo (Tokyo: Daiz5ky5kai, 1924-1935). . .

To. Hakuju Ui, et aI., A Complete Catalogue qfthe Tibetan Buddhist CannonS'j (Sendai: T5hoku Imperial University, 1934).

1. See R.M. Davidson, '~n Introduction to the Standards of Scriptural Authenticity in Indian Buddhism," in Robert E. Buswell, Jr., ed., Chinese f3ud- j

dhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 291-325. . 2. Davidson, "Standards," pp. 312-315. For a convenient discussion of

the various lineages, see Kong-spru1 Yon-tan rgya-mtsho, Shes bya kun khyab, rDo-rje rgya1-po and Thub-bstan nyi-ma, eds. (Szechuan: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 366-37l.

3. Compare the founding scenarios fOl,lnd in the Vimalaprabhii with th~ references in the Sekoddefa-t'ikii; Jagannatha Upadhyaya, ed., Vimalaprabhii{zkii oj. Kalki Sn PU1"Jefanka, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series No. XI (Sarnath, India: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1986), pp. 22-31; Mario E. Carelli" ed., Sekoddefd{zkii qf Niiefapiida, Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. XC (Baroda, India: Oriental Institute, 1941), pp. 1-4. See Andre Bareau, "Le stupa de Dhanya Kataka," Arts asiatiques 16 (1967): 81-88; Helmut Hoffman, Tibet-A Handbook· (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Center for the Language Sciences, n:d.), pp. 143-145.

4. The text of the Tattvasa7(lgraha is that edited by Isshi Yamada, Sarva~ tathiigata-Tattva-sangraha, Satapitaka Series 262 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1980) and reproduced in Lokesh Chandra, ed., Sarva-Tathiigata-Tattva-Sangraha (Delhi: Moti1al Banarsidass,· 1987). Lokesh


Chandra's "edition" sin:Ply added misprints to Yan:ada's fine edition, which is VI unavailable. The TIbetan of the Tattvasan:zgraha IS PTT 112, voL 4, pp. 218-

~~3' the standard Chinese text is T 882.18.341-445. The Sarvarthasiddhi myth , 4-5 of Chandra's text; Tibetan text is pp. 219.4-220.2; and pp. 341 c

of the Chinese. 5. Chandra ed. pp. 211-213; Tib. pp. 28L4-282.4; Ch. 443b-444c. 6. The following is a summary of the essential sections of the myth,

which is found at Chandra pp. 56-59; Tib. pp. 239.4-241.5; Ch. 370a-372c. critical reader will realize that I have taken some poetic license with the

language to reflect the quick repartee of the Sanskrit. The myth was first studied by Giuseppe Tucci, who discovered the Tattvasan:zgraha manuscript in

:'Nepal; he edited and translated much of the text of the myth in Indo-Tibetica, . . Reale Accademia d'Italia Studi e Documenti I (Rome: Reale Accademia .. d'Italia, 1932), voL 1, pp. 135-145. The myth has been considered in detail and <'summarized by Nobumi Iyanaga, "Recits de la soumission de Mahesvara par

.Trailokyavijaya-d'apres les sources chinoises et japonaises," in Michel

~')

Strickmann, ed., Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour qf R.A. Stein, Melanges chinois et bouddhiques voL XXII (Brussels: Institut belge des hautes etudes

. chinoises, 1985), pp. 633-745. Unfortunately, Iyanaga's excellent study does not capture the snappy dialogue of the Sanskrit, being based primarily on the ponderous Sung translation into Chinese, T 882. The material has been also consi-

. dered by Stein, Annuaire du College de France 1972:499-510, 1973:463-470, 1974:508-517. A noted Tibetan discussion of the Mahesvara (Rudra) myth is that by sLe-lung-pa bZhad pa'i rdo rje, Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho'i rnam par thar pa cha shas tsam brjod pa sngon med legs bshad, Sman Rtsi Shesrig Spendzod voL 104 (Leh, Ladakh: TS. Tashigang and B.PO. Nemo, 1979), pp. 1-103.

7. In using Bhasmacchanna, I am following Tucci's text, p. 145, and Iyanaga, p. 675, who gives the readings of the edition of Horiuchi Kanjin, (BonZo-Kan taishO) Shoe-Kongo-chO-kyo no kenkyu Bompon Kotei-hen, jo (Koyasan, 1983), lIla, p. 32. Chandra, p. 59, gives Bhasmacchatra. It is well-known that Siva's conversion as BhasmeSvara occurs in Kiira1J.qavyuha, in PL. Vaidya, ed.,

.. MahiJyiina-sutra-san:zgraha, Part 1, Buddhist Sanskrit Text Series, No. 17 (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1961), p. 304, but see Iyanaga's p. 675, n. 66, where he indicates that, whatever its occurrence in the Nepali manuscript tradition, it was missing in the recensions translated into Tibetan and Chinese.

8. T 1171, 1172. The authenticity of Amoghavajra's translations is frequently disputed; see Iyanaga, "Recits," pp. 640-642. The Tibetan text is To. 482, and the myth is found in sDe-dge rgyud-'bum voL ta, fols. lOa-12b. sLelung-pa, pp. 10.7 & 13.6, attempts to integrate the rather innocuous statements of the Mahiivairocana-abhisambodhi-sutra (To. 494) into the full-blown form of the myth, but the sutra simply confounds Mara and MaheSvara, giving a mantra to bring him under control; sDe-dge rgyud 'bum, voL tha, foL 182a.

9. sDe-dge rgyud-'bum, voL ta, foL 11 b: gang 'di lta bu'i sngags kyi tshig smra ba ni khyod rab tu mi bgrongs sol.

10. To. 480; sDe-dge rgyud-'bum, voL nya, fols. 237a-247b. 11. sDe-dge rgyud 'bum, voLja, fols. 281a-287a. 12. To. 832, rNying rgyud, vol. kha, fols. 124b-128a. R.A. Stein has con

sidered this version in the Annuaire 1974, pp. 511.


13. To. 829; rNying-rgyud, vQl. ka, chapters 20-31, fols. 135lJ-166a. Th' material has been considered by Stein, Annuaire 1972:499-510, 1973:463_47~s See also sLe-lung-pa, Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho, pp. 48-103.

14. Stein, Annuaire 1973, p. 468, mentions that there is a commentar ascribed to Naropa which contains a fuller version, but I have no access to thY Peking bsTan-'gyur at this time. This version is not cited by Grags-pa rgya~ mtshan, Bu-ston, sLe-lung-pa, or other Tibetan savants whom I have studied and so its influence was less than complete, yet Stein mentions that Pretapuri in "Naropa's commentary" is identified with Pu-hrangs in Tibet, an identifica~ tion that Bu-ston accepts, bDe mchog nyung ngu'i rgyyd kyi spyi rnam don gsal Lokesh Chandra, ed., The Collected liVorks of Bu-ston, Satapitaka Series, vol. 64 (New Delhi: International Academy ofIndian Culture, 1971), pt. 6, pp. 54-61.

15. dPal he ru ka'i byung tshul, SKB III.298.4.2-300.2.6. 16. The division of l\!Iahesvara's retinue into celestial, terrestrial, and sub

terranean is evident in the TattvasaT[lgraha mythology also; Chandra, pp. 59-60. 17. I have edited the place names; the versions found in the text are

clearly orally transmitted and are meant to reflect the widely accepted names for the twenty-four locales found in the CakrasaT[lvara system. Confer HT I.vii.10-18; Abhidhiinottara, PTT 17, vol. 2, pp. 48.1.1-4, 52.5.6-53.2.3, 56.1.6-56.2.3,56.5.8-57.2.1,58.4.4-59.2.8, etc.; Tucci, Indo-Tibetica, vol. 3, part 2, pp. 38-45; Shinichi Tsuda, The SaT[lvarodaya-Tantra: Selected Chapters (Tokyo: The Kokuseido Press, 1974), pp. 93-96, 260-263.

18. It is not clear why Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan specifies that these two yak~a came from the north to take control of these two locales, or why he does that selectively in other instances (niigas, asuras). l\!lost likely, it is the conservation of a prior association on his part (did all these figures have such associations?); it is less likely that he is selectively developing associations found in the siidhanas in question.

19. Color assignment here contradicts the names of the Vma, which identify each Vma with her own color.

20. I have not observed elsewhere the identification of a goddess with vicissitudes of the planet Rahu, rendering the stem feminine. The asterisked (*) lndic forms of the names ascribed to the Vma and the Maq·ka are conjectural.

21. We note the irregular application of the feminine ending mo. 22. The first four Maq·ka names are available from the literature. See

Martin M. Kalff, "Oakinls in the Cakrasamvara Tradition," in Martin Brauen and Per Kvaerne, eds., Tibetan Studies (Zurich: V6lkerkundemuseum der UniversiUit Zurich, 1978), pp. 149-162, esp. p. 157; Tsuda, SaT[lvarodaya XIII.30, pp. 117, 285. According to these sources, the other four Matrka are most commonly identified as Yamada~hI, YamadiltI, YamadamHrI, and Yamamathanl.

23. The numbering: 24 Bhairavas + their 24 consorts + 4 Uma + 8 Matrka + Mahesvara + VmadevI= 62 divinities.

24. While the malJrf.ala utilized by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan appears the· general synthesis of the four traditions mentioned at the end of the text, in the 1730-s edition of the SKB, our text follows the hagiography of Luhipada's lineage, leading to the surmise that the Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims considered the malJrf.ala to be based on Luhipada's Sri: Bhagavadabhisamaya (To. 1427, sDe-dge


, ud 'grel, vol. wa, fols. 186b3-193al). This text is apparently the earliest :ftested practice of the Ca,krasarrwara, having been translated by Rin-chen

/bzang-po (958-1055) .and Sraddhakaravarman. I~ also .enjoys two commer::',!; ries by *TathagatavaJra, To. 1509-1510, the latter mcludmg a separate chrollli;' t~e of PaJ:.l<;lita dPal- 'dzin and the teachers of the lineage. A form of the mar;¢ala ;').~s also given in Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, ed., Ni~pannayogavalf of Mahapar;¢ita ',. Abhyakaragupta, Gaekwad's Oriental Series No, 109 (Baroda: Oriental Institute, ;,1972), pp. 44-46, 26-29. '0' 25. A preta is one departed, but usually a ghost rather than a corpse.

'~'~>I1ere, as before, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan is attempting to tie the myth to the lan-,. guage of the ritual. . ':',.; 26. This was a favored hermeneutic among the Sa-skya-pa. Sa-chen had i"!~~,'~,"rnaintained that it was one of the signs of the superiority of the Vajrayana (SKB '1.122.3.3), an idea also utilized by bSod-nams rtse-mo in his commentary on

the Hevajra-tantra (SKB II.51.2.6-3.2). In the previous reference, however, Sathen quotes Padmavajra's Guhyasiddhi (To. 2217) in support of his idea, and we 'see that PUJ:.l<;larika maintains the idea in his Vimalaprabhii commentary to the

;.; Kiilacakra, Upadhyaya ed., pp. 23-24. Decidedly, the Sa-skya teachers looked for ){,i

:sIndic support offavored doctrines. , '. 27. The received Sanskrit text of Guhyasamaja XVII.l9, while discussing

';.'VajrapaJ:.li, reads somewhat differently: '" kiiyavajro bhavet brahma vagvajras tu mahefvara~ /

cittavajradharo raja saiva vi~ur maharddhika~ / / Being physically adamantine, let him be Brahma,

. But as vocally adamantine, he is MaheSvara; The king bearing the sceptre of mental adamant, It is just he who is Vi~J:.lu, of great majesty.

Yukei Matsunaga, The Guhyasamaja Tantra (Osaka: Toho Shuppan, 1978), p. 98. 28. Dpal he ru ka'i byungtshul rnam par g;:.hag pa bla ma'i gsung las cung ;:.ad

btus te I. SKB III.300.2.6. 29. sNgon byung gi rnam 'phrul, SKB 1.388.3.4-389.1.3. 30, Sa-chen was doubtless considering his various commentaries to the

basic texts of the Lam- 'bras (To. 2284), traditionally considered eleven in number; see Musashi Tachikawa, "The Tantric Doctrine of the Sa skya pa according

, to the Sel gyi me laft," Acta Asiatica 29 (1975): 95-106. 31. Actually, as is apparent from his gDan gyi rnam dag (SKB 1.387.4.4-

388.3.4), Heruka tramples on Brahma, Indra, Kamadeva, and Mahesvara, while Ghasamri tramples on I§ana-MaheSvara, apparently considered the principal variety of the species Mahesvara.

32. The same method was utilized by Ngor-chen in his exegetical monument, the (dPal kye rdo rje'i sgrub thabs kyi rgya cher bshad pa) bsKyed rim gnad kyi::.La zer, SKB IX.l73.4-277, esp. see p. 179.3.6.

33. The standard work on the legends and concerns of the Lam-'bras remains the Yongs rdzogs bstan pa rin po ch'i nyams len gyi man ngag gsung ngag rin po che'i byon tshul khog phub dang bcas pa rgyas par bshad pa legs bshad 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho

, of'Jam-mgon A-mes zhabs (1597-1659; text completed 1621), The Tshogs Bsad Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam-'bras vol. 1 (Rajpur, India: Sakya Centre, 1983), pp.


1-314; cf. Ngor-chen's introductory materials at the beginning of the bsKyed gnad kyi zla zer (SKB.IX, pp. 174 ff.), and his own discussion of the Path/ Fruit tradition, the Lam 'bras bu dang beas pa5 man ngag gi byung ngag rin po ehe bstan pa rgyas pa'i rryi 'od (SKB IX.lOB.3.l-126.4.3); this latter includes supplemental notes by Gung ru Shes rab bzang po .

.26. rGyud kyi rgyal po dpal kye rdo rje'i byung tshul dang brgyud pa'i bla ma pa rnams kyi rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rgya mtsho, SKB IX;278.1-284.3.3. Synopsis addresses the material in pp. 278.3.2-281.4.5.

27. The resultant form of a divinity is that which is brought back integration with emptiness at a specific time in the meditative practice of utpattikrama. See Ngor-chen's bsJ0ed-rim gnad kyi zla-zer, SKB 251.1.3.

36. Ngor-chen's primary source for the myth is Sa-chen's text, which partially misquotes and identifies as gDan gyi dag pa, this latter being placed before (387.4.4-388.3.4) Sa-chen's sNgon byung gi rnam 'phrul in the SKB edition the quote being from 388.4.3-4. Secondarily, he quotes from Grags-pa ' mtshan's commentary to the Hevajra-tantra, SKB III.l51.4.6-152.1.1, itself a development ofHT II.v.5.

37. Ngor-chen's statement 279.3.4 is an obscure but definite reference to Hevajra tantra II.v.5, which was not translated by Snellgrove:

cumbayitva tu NairatmyaT[l k~iptva vajraT[l kapalake I mardayitva stanau devo ma7J.¢alaT[l saT[lprakafayet II Having kissed Nairatmya, having placed your vajra in her skull, Having fondled her breasts, let the deity express his maJ;H;lala. 38. vyakhyataham ahaT[l dharma~ frotiihaT[l suga7J.air yuta~ I

sadh;yo 'haT[ljagata~ fiistii l~ko 'haT[llaukiko 'pyahaT[l11 We should note that the Tibetan tor HT ILii.39cd reads as if fiista 'loko 'ham laukiko: 'jig rten 'jig rten 'das ma nga, but here following the Yogaratnamiila, HT, vol. 2, p. 139.

39. See note 6, above. 40. Stein, Annuaire 1973, p. 467; Iyanaga, "Recit de la soumission de

Mahe.svara," pp. 731-743. 41. Andre Bareau, "Le Buddha et Uruvilva," in Daniel Donnet, ed.,

Indianisme et Bouddhisme-Melanges qfferts a Mgr Etienne Lamotte, Publications de l'Institut orientaliste de Louvain 23 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut orientaliste, 1980), pp. 1-18. Bareau has theorized that the Kasyapa episode was initially non-Buddhist and became the mythic anchor which brought the identification of bodhiU[k~a to the village ofUruvilva. His theory is interesting but exceeds the data at this time and needs more verification than he has offered.

42. See Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's various CakrasaT[lvara lineage hagiographies listed in note 52. below; his bLa ma rgyagar ba'i lo rgyus (SKB III.l70.l.l-174.1.6) .

43. C£ the treatment of these asuras in Thomas B. Coburn, Devi:-Mahatmya-The Crystallization qfthe Goddess Tradition (Columbia, Missouri: South Asia Books, 1985), pp. 230-249.

44. Mahavairoeana-abhisambodhi-siltra, To. 494, sDe-dge rgyud-'bum, vol. tha, fo1. 182a.


4S. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's great formulation ofthe Vajrayana is found his rCyud kyi rr;-ngon parrtogs pa rin po che'i !jon shing, SKB III.l-70.

46. See Srfcakrasamvaratantrarajasa"f(lbarasamuccaya-vrtti , To. 1413, rgyudvol. tsa· fol. 4ab; Mulatantrahrdayasa"f(lgrahiibhidhanottaratantra-mulamulavrtti,

1414, rgyud-'grel, vol. tsa fol. l21a7. 47. See, for example, the rationale given in his gSung ngag rin po che lam

bu dan bcas paJi don gsal bar byed pa glegs bam gyi dkar chags, The Slob. Bsad Tradi(the Sa-skya Lam-'bras (Raj pur: Sakya Centre, 1983), vol. XI, pp. 1-8, esp.

1.3-2.1. 48. See the bLa ma brgyud pa'i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba ofbLa-

dam-pa bSod-nams rgyal-mtshan (1312-13 7S), the first part of his extraordinary Pod nag ma, The Slob Bsad, vol. XVI, pp. 1-121, esp. p. 20.

':".::: 49. Nag-tsho maintained that he visited Naropa (providing us with a stunning portrait of Naropa as the MahapaJ).{;l.ita) and that Naropa was said to

;"j, have passed away with great portents while Nag-tsho was accompanying Ansa in Nepal in C.E. 1041. Sometime later, Nag-tsho traveled with Mar-pa to cen

Tibet and heard nothing of a meeting. Finally, some of Mar-pa's disciples denied that a meeting had taken place. Grags-pa rgya1-mtshan appears to agree in his reply to Byang-chub seng-ge's request for his opinion on the matter;

.. rNal 'byor byang chub seng ge'i zhu ba dang / de'i dris lan, SKB III.276.3.S-278.2.6. .. SO. George N. Roerich, The Blue Annals(Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banar-

.... sidass, 1976), pp. 118-121. The biography of Rwa lo-tsa-ba rDo-rje grags by < . Bande Ye-shes seng-ge, m Thu stobs dbyang phyug rje btsun rwa 10 tsa baJi rnam par thar

pa kun khyab snyan pa'i rnga sgra, (Lhasa xylograph: 1905) presents a wealth of .stories concerning early Tibetan religious intrigue, esp. fols. 22bl-24a1, 26bl-27aS, 39b6-40b3, 46aS-47aS, 62b2-63b2, 70a3-70b3, 74a5-75b4, 93a6-94b4, 97a1, 99b1-100a1, 106a4-108b2, 112b5-114a2, 117a5-118a2, 121b3-122b2, 129a4-129b3, 135a3. We note that Rwa-lo's biographer has Rwa-10 claim to have killed 13 sngags-'dzin (holders of spells) by magic, fo1. 136a1. Rwa-lo does become involved in a dispute with unnamed clerics at Sa-skya, fo1. 56bl-3, but the burden of proof is on him rather than them.

51. His father, Sa-chen Kun-dga' snying-po (1092-1158), had already written one hagiographical chronicle of his version of the KaI).hapada lineage; bDe mchog nag po pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i 10 rgyus, SKB 1.214.1.1-216.4.1.

52. KaI).hapada's is hidden at the beginning of his Nag po dkyil chog gi bshad sbyar, SKB III.304.3.2-326.3.6, esp. 304.3.4-306.2.2; Ghantapada's is in sLob dpon rdo rje dril bu pa'i 10 rgyus, SKB II1.34S.1.l-346.1.4; Luhipada's is found in bDe mchog lu hi pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i 10 rgyus, SKB III.293.2-298.4. The latter text is also apparently the final production, referring to the other two, SKB III.295.1.2-3.

53. Cf. the bDe-mchog lu hi pa'i lugs with the Sarpvara section of Roerich, Blue Annals, pp. 380-82; Dung dkar bLo-bzang 'phrin-las, ed., Deb ther sngon po (Szechuan: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 460-464.

54. Found in his general introduction to the material in the Cakrasa"f(lvara, bDe mchQg nyung ngu'i rgyud kyi spyi rnam don gsal, Lokesh Chandra, ed., The Collected Works if Bu-ston,Satapitaka Series, vol. 64 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), pt. 6, pp. 54-61. 'Ba'-ra-ba (1310-1391,


according to the Blue Annals, p. 692), A Tibetan Enclyclopedia qf Buddhist uUIOla.I~t;3 cism: The Collected Writings of 'Ba'-ra-ba rGyal mtshan dpal b;:;ang Ngawang Gyaltsen and Ngawang Lungtok, 1970), vol. I, pp. 452-459 .

. spru1, Shes bya kun khyab, vol. I, pp. 369-70. sLe-limg-pa, Dam can bstan mtsho, vol. I, pp. 14-16 maintains that his source is Bu-ston's Chos-'byung, have not located ~he myth there.

55. See Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 75-82 for the fragmentation of Sa-sky a A close inspection of the Yuan! Sa-skya relation has been given by L. "Princely Houses of the Yuan Period Connected with Tibet," in Skorupski, ed., Indo-Tibetan Studies-Papers in honour qf Prqfessor D.L. U"'''lfll'nl1p

Buddhica Britannica Series Continua II (Tring, U.K.: The Institute dhist Studies, 1990), pp .. 257-269. .

56. Zung 'jug rdo rje 'chang chen po'i sa mtshams rnam par bshad pa log rtog sel, written at Sa-skya, SKB IX.164.2.5-172.2.6.

57, Primary is dKon-mchog dbang-phyug's sNyigs dus kyi rdo rje po chos kyi rje kun dga' b;:;ang po'i rnam par thar pa mdor bsdus pa, Lam 'bras slob vol. I, pp. 432-473, esp. 462; also see the pasticcio ofSangs-rgyas pilll1n-·tsh,o"o rDo rje 'chang kun dga' b;:;ang po'i rnam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo 'dus pa'i rgya sLob bshad, vol. I, pp. 475-585, esp. pp. 537, 546.

58. Mark Tatz has encountered similar difficulties in attempting to cover Tsong-kha-pa's opponents, "Whom is Tsong-kha-pa Refuting in His Path to Awakening?" in Lawrence Epstein and Richard F. Sherburne, eds., tions on Tibetan Culture-Essays in Memory if Turrell V. T1Jlie, Studies in Thought and Religion, Volume 12 (Lewiston! Queenston! Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), pp. 149-163.

59. See his dPal brtag pa gnyis pa'i rnam par bshad pa rdo rje mkha' 'gro rna rnams kyi gsang ba'i md;:;od, in The Collected JiItOrks of The Lord mKhas Grub Rje Legs Dpal B;:;ang Po, rJe yab sras gsum gyi gsung 'bum 27 (New Delhi: lian Lama Gurudeya, 1980), vol. 9, pp 469-961, esp. pp. 481-515.

60. See, for example, Go-rain bSod-nams st:!ng-ge's commentary on defense of the bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla ;:;e1, dPal kye rdo rje'i sgrub pa'i .thabs kyi rlJY.a cher bshad pa bskyed rim gnad kyi ;:;la ;:;er la rtsod pa spong ba gnad kyi gsal byed, in Kun mkhjen go bo rab 'byams pa bsod nams seng ge bka' 'bum (Rajpur: Sakya

.1979), vol. 12, pp. 557-693, esp. p. 560, where Ngor-chen's primary opponents are listed as sLob-dpon chen-po dPal chos-pa, mKhas-grub, and dPal. 'jigsmed grags-pa.

61. See his biography, mKhas grub thams cad mkhyen pa'i rnam thar mkhas pa'i yid 'phrog, in The Collected JiItOrks of The Lord mKhas Grub Rje, vol. 1, p. 8.

62. Red-mda'-ba's name is identified with this position in a note (mchan) to Ngor-chen's bsKyed rim gnad kyi ;:;la ;:;er, SKB 9.176.3.2.

63. Everything mKhas-grub says in his dPal brtag pa gT9'is pa'i rnam par bshad pa leads us to believe that he thought the Hevajra-tantni fully in conformity with fifteenth-century Tibetan comprehension of Madhyamaka; see esp. pp. 559-560.

64. He relates the course of events in a letter included in his Thor-bu, Collected JiItOrks, vol. 7, pp. 775-808. In his discussion of Guhyasami{ja meditation,


;~G ud thams bead kyi rgyal po dpal gsang ba 'tius pa'i bskyed rim dngos grub rgya mtsho, )~~eetedWOrks, vol. 9, pp. I fr., esp. p. 238, he had generally refuted the LamiibYas ideas o.f t~e physical maTJ~ala (lus-d"!il) and. ~he reception of consecration f~~ring meditatiOn (lam dus kyz. dbang) , wltho~t Cltmg the syste~ by n~me. He ~fnplains (Thor-bu, p. 776-7) that everyone Jumped t~ ~oncluslOns. Given the !iiiflammatory language mKhas-grub was wont to use, It IS easy to see how such ~impression developed. . :~t 65. Lam 'bras khog phub, p. 70.5. ;:~'. 66. Confer HT I.vii.10-18, Abhidhiinottara, PTT 17, vol. 2, pp. 48.1.1-4, ;52:5:6-53.2.3,56.1.6-56.2.3, 56.5.8-57.2.1, 58.4.'t-59.2.8, etc. tf: 67. Cf. T. 982-988. Shuyo Takubo, eci., Arya-Mahii-Mqyurf Viqyii Rajiif, q;;kyo: Tokyo Sankibo, 1972. Sylvain Levi, "Le Catalogue des Yak~a dans Ie 'N!:iiliii-miiyiirI," Journal Asiatique 1915: 19-138; P.C. Bagchi, "The Geographical Catalogue of the Yak~as in the MahiimiiyiirI," Sino-Indian Studies III 1 / 2 (1947): 113--87 .. 'iio 68. I presume that there were village-level applications of the Cakrasa1[L$'ara m'yth both before and after it entered the monastic milieu, even if the ver~ibn under discussion is textual! monastic in form.

~f . :~':>",-

i::<, ~tF;?,,· !,,;'-: -'; ~

Lf: V,,-'

~ Newar Buddhist Liturgy: Sravakayanist Ritual in Kwa Bahal}., Lalitpur, Nepal

by David N. Gellner

1. Introductionl

The rituals and other practices of the Buddhist Newars of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, should be of particular interest to Buddhologists, since the Newars are the last surviving north Indian Mahayana Buddhists. 2 There have been several interesting discussions of the symbolism and functions of Newar Buddhist ritual (e.g., Allen 1973, 1982) but the detailed analysis ofNewar Buddhist liturgy is still in its early stages. It is true that Hodgson published one paper which evidently followed a liturgical text, and Wilson translated another, but these were lone and isolated efforts until John Locke published his pathbreaking work Karunamqya. 3 Following his lead, I have myself published studies of the Newar Buddhist monastic initiation ritual (usually known in scholarly works by its colloquial and non-honorific epithet, bare chuyegu) and of the guru mar;¢ala ritua1. 4 Recently, both Locke and Lewis have published articles on the fasts or observances (vrata) of Newar Buddhists.5

Related to these recent scholarly works in English, and often acting as the source for them, are two kinds of local literature: (i) handwritten ritual handbooks (paddhati) with instructions in Newari and the liturgy itself in Sanskrit (many of these are now available on microfilm, thanks to the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project); (ii) published pamphlets by Vajracarya priests which are in effect printed handbooks. The most prolific author in this latter category is certainly Badri Ratna Vajracharya of Kathmandu.

236

A NEWAR LITURGY 237

The present paper is concerned with the liturgy in one 0';i"fairly precise context: the shrine of. the main d~ity of a Newar ;i:~;Buddhist monastery. Newar BuddhIst monastenes usually coni:\;i'st of a rectangular courtyard, with the shrine of the main ~~i, .. aeity on t~e ?"round floor .opposite the n:ain entr~nce. The ·~.'P.1nain deity IS, m the ~ast maJonty of cases, Sakyamum Buddha. "f;,iYhis deity is known m Kathmandu as the kwiipii~dya~ 6 and in \~!;.,talitpur as kWiibiiju, a term which members ofKwa Bahal:; and "r.their families tend to use as the proper name of their monastery )~(~deity (a usage illustrated in section 2 below). Newar Buddhists ~:.7often explain that the structure of the monastery reflects the :tthree "ways" Slr "vehicles" ofBudsJhism: the ground floor, with

....•.•. its shrine to Sakyamuni, is the Sravakayana; the upper side ,. room, with its shrine' to Amoghapasa Lokesvara, is the !,Mahayana; and the upper floor hall, with the esoteric shrine to .. ; Cakrasarpvara, Yogambara, Hevajra, or one of the other tan.'tric gods, is the Vajrayana. It is indeed true that this scheme is

!;i".reflected in the rituals and offerings that are appropriate in each shrine. Thus, sacred space is organized so as to express the hierarchical structure of tantric Buddhism; and this struc

'ture is itself both a representation of, and an explanation of, the .' history of tantric Buddhism, with the latest phase, the Vaj

. rayana, being given the highest value within it.7 , It is an interesting fact that the liturgy used for the Sakyamuni shrine seems to have escaped the codification of the Vajracarya priests. Unlike other Newar Buddhist liturgies, therefore, one does not find numerous manuscripts that record the prescribed form used in particular places. Rather, each .monastery has its own oral tradition. As with written liturgies, these vary slightly from monastery to ~onastery. One account ofthe morning liturgy ina monastery Sakyamuni shrine,from Bhiche Bahal:;, Lalitpur, has been published in Newari by the respected local Buddhist scholar, Hemraj Sakya. 8

Mempership of Newar Buddhist monasteries is restricted to male Sakyas and Vajracaryas. These two groups are subsections of a single caste, the Vajracaryas having slightly higher status because they alone may act, as priests for others (purohit). Within the monastery, however, Sakyas and Vajracaryas have equal status; rights and duties are shared equally. Membership of a Newar Buddhist monastery is determined by patrilineal


descent. Only the sons of members by full-caste mothers rna go though the monastic initiation ritual in the monastery an~ thereby become members. In this "Yay, they also become householder monks; that is to say, they fill the role of monks and are treated as monks by other Newar Buddhists on certain specified occ~:Sions, such as the annual Paficadan festival. By tradition, all Sakyas and Vajracaryas are supposed to beg alms on this day from at least seven different-houses, although today many feel shame at doing so, and do not participate. 9

The context of Newar Buddhism in ;-vhich monastic values are stressed and asted out is labelled Sravakayana. It is the shrine of the main Sakyamuni of a monastery complex which as we have noted, most obviously exemplifies this context. Th~ daily liturgy in this shrine is the duty of each of the monastery members in turn. The most common system is that by which turns pass down the roster of members from most senior to most junior for a week, a fortnight, or a month at a time. Depending on the number of members and the length of service, one's turn may recur once a year, once every few years, or longer. In the case of Kwa Baha}:l, to be considered presently, one's turn comes once in a lifetime. In some Kathmandu monasteries, the membership has dispersed to many parts of the city and beyond, and there is little cohesion. The monastery is simply the place where members must go through what is, in effect, their caste initiation ceremony. In these cases, it is not uncommon for one man to specialize in carrying out the daily liturgy, and to do it for other members for a small fee. This solution has not yet been adopted in the more traditional, and less disrupted monasteries of Lalitpur and Bhaktapur, the other two large cities of the Kathmandu Valley.

The man or youth whose turn it is to tend the main shrine is called the dya~pii~lii~. This is Sanskritized as devapiilaka, "guardian of the god," though its Newari meaning is "he to whom the turn [to tend the god] has come." In small monasteries he performs the ritual himself, briefly and without an audience, keeping the shrine open just long enough for local women, mostly from the households of monastery members, to bring offerings. In large monasteries, however, the ritual is much more elaborate. In several of the large monasteries of Lalitpur a young boy, who must be an initiated member of the

A NEWAR LITURGY 239

monastery, is c?osen by. t.he "go~-guardian" to carry out ~he rituals under hIS superVlSlon; he IS called the baphfi or, addmg the diminutive suffix, baphficfi. lO .

: Kwa Bahal} is the largest Newar monastery anywhere. Its initiated membership is so large (around 3,000) that no one is sure of its exact size. Here, two such boy priests are appointed; the younger one is the main one, the elder his assistant. Nor~ally, the god-guardian remains outside the shrine in order to .oversee affairs in the whole monastic temple complex and to avoid the strict rules which the two baphfi have to follow, but the god-guardian may himself becom~ the el?er baphfi ifhewishes to or if he can find no one to do It for hIm. The Kwa Bahal} monastic compound is a magnificent temple complex enriched by numerous donations over the years. It has become a focus for Buddhist devotion from throughout the city of Lalitpur, and it is also included in Tibetan pilgrimage routes. 1l

. The two bfiphfi of Kwa Bahal} must follow a strict set of rules for one month, the duration of the god-guardian's turn. The elder one may not leave the monastery compound for the Whole month except to fetch water from the well in IIa Nani, and his wife, if he is married, may not enter it. The younger biiphfi leaves the compound twice a day in order to ring a bell around the locality of the monastery. Neither may use soap for a month. They may eat only one cooked meal a day, in the morning, of pure food. This is prepared by a woman designated for the purpose, who must herselffollow many purity rules. She must stay at her natal home if she is married, and while she cooks the meal she must change out of her clothes into a towel kept in the monastery for the duration of the, month. When she brings a portion of the meal to offer to the Sakyamuni image, she must not be touched by anyone else, and all onlookers are made to stand well back to ensure that this does not happen. In the afternoon, the two baphfi eat only fruits and sweets. However, when there is an esoteric ritual in the tantric shrine, at which meat, beans, and alcohol must be offered, and a share also taken to Sakyamuni, then, and then only, the bfiphfi may consume what has been offered. The members of Kwa Bahah explain the strictness of the rules there, as compared to all other N ewar monasteries, by ci ting the presence of the text and goddess, The Perfection of Wisdom (Prajiiaparamita). This


text is read on request by Newar Buddhists up to twice ada. almost every day at certain times of year. It is believed to haJj the power to fulfil the vows of devotees. in times of great illnes~ or danger. Many Kwa Bahal;1 members also have the text read at auspicious times, such as weddings. 12

2. The daily round in Kwa Baha1, Lalitpur

, What follows is an account of the whole daily round in the Sravakayanist shrine ofKwa Bahal;1. It was written by Bhai Ratna Vajracharya, a member ofKwa Bahal;. who lives nearby and spends every day there as a receptionist and photographe:' This description was written in Newari in 1983. I have translated it and added the punctuation, the refererices to four watches, and notes.

Rules Followed by the Temple Priests (baphii) ofKwa Bahal). (Hiralfyavart:lamahavihara), Lalitpur

by Bhai Ratna Vajracharya

First Watch At about 3 a.m., devotees come to Kwa Bahal). to read the

NiimasaT(lgfti. 13 After they have been reading for about five minutes, the older of the two baphii gets up and bathes himself. He goes into the shrine of Kwabaju [spelt "Kwavaaju"] and bows down to the god. He removes the clothes of Kw~baju, takes a waterpot which is inside, and goes to fetch water from the well. Lampa, who lives and works in Kwa Bahal)., goes with him and clears the way so that no one will touch him. The elder priest puts the pure water down at the shrine door and goes to wash his face. Then he takes it inside, bows down to the god, rinses the Worship Plate (pujiibhalj), waterpot, and silver plate (babhu), and puts them all in front ofBalabhadra. 14 He puts half the pure water into the Flask (kalafa) , and then grinds yellow powder (mhiisu sinhalj). As soon as he has finished this, he lights a ghee lamp inside.

By this time the NiimasaT(lgfti will be half way through being read; the younger priest comes into the shrine and bows down to the gods. The elder priest lights wicks along the bal-

A NEWAR LITURGY 241

. cony outside. Then, while the younger priest rings a bell, the elder priest pours water from the Flask onto the silver plate, takes the small flask which stands on it, and washes the faces, first ofKwabaju, then ofBalabhadra. After this, he does piija to the gods while the younger priest shows the mirror to Kwabaju, Balabhadra and, standing at the door, to Svayambhu [the enshrined caitya in the centre of the courtyard which is the lineage deity ofKwa Bahal}. members]. The elder priest sprinkles pure water on Svayambhu and on the waiting devotees. Meanwhile, the younger priest comes out with rice and flask in hand, and puts rice and water in a circle on the mar;.rjala on the balcony. Next, the two priests come out to beat the hollow wooden gong (giiwa); this has to be done 108 times in all. When this is finished, the younger priest rings the bell, and the readers come up onto the balcony below the shrine of Kwabaju and read the "Buddhar(l trailokyanathar(l." 15 When this is over, the elder priest takes the yaktail whisk and the younger priest takes the silver whisk with peacock feathers, and the two of them ring bells, while the "Danabalena" is recited. 16 Then, the two priests put yellow powder paste (on their foreheads), using the paste from the worship of the gods, and give yellow paste and flowers to the devotees outside. Other devotees will continue arriving for worship until about 8 a.m. or, on important days (full moon, sar(lkranti/ siinhii, eighth, and new moon day), until 9.30 a.m.

Second Watch At this time, the person who prepares the priests' food will

come; she is known as nzkulimha. She goes into the kitchen and takes off all the clothes she has come in and puts on pure clothes. She fetches pure water, and then smears cowdung on the floor inside and makes the cooking area neat and clean. She next comes to the door of the main shrine, and the elder priest passes her the Worship Plate with one ghee lamp, wicks, and a small waterpot on it. She takes these back to the kitchen, lights the ghee lamp, and cooks the priests' pure food meal (pala).

As soon as it is 9 a.m., the younger priest goes off ringing his bell to Nhu Bahal}., Nyakhacok, Tapa Hifi, Nag Bahal}., Ila Nani, Sarasvafi Nani, and back in the main door of Kwa Bahal}.. He stands at the door of the shrine, puts down the things he has been carrying, and the elder priest sprinkles him with holy water (jal) and hangs up the things. The younger priest washes his face and goes in to bow down to the gods. The two of them then beat the gong 108 times again, and while the


younger priest rings the bell, the "Buddharrz trailokyaniitharrz" is read. Once again, they bow down to the gods.

After a little time has elapsed, the younger priest takes the silver food carrier to the kitchen and puts it down outside the door. The cook washes. it, puts food on three Worship Plates puts them in the silver carrier, and places it back outside th~ door [of the main shrine]. The younger priest takes it inside the shrine, puts one plate before Kwabaju, one before Balabhadra, and the other he scatters to left and right for the mice. Then, the younger priest goes to eat; after a little while, the elder priest does likewise. All food, other than milk, rice, green lentils, ghee, molasses, and ginger, is forbidden.

After this, the priests may take a rest and if they are sleepy lie down for an hour and a half, until noon.

Third Watch Then they have to wash again, and may not touch anyone.

At 3 p.m., the two priests go back inside the shrine and bow down to the gods. The younger priest puts on the shoulder piece (c'ivara) and comes out wearing the monastic sandals (kwiipii lhaka). The elder priest takes the gong outside, and they beat [the gong] 108 times again. The younger priest goes inside and rings the bell while the "Buddharrz trailokyaniitharrz" is recited outside. At 4 p.m., the cook goes into the kitchen, takes offher clothes, puts on her pure set of clothes, and goes to fetch pure water. Then, she puts out beaten rice, molasses, cakes, fruit, and yoghurt for the priests. When it is ready, she goes and tells them, and they go to eat.

Fourth Watch After eating, they take a short rest, and at 5.30 p.m. they

wash again. The elder priest goes with two waterpots to the well to take pure water, and Lampa follows him. He puts water down outside the shrine and goes to wash his face. Then he goes in and bows down to the gods. The younger priest likewise washes his face, sweeps the balcony, goes into the shrine, brings the Flask outside, and pours water on the malJrjala there. The elder priest takes the gong, the younger priest puts on the shoulder piece, and again they beat the gong 108 times. By this time, it will be about 6 p.m., and the younger priest goes off ringing the bell as before around the area. On returning, he takes off the shoulder piece and bell, and comes out of the shrine. The elder priest stays inside for those who come to read in the evening.

A NEWAR LITURGY 243

At 7 p.m., the younger priest washes his face and comes inside the shrine. The readers come and take out the hymn book, and the younger priest rings the bell in front of Balabhadra while they read the "BuddhaT[l trailokyaniithaT[l." 17 When the reading is finished the priests stand on either side of Kwabaju and ring bells and wave whisks, while the "Diinabalena" is read. When this is over, they light the dfp jviilii lamp, and, ringing the bell in front of Balabhadra, they wave it around. Both priests then "take light," and so do those who have read. Then they

. read more verses, while the younger priest rings the bell and the elder priest waves the lamp (iirati).

When the reading is over, the iirati is put down, and the elder priest takes the Worship Plate, worships Kwabaju with rice, applies yellow paste to him, and then also to Balabhadra and to the other gods around him. Then the younger priest takes yellow powder paste [for himself], then the elder priest [does], then they give it to the readers outside. ·When everyone has placed a spot of paste on their forehead the paste bowl is passed back inside. The elder priest then covers Kwabaju with a special cloth. The younger priest comes out with the key. The elder priest puts the Flask and silver plate in front of Balabhadra, and then puts out rice for the mice. He puts three piles on the silver plate, and three at the legs of the Flask's tripod. Then he uncovers the pure waterpot, bows down to Kwabaju, and comes out. He locks the shrine door with an old metal lock, checking all around; the shutters and doors are all closed up. Then they go to sleep (by this time it will be about 9.30 p.m.). With this, their daily duties are over.

The morning liturgy in Kwii Biihii~

The following is an account of the morning liturgy derived from the above and checked with the Betaju (Rituals Officer) of Kwa Bahaq, Bhai Ratna Vajracharya of Nyakhacuk (no relation of the Bhai Ratna Vajracharya above), who was appointed Betaju for his wide experience and knowledge of ritual. My own observations have also been incorporated.

(i) The elder biiphii washes himself, unlocks the shrine, sweeps the shrine, places various containers outside to be washed, and removes the covers which have been over the main deity and over Balabhadra during the night. He then goes to fetch pure


w~ter for t~e shrine (n.Zla~) from the :veIl in Ila. Nani, and gomgback lil, pays obeIsance to the deIty (by bowmg down t! his feet). 0

(ii) He washes first the tripods on which they stand and the in turn, the Worship Plate (pujiibhaM, the Flask, and the bab;:~ (a special plate with a small raised flask in the centre); he putU

pure water in the Flask (kalafa). S

(iii) He grinds yel.1ow powder (mhiisu sinha~) into a paste and uses it to write OM on the ritual mirror Uwalii-nhaykii) and on. the Flask. He lights a hanging ghee lamp inside the shrine' then he li?,hts wicks along the outside of the balcony, recitin~ the followmg verse: .

Dipo > ya77} sarvadik{viintal; 18 dzpajviiliitama- 19 prabha77} I)haukayiimi prasannas ta77}20 sarvajiiiina2 ! -prasiddhaye. This lamp reaches to all directions. I offer it happily, with its radiance of the best lamp-flames, for the attainment of all wisdom.

(iv) By this time (about 5 a.m.), the younger biiphii has got up. All this time, devotees have been assembling outside, coming from the two other major Buddhist shrines of the city, namely, Cakwal;tdyal;t (also known as Dharmaraj or Mlnnath, and formally identified as jatadharI LokeSvara) of Tang a Bahal;t and Karul!-amaya (Bugadyal;t/Matsyendranath) of Ta Bahal;t.22 Once devotees have visited all the shrines of the monastery complex, they either wait patiently for the next step of the ritual, or they continuously circumambulate the central shrine to Svayambhu and operate the prayer wheels at its four corners.

When the younger biiphii is ready, a chain is put up across the front of the balcony. He then drags a broom across the balcony from left to right. He puts down the broom, washes his feet and face and goes into the shrine, bows down to the feet ofthe gods, and puts on the monastic shoulder piece. The elder biiphii pours pure water from the Flask over the mirror placed in the babhii plate. Simultaneously, the younger biiphii holds the vajra (kept in the shrine) to the babhii and rings the bell which he wears around his neck, while devotees outside ring the bells in the courtyard. They recite:

A NEWAR LITURGY

fan mangalar(l sakalasattvahrdisthitasya .Sarvatmakasya varadharmakuliidhipasya Nihfe0ado0arahitasya malziisukhasya Ta~ mangalaT(l bhavatu te paramiibhi0eka~.

245

All the auspiciousness of the overlord of all the families of the best dharma [i.e., the Buddha], who is in the heart of all beings, who is identical with everything, entirely free of all blemish, and supremely blissful-may all this auspiciousness accrue to you: this is the best consecration. 23

"The assembled devotees ring all the bells m the courtyard, -heating a deafening noise.

;'(v)T~e god's ~ace .has just .been "~as~ed" by pouring water over hIS reflectlOn m the mIrror. ThIS IS the central act of the iituaP4 However, the washing is now reduplicated. The elder biiphii takes the small Flask from the babhil plate, and mimes the washing of the eyes of the main deity, and of Balabhadra in front; and then also mimes drying them with a towel. The younger biiphii now takes the mirror and shows it to the main deity, and to Balabhadra. All this must take place while the bells in the courtyard are being sounded, for they only stop when the biiphii finally appears and shows the mirror outside the main door, towards the enshrined Svayambhu caitya opposite. 25 He moves the mirror in a circle three times for each. The showing of the mirror outside is the crucial moment as far as the assembled devotees are concerned. They emit sighs of anticipation as it is shown, and throw their offerings of rice towards the main shrine. The mirror is shown with the verse:

Pratibimbasama dharma acchii~ fuddhii hy aniiviliilJ Agriilzyii anabhiliipyiif ca hetukarmasamudbhavii~. All things are like reflections in a mirror, transparent, pure, and uncontaminated. They are ungraspable, inexpressible, and arise from causes and actions. 26

(vi) The elder biiphii touches the babhil plate, contammg the holy water (jal), to the main deity, then goes outside and throws the water, first towards Svayambhu, then right and left on the assembled devotees. Men sometimes shout "Over here!"


if they have not felt spots of water falling on them. The prie t should recite: SS

Abhi~ekaT(l mahiivajraT(l traidhiitukanamaskrJaT(l Dadiimi sarvabuddhiiniiT(l triguhyiilayasambhavam. I give that co~secration of all. the. Buddhas, which is the great adamantme [Truth], whIch IS honoured in all thre realms of the universe, and is born from the realm of the

. 1 e tnp e secret.

The regular group who recite the Namasarl}glti now recite th~ "Tutam api" verses. 27 As soon as the water has been thrown devotees begin to receive the yellow powder from members of the god-guardian's family stationed on the balcony, and then depart. .

(vii) The younger bapha pours rice and pure water in a circle on the small lotus-ma'lrjala (dhiimanda) outside the door of the shrine and recites:

Protsiire hum sarvavighniin siire hum vajrabhume hum vajralekhe hum sulekhe sulek~e ~arvatathiigata guru adhiti~thqn£u sviihii. Re:n9ve HUM remove all obstacles HU~", on the vqjra-ground HUM which is written with the vajra HUM well written, well written: Mayall the Attained Ones, Oh guru, be present SVAHA.

(viii) Now the two biiphii come out with the long wooden gong (gambhas!, gilwa or simply gil; Skt. dharmaga'lthz). 28 The younger biipha wears metal monastic shoes (kwapa lhaka) and takes the gong on his right shoulder. The elder biiphii stands behind him and supports it. The younger biiphii beats the gong 108 times with a wooden hammer (muga~ca). They should recite the Aparamita dhiira7Jz, which has 108 syllables. While the gong is being beaten, it is forbidden to speak or move about in the monastery. Those devotees who have not yet left, or who have just arrived, stand still until it is over.

(ix) Next, they offer worship of the Five Offerings (paiicopacara) to the deity, finishing with rice. With each offering they should say om vajragandhe svahaJ etc.

A NEWAR LITURGY 247

:tE'{yThe younger bapM rings two bells while members. of the 'rWiimaSa1(lgfti !Sroup _com~, up onto the balcony and reClte the it~fBuddha1(l trazlokyanatharrt verses.

:.:.' .• :.:, .. :.,.i('.·:.· •. i): T" he two bapha then wave the whisk and yaktail while recit-· .... X1

·.·.s.·.:.·.· •• ·.::,g .. ·the "Danabalena." ·'lU

li~;%rThiS marks the end of the morning liturgy. Devotees con:b;Bhue to arrive and to recei~e blessi~gs in the for~ of yellow ~;!!p6wder a~? leaves all mormng; durm.g the day, pllgnms and ;;;,fourists VlSlt, and the former also receive blessmgs on request. ;,'The degree to which the two bapha actually do recite the verses i;!:~sprescribed no doubt varies. I suspect also that steps (vii), 'r(ix), and ~x) are ofte.n omitted. I~ will.be se.en that the written ;Za;ccount gIVen above IS somewhat IdealIzed, m that the devotees

;.;.should only receive yellow powder blessing after the two bapM !?have taken it for themselves (as part of step ix); but in fact the ;'powder is brought out and distributed earlier than this.

':-'< "~

~~!~.(;oncl usion ::"~"'i ;:~'; ~-c' '

I t has already been mentioned that the daily ritual of a rhain monastery deity differs from monastery to monastery. In this, it is similar to other rituals. There is no body or institution

'capa~le of promulgating a single model or enforcing uniformity. :,The Sravakayanist ritual of the main monastery deity is even ,m.ore likely to vary, since it is not written down. An account ':coUected from the Lalitpur monastery, Cika Bahi, as well as

Hemraj Sakya's published version from Bhiche Baha}:l (mentioned above), both illustrate this potential for variation.

One significant way in which the influence ofthe Mahayana <and Vaj~ayana context of Newar Buddhism has made itselffelt

on the Sravakayanist ritual considered here is the incorporation of elements from the guru mar;rjala ritual. Since the latter is the most basic Newar Buddhist ritual, the first item committed

,to memory by any young Vajracarya priest and also included in daily practice of many other pious Newar Buddhists, this

hardly surprising. 29


In ~pi~e ~f.th~se ~ariations, howev.er, the daily liturgy hasi

many sImilantIes m dlfferent monastenes. Most ofthe eighte'. main monasteries of Lalitpur perform the beating ofthe Wooden gon?, the wavin~, of the yakt~!l and of ~he w~isk to the acco~~ pamment of the Diinabalena, the bathmg wIth water, and th· ••• showing of the mirror. These ritual acts are also performed fe; Buddha images with royal connections in Sri Lanka (Ever. 1972: ch. 4). Several of the large monasteries of Lalitpur haves l~ke .Kwa Bahah: a "younge~" biiphii to go round the locali~. rmgmg a bell tWlce a day. Thls and the wooden gong no doubt· marked out the monastic day at one time. Now, the bell is in. terpreted as giving the signal. to eat, and the wooden gong IS believed to be telling the god that he may leave or enter (lin juye) the image. 30

The present paper by no means exhausts the topic of the morning liturgy in Newar Buddhism. A more in-depth study, including a survey of many more monasteries and a systematic comparison of them, might lead to some qualifications to . has been asserted here. It is possible also that manuscript evic dence is in fact available for this type of ritual, and this would greatly increase the chances of essaying some conclusions about the historical development of such liturgies.

NOTES

1. This article is adapted and improved from a section of my thesis (Gellner 1987a), which was based on two years' fieldwork in Lalitpur, Nepal, from 1982-4. This was funded by a Leverhulme Trust Study Abroad Studentship. Further research was carried out in 1986 supported by the SpaldingTrust.

2. On this point, see further Lienhard ( 1984), Gellner (1989b). On Newar ethnic identity see Toffin (1984), Quigley (1987), and Gellner (1991 a); the relationship of Buddhism to it is specifically discussed in Gellner (1986).

3. Hodgson (1972 [1874J 1: 139-45), Wilson (1862: 1-39). See Locke (1980: 74-121) for descriptions of the guru ma7J.qala ritual, the kalafa piijii, and the Fire Sacrifice.

4. On the former, see Gellner (1988) and on the latter, Gellner (199Ib). Descriptions of other rituals (iieiil} luyegu, nitya piijii, and, without liturgy, Tantric Initiation) may be found in Gellner (l987a).

A NEWAR LITURGY 249

...•........ 5 .. See Locke (1987), Lewis (1989). For brief accounts of the daily liturgy .;~lriNewar Buddhist monasteries of Kathmandu, see Lewis (1984: 227-8) and

~;;..hi a (1991: 13-15). i·::o·~rn 6. For a discussion of the possible etymology of this term, see Gellner

~i'{1987b: 368, fn .. ~). . . :'".i].;,' 7. For thIS scheme as a key structurmg feature ofNewar BuddhIsm, see {':dellner (1987a, 1?89a, in press a). O~ the.Newar Buddhist monastery the.indis

:;1; sible source IS Locke (1985), whIch lIsts every monastery, and provIdes a .~~Pcratograph and avai~ab.le historical informa:ion on each. For my interpretation ':{Pfthe use of space wIthm the Newar BuddhIst monastery, see Gellner (1987b). ,0 8. For translations of H. Sakya's account (1973: 61-4), see Gellner

°J\}1987a: 559-61), and Locke (1985: 489-91; 1989: 83 fn. 16). '. ..' 9. The way in which this monastic status was reflected in the titles used

ii$bySakyas in the past (~akyabhik~u, Sakyav.arp.sa, and ~thers) is disc~sse~ in :.·G-ellner (1989b). There IS s~me eVIdence whIch may be mterpreted as mdIcat

.:lng that even traditionally Sakyas felt some ambivalence about their claim to ; ;· .. lnonastic status. 9 10. The etymology is uncertain; biiphii may derive from "monastery-;:'turnholder" (vihiira plus pii~lii~mha) or from "half-turner" (bii plus pii~lii~mha) . . :. 11. For Tibetan pilgrimage in the Kathmandu Valley, see Dowman ~;'(1981). For details ofKwa Baha!;'s shrines, see Gellner (in press a) . • /... 12. On this practice and its associated ritual, see Gellner (in press b). t.; 13. In my experience, the NiimasaT(lgfti actually starts between 3.45 and

4.00 a.m. in summer and later in winter. 14. All main monastery deities have a small deity, a Buddha of some

kind, in front of them. In Uku Baha!;, he is identified as Rahula, Sakyamuni's ,son. In Kwa Baha!; he is thought to be Balabhadra, brother of Krgta. One or

T. two informants told me that the statue is in fact ofVajradhara, and accounted i for the identification with Balabhadra by saying that it was a means of attract

:, ing Hindu devotees and increasing the god-guardian's income, just as statues of KqI).a and Balabhadra are displayed during the Buddhist holy month of GUla. Locals often say that the statue of Balabhadra was placed there by the wife of the ThakuJuju CfhakurI king) ofNhu Baha!; (a branch ofKwa Baha!;): he insisted on sponsoring Buddhism, although she prefered Hinduism, and this

. Was her way of getting even (the story occurs in the chronicle Wright had trans'lated: Wright 1972: 174). . 15. For this verse, see Gellner (1988: 83).

16. For the "Diinabalena," see Locke (1980: 465). 17. In addition to the praise verses mentioned here, the "Snigdhanfla" (pro-

nounced "Sanidhani") is usllally read, and at least one other optional set of verses. 18, Correction of dik-FiintaT(l. 19. Variant: -sama-. 20. This reading was suggested by Richard Gombrich. Of the two ver

sions available to me, both were unmetrical here, one reading prasannasiintaT(l, the other prasamasiintaT(l.

21. Variant: dfpadiina-.


22. On the cults ofCakwal;idyal;i and Karul).amaya, seeLo::ke (l980) and Owens (1989) . .

23. This verse is often used in Newar Buddhist rituals of consecrationF: its use in monastic initiation, where it is expanded to three verses, one for' °hf . .. e~ of the Three Jewels, see Gellner (1988: 81). For jts expansIOn to five verses for thO Five Buddhas intantric initiation, see Kriya Samuccaya (Chandra 1977: 341_2)e For its expansion to eight verses for the Eight Auspicious Signs, see R.K V .' . a.J~ racharya (1980: 64-5). For another version, see Locke (1980: 218, fn. 21).

24. One piece of evidence fot this is the fact that the morning ritual of deity is called in Newari dekhe cqykegu, which derives from dya!Jyii khwii ciiyke : "to wash the god's face" (S.M. Joshi 1983: 59). Since the expression uses~: old Newari khe, "face," its derivation is probably opaque to most Newars.

25. This shrine is normally known as digu dyal;, because it is the lineage deity of all members ofKwa Bahal;i. / 26. This is a common verse in Newar Buddhist ritual, whether of the Sravakayana, Mahayana: or Vajrayana. One sometimes sees the reading svacchiih for acchiil;. .

27. These are also known as the Dafabalastava Stotra (see Locke 1980: 454-5, and for edition and translation, Sharkey 1991).

28. Edgerton (1953: s.v.) gives dharmagaTfrjf: "gong ... (fig. the gong of the dharma); esp. as a sign of meal-time." In his Kriyii Sarpgraha, Kuladatta makes various scholastic correspondences between Mahayana concepts and the fOUl" beatings of the gong (Rani 1977: 246-7); he also describes the rite for the first beating of the gong (ibid.: 247-9). Hemraj Sakya (1977: 16) explains thefour beatings of the gong in terms of telling the monastic community when to medi: tate, when to eat, etc.; but he does not cite his source. A.K. Vajracharya (1985: 34) articulates the modern· interpretation, noting that, including om, there are exactly 108 syllables in the Aparamita dhiiraTff, and that the gong is beaten in order to invite the god.

29. In the Kwa Bahal;iliturgy just given, this is so of the long mantra of section (vii). The liturgies ofCika Bah! and Bhlche Bahal;i also include the recitation of the Pu!?paketu dhiiraTff. In addition, the Bhlche Bahal;i liturgy prescribes the recitation of the "Aq'ya NIahiidiina," which specifies the time, place, and identity of the ritual actor; then the worship of the conch shell; in the middle of the liturgy, the purification of the image with rice grains and the mantra om sarvatathiigata kqyavifodhane sviihii. For all these details of the guru maTfrfala ritual, see Gellner (1991 b).

30. See n. 28 above.

A NEWAR LITURGY 251

Itu:FERENCES <: ',,', -. .

;;'11 M.R. (1973). "Buddhism without Monks: the Vajrayana Religion of the ,.~ enNewars of the Kathmandu Valley," South Asia II: 1-14. :i~ (1982). "Girls' Pre-puberty Rites among the Newars of the Kathmandu [{,Valley," in M. Allen and S.N. Mukherjee eds., Women in India and Nepal. ~'/ Australian National University Monographs on S. A~ia 8. . 2handra L. (1977). Kriyiisamuccaya. Delhi: Sharada Rani. Satapitaka series 237. Dowman K. (1981). "A Buddhist Guide to the Power Places of the Kathmandu

F Valley," Kailash VIII, 3/4: 183-29. ;E~gerton F. (.1953!. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven: ~<i' Yale Umverslty Press. . 'Evers H.-D. (1972). Monks, Priests and Peasants: A Study if Buddhism and Social ;.'. Structure in Central Ceylon. Leiden: E.J. Brill. rbellner D.N. (1986). "Language, Caste, Religion and Territory: Newar Identity

Ancient and Modern," EuropeanJournal if Sociology XXVII: 102-48. '------:- (l987a). Monk, Householder and Priest: Newar Buddhism and its Hierarchy if ............ Ritual. Unpublished D.Phii. thesis, University of Oxford. :9--- (1987b). "The N ewar Buddhist Monastery: An Anthropological and His

torical Typology," in N. Gutschow and A. Michaels eds., The Heritage if the Kathmandu Valley. Sankt Augustin: VGH Wissenschaftsvedag. Nepalica 4.

,,---(1988). "Monastic Initiation in Newar Buddhism," in R.F. Gombrich ed., . Indian Ritual and its Exegesis. Delhi: OUP. Oxford University Papers on

India, VoL 2, Part l. :'-'--(1989a). "Monkhood and Priesthood in Newar Buddhism," in V Bouillier .. and G. Toffin eds., Pretrise, Pouvoirs et Autorite en Himalaya (Puru~artha XII:

165-92). Paris: Ed. de l'EHESS. (1989b). "Buddhist Monks or Kinsmen of the Buddha? Reflections on the Titles Traditionally used by Sakyas in the Kathmandu Valley," Kailash XV (1-2): 5-20.

-. - (199la). "Hinduism, Tribalism, and the Position of Women: The Problem ofNewar Identity," Man (N.S.) XXVI: 105-25. (1991 b). "Ritualized Devotion, Altruism, and Meditation: The Offering of the guru mar;¢ala in Newar Buddhism," Indo-Iranian Journal XXXV: 1-37. (in press a). Monk, Householder, and Tantric Priest: Newar Buddhism and its Hierarchy if Ritual. Cambridge: CUP.

-'-. - (in press b). '''The Perfection of Wisdom': A Text and its Uses in Kwa . Baha, Lalitpur," in S. Lienhard ed., Change and Continuity in the Nepalese Cul

ture if the Kathmandu Valley. Turin: CESMEO. Hodgson B.H. (1972 [1874J). Essays on the Languages, Literatures and Religion if

Nepal and Tibet. Delhi: Manjusri Publishing House. Joshi S.M. (1983). "Kheluita]:l: Chagu Cintan," in I. Mali ed. Nepal Bhii~a

Nibandha Puca~. Asan, Kathmandu: Pasa Muna. /.Lewis T. T. (1984). The Buddhist Tuladhars if Kathmandu: A Study if Buddhist Tradi

tion in a Newar Community. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University. University Microfilms International 8506008.

252 lIABS VOL. 14 NO.2

-- (1989). "Mahayana Vratas in Newar Buddhism" Journal if the Internatio Association if Buddhist Studies XII: 109-38. nal

Lienhard S. (1984). "Nepal: The Survival ofIndian Buddhism in a Himala/: Kingdom," in H. Bechert and R.F. Gombiich eds., The World 0' BUddh~all,.i v lSII1. ':1 London: Thames and Hudson. . ,

Locke], (1980), Karunamaya: The C~lt if Avalokitesvara-NIatsyendranath in the Valle! if Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogl. . OJ':

-- (1985). The Buddhist Monasteries if Nepal:' A Survey if the Biihas and Bahfs,qjthei Kathmandu Tizlley. Kathmandu: Sahayogl.'

-- (1987). "The Upo~adha Vrata of Amoghapasa Lokesvara in Nepal," L'Ethnographie LXXXIII, 100 1101: 159-89. .

-- (1989). "The Unique Features of Newar Buddhism," in T Skorupski ed.: The Buddhist Heritage. Tring: The Institute of Buddhist Studies. Buddhic~: Britannica 1. '

Owens B.M. (1989), The Politics if Divinity in the Kathmandu Valley: The Festivalqf , Bungadyal Rato Matsyendranath. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University.

Quigley D. (1987). "Ethnicity without Nationalism: The Newars of Nepal," European Journal if Sociology XXVIII: 152-70.

Rani S. (1977). Kriyii-Sangraha: A Sanskrit Manuscript from Nepal containing a collec-tion ifTantric Ritual by Kuladatta. Delhi: S. Rani. S;;ctapitaka series 236, '"

Sakya Hemraj (1973). Mayurvar7J.a Mahavihiiryii SaT[lk~lpta Itihiis. Lalitpur: Bhich{ Bahaya Sarvasarp.gha.

-- (1977). Buddhamurti Chagu Adhyayan. Kathmandu: Cwasa Pasa. Sharkey G.C.], (1991). The Prathama-prahara Puja in Newar Buddhist Shrines.

Unpublished M.Phi!. thesis, University of Oxford. Shima 1. (1991). A Newa'r Buddhist Temple Mantrasiddhi Mahiivihiira and A Photo

graphic Presentation if Gurumandalapiijii. Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Monumenta Serindica 22.

Toffin G. (1984). Societe et Religion chez les Newar du Nepal. Paris: Ed. du CNRS. Vajracharya A.K. (1985). MahiJYiin Buddha Dharma Caryyii. Lalitpur: Prem:

Bahadur Shakya and family. Vajracharya R. K. (1980). Ye Deyii Bauddha Piijii KriyiJYii Haliijwalii. Kathmandu:

Nepal Bauddha Prakasan. Wilson H.H. (1862). Works if the late HH Wilson, Vol. 2. London: Trubner & Co. Wright D. (1972 [1877]) ed. History if Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Antiquated

Book Publishers.

chinese Reliquary Inscriptions 'iI1d the San-chieh-chiao1 .

by Jamie Hubbard

Introduction

R.ecent studies of Indian Buddhist inscriptions have shown how important these sources are for accurately understanding developments in Buddhist history, particularly indicating the need to reevaluate our understanding of the relation between literary, often polemicically motivated, history and the actual institutions which create those histories. Simply put, the doctrinal distinctions presented in literary sources often are not substantiated in the archaeological remains of the institutions. 2

Chinese epigraphical remains are a similarly concrete rendering of Chinese Buddhist history whose importance has largely been ignored. These materials contain a vast trove of data concerning specific individuals (donors, artists, and officials as well as Buddhist clergy), temples, reliquaries, monasteries, monuments, and the like. They also served as primary sources for much of the hagiography collected in the various Biographies if Eminent Monks, thus passing on their judgements to contemporary scholarship as well. 3 These two facets, i.e., "solid" evidence of names, dates, and institutional detail together with hagiographic intent, demand that these materials be handled judiciously, and the sheer number of insciptions and inscription catalogues makes their investigation all the more laborious; nonetheless, as with their Indian counterparts, the historical gleanings to be had can sometimes force a radical shift of established perspective. Such, I think, is the case with the epigraphical remains of the San-chieh-chiao.

253

254- ]IABS VOL. 14- NO.2

The San-chieh-chiao has long been viewed as a movern of the masses, tied through doctrine and practice to the pdn~ and impovershed of the land. As such, its doctrinal context~r found primarily in the the teaching of the degeneracy of moJs the Final Period of the Dharma (a "doctrinal leveler" reducina" all sentient beings to the lowest common denominator of icchan~ tika), and institutionally to the Inexhaustible Storehouse of th Hua-tu ssu, an organ of social welfare noted for its emphasi~ on unquestioned lending to the poor and si~ful as though they. were actually buddhas. Thus the movement IS usually linked to. the Pure Land movement as "of the masses" rather than the' elite, and practice-oriented rather than theoretically sophisticated. Similarly, it is suggested that such a stance is implicitly critical of state and ecclesiastic orthodoxy, hence the frequent suppressions of the movement as heretical.

I t seems to me that such an inference relies on a number ()f assumptions about doctrine, practice, and institution that are not supported by historical records. Else3vhere, I have argued that doctrinally the San-chieh-chiao stands in the mainstream of Sui-T' ang orthodoxy 4 and is at least as closely related to the teachings of the Hua-yen as to the Pure Land. Here, I would like to show that a significant source of historical information concerning the sect, the chin shih lu ("records in bronze and stone"), also indicates that they were well-received at the highest levels of Sui-T'ang court life. Given the literary nature of epigraphical compositions, it is of course not the case that this proves they were solely a movement of the elite. Rather, is simply another caution against the blithe use of contemporary distinctions where there might have been no such distinction in historical fact. The rest of this paper is devoted to bringing to light the epigraphical data which, to date, supports this conclusion; to borrow a phrase from Gregory Schopen, "thosefiw readers who are not particularly interested" in the minutiae of Chinese epigraphy might prefer to skip to the conclusion.5

A. The Founder's Memorials qf594

The various memorial inscriptions and epigraphs done in the memory of Hsin-hsing and his followers form one of the more interesting and important sources of information for the study

CHINESE RELIQUARY INSCRIPTIONS 255

,';0' f the San-chieh-chiao. Both Kanda Kiichiro, who did the ~.JS.;9;ginal work on the San-chieh-chiao epigraphy, and Yabu. ki .···00 1 d f h S h' h h' ';(0;1zeiki, whose monumenta stu yo t e an-c Ie -c lao over if~~'sixty years ago first explored the movement,' have suggested ~it'fthat the record~ ext~nt ,today can be trac~d back as far as 594, i'j":the year of Hsm-hsm? s death, thus puttm? them among the "i£'ldest records regardmg the San-chIeh-chlao. 6 From among If';;ifhevarious catal~gs and collections o~ inscrir:tions, we m.ay ;~lidehtify at least eIght s.eparate memonals dedIcated to H~mis.,~sing himself, and the CIrcumstances of each of these memonals :';ji.giveimportant iI~.forI?ation abo.ut t~e San-chieh-chiao, par.>~:ticlllar1y concermng Its populanty, mfluence, and. sources of J;~Jupport. In addition, the texts of two of the memorials, the Ku l,"ta Hsin-hsing ch)an shih ming t)a pei and the Hsin-hsing ch)an shih ';ksing chiao pei, have been preserved. 7 Ascertaining the correct

dates and circumstances of these memorials is particularly '~important because of the historical value usually ascribed to lithe' former memorial, believed to have been composed in the

yearofHsin-hsing's death. 8

;1,.\ The earliest mention of a memorial for Hsin-hsing is found ,1':i11his biography in the Hsu kao seng chuan, compiled approxi['!/mately eighty years after Hsin-hsing's death. Therein it states '>'{I) that three days after Hsin-hsing's death, on the fourth day i;' of the first month of the K'ai-huang era (594), his remains were .i'sent to Chung-nan shan, a reliquary was built, and a memorial ".icomposed by P'ei Hsuan-cheng. 9

";>. It is hard to say at this point ~xactly what became of this rnemorial stele, but there are many interesting points to be

.,<noted about the author, P'ei Hsuan-cheng. An important fol'·lower of Hsin-hsing who resided together with him at the

Chen-chi ssu, P' ei evidently was a man of some learning, for in > Hsin-hsing's biography he is referred to several times as a

retired official or gentleman, and is said to have "written all of Hsin-hsing's compositions." Tao-hsuan also states that in addition to the memorial for Hsin-hsing, P'ei composed his own

,'. commemorative stele while still alive, and there is yet one more . .record of a memor.ial which he composed for Ching~ming (in .620), an important follower ofHsin-hsing. lO This led Tsukamoto Zenryu to consider that P'ei was of the great P'ei family ofHo

,tung, which produced many literati and high officials during

256 lIABS VOL. 14 NO.2

the T'ang dynasty (e.g., P'ei Chu, P'ei Chu-tao, etc.). Oth'; members of the P' ei clan, such as the wife of P' ei Hsing,:chie e~ one of the highest officials ofthe early T'ang, also were buried at the site of Hsin-hsing's memorial!! and there is a record t the effect that a P'ei-kung donated the land for the Pai-t'a ss; the place where the steles were erected for Hsin-hsing, Sen{. yung, P'ei Hsuan-cheng, and other San-chieh-chiao followers If it is true that P' ei Hsuan-cheng came from such a powerf~l family, it would help to explain both the early power of the. San-chieh-chiao and .their revival in t~e early ~'ang dynasty; Unfortunately, there IS no further mentIOn of thIS memorial in any of the catalogues.

The next mention of a 594 stele for Hsin-hsing dates from the Sung dynasty, in the famous Chin shih lu of Chao Mingch'eng:

(II) "No.496. Sui Hsin-hsing chJan shih pei, first month of the four-teenth year ofK'ai-huang."13 i

A similar memorial with the date of 594 is also mentioned several catalogues ofthe late 19th and early 20th centuries:

(III) Chin shih tsJui pien pu mu: "Seng Hsin-hsing tJa mingo Fourteenth year ofK'ai-huang, in Ch'ang-an."14 (IV) Chun ku lu. 15

(V) Pu huan yu fang pei lu: "Seng Hsin-hsing tJa ming, regular script, Fourteenth year ofK'ai-huang. Shan-hsi Ch'ang-an."16 (VI) Kuanchung chin shih wen tzu tzun i eao: "Hsin-hsing chJan shih tJa mingo Regular script, fourteenth year of K'ai-huang. Missing. Text not seen ... the memorial is said to be in Shan-hsi Hsian [Ch'ang-an], but on investigation has long been 10st."17 (VII) Ku shih hui mu: "Seng Hsin-hsing chJan shih tJa mingo Regular script. Fourteenth year ofK'ai-huang. Shan-hsi Ch'ang-an."IB

All of these records give the same year (K'ai-huang 14), and they give the location as Hsi-an, Shan-hsi, or Ch'ang-an, which would be accurate if they are referring to the memorial erected at Chung Nan-shan, Ch'ang-an prefecture. Again, all give the title as the "Hsin hsing tJa ming," or "stiipa memorial." Thus, Kanda!9 and Yabuki20 both felt that all refer to the same


rnenJ.Orial, that composed by Pei Hsuan-cheng. Both fur~her sert that they all are records of one of the extant memonals,

:fhe Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch Ja~ shih ming ~Ja pei. There is, h~wever, .•.... hother group of records concermng a stupa-memonal for ~sin-hsing which, as Tsukamoto has pointed out, more clearly . orresponds to the extant Ku ta Hsin-hsing chJan shih ming fa pei .8ernoriaPl This record is found in four places:

(VIII) Ho shou hsin pei mu: "Fa-lung ssu (east of Shih-lin ts'un, in NW [T'ang-yin] province, 20 li). Ku ta Hsin-hsing chJan chih tJa ming pei. Regular script, the first month of K'ai-yuan 14. A note in regular script on the left side of the memorial says that in Chen-yuan 20 (804) the stupa was re-worked."22

(IX) Ho shou chin shih mu, in the section on T'ang-yin province: "Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming tJa pei. Regular script, first month ofK'ai-huang 14. On the left side ofthe stone in regular script is a note that the stiijJa was re-worked in the 20th year of Chen-yuanoftheT'ang (804) ... West [T'ang-yin] province, 20 Ii to the west of Shih-lin ts'un, Ching-lung ssu." 23

(X) Chui hsueh tJang ho shou pei k'e pa wei: "Sui Ku ta Hsin-hsing chJan shih ming tJa pei. The memorial was erected in the first month ofthe fourteenth year ofK'ai-huang." 24

(XI) Hsunyuan chin shih wen tzu pa wei: "Sui Hsin hsing ch'an shih pei pa. Title in seal characters. Regular script, 29 lines, 47 characters per line. Although there is no date for when the stone was erected, the text states that the Master died in the first month of K'ai-huang 14 at the Chen-chi ssu ... which establishes the date the memorial was erected. The stone is in the Fa-lung ssu, east of Shih-lin ts'un, 20 li to the west, in NW T'ang-yin province." 25

.; We can see that three of these records agree on the title and all ':'.give the year as K'ai-huang 14. (VIII), (IX), and (XI) give the 'it location as the Fa-lung ssu (emend Ching to Fa in IX) near Shih.,lin ts'un in the province ofT'ang-yin (near modern An-yang in f.,. northern Hunan province), an area close to Hsin-hsing's birth :'place, not an unlikely spot for a memorial. Thus, there are at ~)east two memorials for Hsin-hsing that have been recorded as

erected in the first month ofK'ai-huang 14, one at Chung Nan-?shan, which possibly corresponds to the memorial composed

'by P'ei Hsuan-cheng, and one in T'ang-yin. This contention is /'>, ,j

~,~i,::',"


support.ed ~y the f~ct ~hat ~u Pien-kuang recorded both th~,\ Seng Hszn hszng t'a mzng III Ch ang-an (VII) and the Ku tal! '.;: hsing ch)an shih m.ing t'a pei in T'ang-yin C~III). If we admi~l~f;t only one memonal, then we have to say eIther that Ku made;:: mistake in one of his entries (as Kanda feels, p. 357), or Possibtr' that ~is record of a stele ir: Ch'ar:g-an was simply "hearsay,~: that IS, based on records m prevIOus catalogues rather tha~ actual examination. There remains, however, confusion about',' whic~ of these records r~fers to t?e extant s~o?-e, or the rUbbing> of thIS stone. Let us brIefly reVIew the opIllIOns advanced by· .. ·· the four eminent scholars who have dealt with the issue.

Kanda wrote in 1922 that there was only one stele, erected in 594 and composed by P' ei Hsuan-cheng, that this is the stele referred to by records (I) through (VIII), and that it is the. stone from which the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei rubbing was made. 26 Yabuki, in 1927, agreed with Kanda, but felt that record (VIII) referred to a different s~ele than (I) through (VII).27 In their 1929 on-site study of Chinese Buddhist monu-. ments, Tokiwa Daijo and Sekino Tadashi put this memorial) under the Pai-t'a ssu, Chung-mi.n shan, Ch'ang-an prefecture"'

'"" the site of Hsin-hsing's reliquary and those of many of his fol-, lowers. Although this is reminiscent of the memorial composed} by P' ei Hsuan-cheng, they concluded based on internal evi- . dence (see below) that this memorial was composed qfter the persecution of the San-chieh-chiao but before Chung-nan shan became a popular burial site for Hsin-hsing's followers. This would put it sometime after 600, the date of the first suppression, and before the name of the site was changed to Pai-t'a ssu in 767. 28 Tsukamoto added much to the discussion in a 1937 article which drew attention to records (IX), (X), and (XI); he concluded that the extant rubbing is really from the stone in T'ang-yin province but ventures nothing about the date of the stele. 29

In trying to sort out all of these conflicting records and theories, it quickly becomes evident that the only real problem is to determine the location of the original stone from which the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch)an shih ming t'a pei rubbing was made and when that memorial was composed. That is, unless Ku and the, others who recorded a stele in Ch'ang-an were simply basing themselves on tradition and there actually was no memorial in ,


jf~,bh'ang~an or the stone was later. carried to T'ang-yin, we must j~\4;dude that the stele recorded m (II) through (VII) and that ~~;;?S?~rred to in (VIII) through (XI) are two different memorials, ~"!H;r~eat Chung Nan-shan, Ch'ang-an province (whi<::h probably i/7;;;?Urresponds to that recorded in the Hsu kao seng chuan) , and r~g;C~other, the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, in T'ang-yin. ~i~l,~Iso, as the reco~d in the Ch~n ;~ih.,fu gives no 10~~tion ~or}he {:r'ri1emorial (~nd sImply calls It pet rat~er tha~ t'a .mmg or )&ining fa pet") we have no way of knowmg whIch thIS record ;'):Xefers to. \::/". It is obvious, however, that the memorial in T'ang-yin-Dr~corded in (VIII), (IX), (X), and (XI)-corresponds to the t\";fubbing extant today. Not only do the titles of (VIII), (IX), Pand(X) match the title ofthe rubbing, but the number oflines :(29) and characters per li.ne \47) .oft.he ru~bing are e~actly ~s

?~\described by Fan Shou-mmg m hIS discusslOn of the T ang-ym ·'memorial. Further, the details of the text described by Ch' en ~.(X) and Fan (XI) match the extant inscription. Finally, aJ:(~:though it is well known that Tao-hsuan made good use of earlier ';';\'sources in compiling his Hsu kao seng chuan, there is no evidence ::!nHsin-hsing's biography of any literary dependence on the Ku

• ('fa Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming fa pei. This is particularly signifi';cant in view of the fact that Tao-hsuan resided on Chung-nan :~han, the site of Hsin-hsing's reliquary, and would almost cer

, •. tainly have seen the P' ei Hsuan-cheng memorial. 30 Indeed, l . .true to form, Tao-hsuan based his biography of Seng-yung; a ,dose follower ofHsin-hsing, very closely on Seng-yung's mem

'.orial stele, erected next to Hsin-hsing's stele on Chung-nan shan (see below). Thus, it seems clear that the memorial described in (VIII), (IX), (X), and (XI) cOITesponds to the

"extant rubbing; it was in T'ang-yin, at least at the time it was recorded in the these catalogues; and it is most likely not the memorial composed by P'ei Hsuar~-cheng.31 The fact that in

'. their on-site study of Chinese temples, steles, and other Buddhist artifacts, Tokiwa Daijo and Sekino Tadashi have recorded the stele under the Pai-t'a ssu of Chung-nan shan in Ch'ang-an 'yrefecture must be dismissed as a mistake, generated by following the opinions ofYabuki and Kanda too closely.32

As for the date of the T' ang-yin stone, although at least one record states that it was erected in K'ai-huang 14, this must


have been extrapolated from the text of the memorial, follow_ ing the same reasoning as Fan did in (XI)-since the date of the stone is not actually given. The following evidence suggest that the memorial was copied from an earlier stone, probabl; in Chen-yuan 20 (804):

l) Records (VIII) and (IX) state that the stupa was re- . worked in Chen-yuan 20, a period ofSan-chieh-chiao revivaP3

2) As Tokiwa noted, the last few lines of the memorial definitely indicate that it was composed some time after the· death of Hsin-hsing, after the San-chieh-chiao had undergone persecution: "The stupa lay in the mud, like a grave overgrown and entangled with matted hair. Fearing that as the world changes and the years pass, when [Hsin-hsing'sJ body and name are gone, the old will spread lies and the young will not hear [of him], we have briefly recorded his virtues on this stele so that the future will know that his relics are here."34 There are also, however, several points which indicate an early date of composition:

3) According to the memorial, Hsin-hsing is from Weichou rather than Wei-chun, as given in the Hsu kao seng chuan biography. One of the first administrative reforms carried out by the first Sui Emperor (in 583) was to change the administrative unit from chun to chou, a policy which was extended to Southern China in 589. Yang-ti, however, changed the unit back to chun in 607. 35 Although not an absolute determiner, the fact that the memorial uses chou rather than chun indicates either that it was composed between 594 and 607, during a period in which chou was the official usage; if not that, then the author of the memorial looked back to the geographic names as used at the time of Hsin-hsing's death to describe his birth. I t would also mean that the place names that they used were not those current when the stele was composed. On the other hand, Tao-hsuan used Wei-chun in his Hsu kao seng chuan.

4) When we compare the passages describing Hsin-hsing's death in the memorial and the Hsu kao seng chuan, we find that although the wording is similar, the former says he died at the .. Chen-chi ssu and the latter gives the Hua-tu ssu. Now, the Chen-chi ssu, established by the famous statesman Kao-chiung in 583, was the residence of Hsin-hsing from the time he arrived in the capital until his death in 594, and it later became


the headqua~ters 0: the wel~-known Inexhaustibl~ Storehouse fthe San-chIeh-chlao. At thIS later date, however, It was known ~sthe Hua-tu ssu, the name having been changed in 619. 36

Thus, the memorial again uses terminology from the Sui, where the Hsu kao seng chuan uses . terminology current during the Tang, suggesting the earlier composition of the memorial.

5) Although the memorial contains the above lines suggesting a later composition, it also contains much which, while hagiographic, betrays no feeling of persecution, e.g., "[After lIsin-hsing's death] the famous monks of India grieved from afar, while nearby the nobles in the palace lamented," etc. 37

The details and general tone of the memorial all reinforce the ~ense that it was composed at a time not too distant from Hsinhsing's death (compare the memorial of 706, the Hsin-hsing ck'an shih hsing chiao pei-discussed below-which is largely ceremonial and devoid ofbiographic detail). , 6) Finally, the memorial lists the Tui ken chi hsing jeh fo in

more than thirty chuan and the San chieh fo fo in four chuan as Hsin-hsing's compositions, a literary tradition predating the composition of the Ta chou lu in 695.

To sum up, the Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming fa pei rubbing is that of a stele in T'ang-yin province, probably composed in the 20th year of Chen-yuan, based on an earlier memorial or biography. Although Tokiwa recorded the memorial as though it is at the Pai-t'a ssu, this must be rejected. Finally, if the records of a stele in Ch' ang-an were based on actual examination rather than mere hearsay or previous records, then we may hope that this memorial will be made public and another source of information for the study of the San-chieh-chiao will surface.

There is one more memorial recorded as having been composed in K'ai-huang 14:

(XII) Paa k'e ts'ung pien: "Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ch'uanJa pei, composed by the monk Fa-ch'en, K'ai-huang 14."38

Another record of the same stele gives Fa-lin, not Fa-ch'en, as the author:


(XIII) "During the past Chen-kuan era Yueh Wancr-ch erected the Hsing chiao shuo fo pei and others. Shih Fa-lin alen composed the Ch'uanfa pei."39 So

To the best of my knowledge,. there is no mention in any of the various biographies of eminent monks of a Fa-ch'en. Tsuka_ moto noted the record ofFa-ch'en but, not disturbed by the discrepancy between the names, confidently stated that the Fa-lin of the Chen-yuan lu record refers to the well-known Fa-lin who wrote the Pien cheng lun and several other works. He gives as one reason the fact that Fa-lin (572-640) resided at the Lung-t'ien· ssu on Chung-nan shan. 40 However, according to his biography in the Hsu kao seng chuan) 41 it was only in 627 that Fa-lin established his temple on Chung-nan shan, and in 594 he was sequestered on Ch'ing-ch'i shan, thus making it difficult to assume that he is the author ofXn and XIII.42 There is, however, a much more likely candidate for the author of this memorial, namely, Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu, a temple very close to the site ofHsin-hsing's memorial stele.

According to the Hsu kao seng chuan, Ch'ing-yiian first built the Chih-hsiang ssu on Chung-nan shan.43 Now, Ch'ing-yuan is well known as the teacher of Chih-cheng (559-639), who was in turn the teacher of Chih-yen (602-668), the second Hua-yen patriarch and Fa-tsang's teacher. Although Ch'ingyuan's biography only mentions Fa-lin briefly, it states that after Ch'ing-yuan died,Fa-lin erected a stiipa and an inscription. If we follow record XIII and emend Fa-ch'en found in record XII to Fa-lin, which seems not unreasonable, it would refer to Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu. This theory gains even

. more strength in light of the fact that Chih-yen was influenced by the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao and that the Chihhsiang ssu is so close to the Pai-ta ssu (site ofHsin-hsing's stiipa and memorial) as to make both Yabuki and Tsukamoto wonder if they are not the same place.44 And, finally, Tokiwa Daijo has speculated on the possiblity that Hsin-hsing was influenced by Ling-yu, which would further strengthen the argument that the same Fa-lin wrote the memorial for Hsin-hsing and for Ch'ing-yiianY The lineage would then look like this:


Ling-yu (5l6~605)

HSin-hsin~Ch'ing-YUan (544-611) .. ,,~

Fa-lin Chih-cheng (559-639) ~,/

Chih-yen (602-668)

f Fa-tsang

Thus, if we assume that the Ch'ang-an memorial corresponds ~o that of P'ei Hs~an-cheng, we have. three different memonals recorded as havmg been composed m 594, the year bfHsin-hsing's death. Of these, only the last, (XII), gives the ~uthor.Further, if it is true that the original of the extant Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei was in Tang-yin rather than Ch'ang-an, then we still do not have the memorial composed by Hsin-hsing's disciple and mentioned in his biography.

B. Tang Memorials for Hsin-hsing

The next group of records concerns the memorials erected by Li Chen, son of the Emperor Tai-tsung. Returning again to the Sung dynasty Chin shih lu, we find the following:

XII. "No. 866. Tang Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, initial. Composed by Chen, Prince ofYueh. Regular script by Hsiieh-chi." "No. 867. T'ang Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, final. [Written] in the 8th month of the 2nd year of Shen-lung (706). Both the stone and the back are in the district of Ch'ang-an, eight Ii northwest."46

Li Chen was a rather insignificant son ofT'ai-tsung, far overshadowed in history by his brother Kao-tsung. In 643 he was

governor of Hsiang-chou, a post he held until 653. a period as military governor of An-chou, he again

served as governor of Hsiang-chou from 670 to 674.47 One can surmise that it was here, in Hsin-hsing's homeland, that


Li Chen encountered the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao. At . any rate, apparently dissatisfied with the doings of Empre

Wu, he raised the banner of revolt in 688 and died the sa~s year. The man responsible for the calligraphy, Hstieh-ch~ (649-713), was quite well known, and, because of his involve_ ment in the forging of the Fo shuo shih so fon che )!u ch 'ieh fo ching can tentatively be considered a follower or at least sympathize; of the San-chieh-chiao. 48 Interestingly, Hstieh-chi also Was forced to commit suicide in 713, following the failure of a plot to poison Hsuan-tsung. 49 This memorial is also recorded in the following Sung dynasty catalogue:

XIII. Chi ku lu mu: "Tang li Sui Hsin-hsing ch'an shih hsing chiao pei. Composed by Chen, Prince of Yueh ... written by Hsuehchi ... erected in the second year of Shen-lung, eighth month."so

Although these records give the dateas 706, this is somewhat problematic, as Li-cheng died eighteen years before, in 688. Yabuki (pp. 26-27, 32) felt that although Yueh wrote the memorial, because of the persecution of the San-chieh-chiao at the hands of Empress Wu as well as Li's own uprising against her, the memorial could not actually be erected until some time later, that is, in 706. The K'aiyuan lu quotes a similar title, the San chieh hsing chiao pei, adding that it mentions forty chuan (of San-chieh-chiao works) without enumerating the titles. 51 Since the extant text mentions none ofHsin-hsing's works, this record might have been included on the missing back of the memorial. Although we can see the continuing influence of the San-chiehchiao in the fact that a member of the royal family took such an interest in Hsin-hsing, it is the calligraphy by Hstieh-chi that has ignited the interest of scholars. Fortunately, a rubbing of this memorial has been preserved, and is readily available today through reprints. 52

In addition to this memorial, there is another memorial composed by Li Chen which, although not known to be extant, has been recorded in many catalogues, beginning yet again with the Chin shih lu: 53

(XIV) No. 841. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 1. Composed by Chen, Prince of Yueh. Written in the pa-fin style by Chang T'ing-kuei.


No. 842. Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 2.


No. 844: Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei, 4.



That the "Chou" of the title refers to the reign of Empress Wu is supported by records in two other catalogues, the (XV) PaD k'e ts'ung pien and the (XVI) Pao k'e lui pien, which, in addition to specifying that this memorial was erected during Empress Wu's reign, give the location as Ch'ang-an. 54 Yabuki (p.27) has reasoned that if the "Chou" is taken to mean Wu's reign in general, then it is possible that this memorial was erected during Li Chen's lifetime, as he didn't die until 688. Otherwise, as "Chou" was not actually adopted as the dynastic title until 690, the memorial probably would have been erected between 690 and 695, the year in which she suppressed the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao. There are, however, records of Empress Wu's continued support of the San-chieh-chiao even after this suppression, which mitigates this explanation.55

Yabuki's reasoning also runs afoul of his explanation regarding the other memorial composed by Li and erected in 706. That is, why would Wu allow a memorial composed by a rebel to be erected at all? Or, if she did, why allow one to be erected and not the other? A Yuan dynasty record of a memorial by Li, written in the pa-fen style by ChangT'ing-kuei, further muddies the issue by giving a different location (in ancient Hsiangchou), leading Tsukamoto to the conclusion that there were at least two different memorials with this title. 56

At any rate, we can see that Li was possibly a follower of the teachings of Hsin-hsing. These various records also tell us that the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao were popular in what is modern-day Honan as well as the capital area ofCh'ang-an, in which Hsin-hsing spent his later days.

Two more records of memorials for Hsin-hsing are noteworthy because they link Yuan-chao, author of the Chen yuan lu, with the San-chieh-chiao. 57 First is a record in the Ta fang chen yuan hsu k'ai yuan shih chiao lu, listed among Yuanchao's own writings:


(XVIII) "Ta TJang tsai hsiu Sui ku eh 'uan fo kao seng HSin-hsi eh 'an shih t'a pei, five ehuan."S8 ng

Th . f T' " k·" f . e mentIOn o· a ang re-wor mg. 0 a stiipa memorial reminds one of (VIII) and (IX) above, as well as the Chin shih lu record listed below.

The second mentions a three-c!zuan memorial for Hsin-hsing also listed among Yuan-chao's writings in his biography: '

(XIX) Sui ch'uan fo kao seng Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei. Three chuan."S9

HYuan-chao was a follower of the San-chieh-chiao, it would help to clarify the literary history of the San-chieh-chiao as well as indicate, as so much else does, that the sect found support among the highest levels ofSui-T'ang orthodoxy.

One final record which bears noting is again from the· Chin shih lu:

(XX) "No. 1448. Tang tsai hsiu Hsin-hsing ch'an shih t'a pei. Composed by Yii I, written by Chang Ch'u-chao in the hsing style. Intercalary third month, sixth year ofTa Ii (771) ."60

As a "Temple of One-Hundred Stiipas" was recorded as having been built in 767 (or 771) on the site of the Hsin-hsing t'ayuan, it would not be unlikely to have a re-working ora stiipa memorial at the same time.

C. Memorials fir San-chieh-chiao Followers

1. Hua-tu ssu ku Seng-yung ch'an shih t'a ming

This commemorative stele for Seng-yung, one of Hsin-hsing's closest disciples, was erected in Chen-kuan 5 (631-2), to the right of Hsin-hsing's stiipa on Chung-nan shan. The memorial has received considerable scholarly attention because the writing was done by Ou Yang-hsun, a well known calligrapher. 61

Unfortunately, neither the stone nor a complete rubbing of the stone remains today, although the text of the memorial has been preserved in the Chin shih ts'ui pien, and the Ch'uan t'ang wen. 62

Although there are many missing characters and flaws in the


'rious rubbings, because the text of this memorial served as '~he basis of ~eng-yung's ~iography in the Hsu kao seng chuan, this can help III the correctIOn of the stele text.

··2. Kuang-ming ssu Hui-liao t'a ming

This memorial is the only source of information about this disciple of Hsin-hsing. 63 According to a note in the Chin shih hsu pien, the stele is in Sh~n-hsi Hsi-an, C~lUn?-nan shan, and is slightly damaged. ThIs would place It WIth the stupas and memorials of Hsin-hsing and other San-chieh-chiao followers, lhd corroborates the information given in the memorial itself. There is also a note which says that the memorial was lost until ;1796. One other interesting point is that the text states that Hui-liao was chosen by Hsiao Yii (575-648: a trusted minister 6fT'ai-tsung) as one of three "monks of great virtue," and suminoned to court to discuss the Dharma. This indicates that the San-chieh-chiao was back in favor with the court at this point. One also wonders about the role of Hsiao Yii, an important Iloble of the imperial family of the Liang dynasty and wellknown patron of Buddhism.

3. Tz'u-jun ssu ku ta Ling-ch'en ch'an shih t'a ming wen

Although the stone is no longer extant, the text has been preserved. According to the inscription, after meeting Hsin-hsing, Ling-ch'en (554-628) studied "the Buddha Dharma which accords with the capacity," a clear reference to the teachings of the San-chieh-chiao. 64

4. Seng-shun ch'an shih she li t'a ming

Although this memorial, erected in 639, does not specifically state that Seng-shun was a San-chieh-chiao follower, it does say that he followed the "Buddha Dharma which accords with the capacity," universal respect, recognizing evil in oneself, practiced the dhiltas, was buried according to the rules for "forest burial," (i.e., his body was left as an offering for the beasts and the remains were later gathered and enshrined), etc., all of which are characteristics of the San-chieh-chiao. 65

268 JIABS VOL. 14 NO.2·

5. Hua-tu ssu Seng-hai chJan shihfen chi

This is a very short (53 characters) memorial for the San_ chieh-chiao monk Seng-hai. The memorial is mentioned in several catalogues, and the text is included in the Yung chou chi shih chi. 55 The stone is said to be located at the Pai-t'a ssu, sit:' of many San-chieh-chiao steles, including that of Hsin-hsing: As Yabuki notes, given that the memorial records Seng-hai's age as 66 when he died in 654, he most likely was not a direct disciple ofHsin-hsing.

6. Tao-an chJan shih t)a chi

This memorial for Tao-an has been recorded in many catac

logues. 57 According to these records, the stone is located at the Pai-t'a ssu, site of Hsin-hsing's stele. The memorial records that he died in 668 at 61 at the Chao-ching kung ssu, a Sah~ chieh-chiao temple in Ch'ang-an. There are no other records

. of Tao-an, although a monk named Tao-an took part in the forging of the Fo shuo shih so fon che yu ch Jieh fo ching ching some 45 years later.

7. Ching-yu ssuku ta te Fa-tsang chJan shih tJa ming

Fa-tsang, of the Ching-yu ssu, a one-time temple of the Sanchieh-chiao, is well-known for his activities as imperiallyappointed controller of the Inexhaustible Storehouse. According to this memorial, Fa-tsang was appointed "controller" of a newly inaugurated Inexhaustible Storehouse at the Fu-hsien ssu (the "family temple" of Empress Wu) in the 1st year ofJu-i (April 22-0ctober 22,692); he was later appointed controller of the original Inexhaustible Storehouse at the Hua-tu ssu during the Ch'ang-an period (November 15, 70l-January 29, 705).68 Fa-tsang appears to have been a relatively important monk of this period, for in addition to his appointments as controller of the Inexhaustible Storehouse, his memorial tells us that he was also declared "monk of great virtue" of the Chien-fu ssu during the same period. Although the tributes written in a memorial stele must always be received with a grain of salt, the mention of Fa-tsang's being "superior in the [ascetic practice] of the dhiitas," "not eating food that was not [received] from begging,"


:tc. bespeak a virtuous monk engaged in traditional San}\i~h-chiao practices. This is also supported by Professor ~forte's conclusion that "even in the case of the foundation of the ... Fu-hsien monastery, which was called T'ai-yuan origi

;paUy, founded in 675 by Wu Chao in honor of her mother who had died five years earher, Wu Chao took care to choose monks for her monastery from amongst the most eminent qf the time (em- . . phasis added)."69 Although orig~nally. at the P'ai-ta-ssu, the

,stele is now at the Forest ofSteles III HSI-an. Other memorial stdes for followers of the San-chieh-chiao

have been recorded but no longer exist (e.g., the memorials for Ching-ming and P'ei Hsuan-cheng, see above); epigraphical records of monks of the Hua-tu ssu and other temples iden-tified with the San-chieh-chiao have been found, but given the fact that at this time Chinese temples were not organized along

\sectarian lines we cannot positively identify these monks as .San-chieh-chiao followers. 70

D. Conclusion

Through this overview of the various steles and memorials, .We can see that the San-chieh-chiao was not solely a movement of the masses, as their stress on mo-fo has led some scholars to conclude. There were at least seven memorial steles dedicated to Hsin-hsing, and another seven for other San-chieh-chiao fol-lowers. Given the literary nature of the enterprise and the means required to erect such a stele, this number alone tells us something of their resources. Further, of the memorials for Hsin-hsing, two were done by an imperial prince (XIII and XIV) and two by the author of the Chen yuan lu (XVIII and XIX). Record I indicates that a member of the highly placed P'ei family composed the memorial, and XII-XIII boast the work of a famous calligrapher, as does the memorial for Hsin

. hsing's disciple, Seng-yung. Fa-tsang's .stele clearly shows the

. the imperial favor granted the most important San-chieh-chiao institution ofthe Inexhaustible Storehouse (and Fa-tsang himself). We should also remember that the early patron of the movement was Kao-chiung, perhaps the most well-known and influential statesman of the Sui dynasty.


, Given the nature and process of writing history, it is to be wondered what would give evidence of the peasant SUpport ,', involvement so often mentioned in connection with the Sao~ chieh-chiao. The only records which indicate involvement wi.~ other than the court elite are those relating to the charitabl activities of the Inexhuastible Storehouse. Even these recordse

however, seem more concerned with the activities of the donors' who "vied with one another in their donations so that orde; could not be maintained. They left entire carts of money and silks, and after having donated their valuables and silks they would leave without even making their names known."7! Given that the focus of activity was the merit-making of the donors this is not surprising. Thus, although the lack of evidence is not conclusive, we still must recognize that the epigraphical records of the San-chieh-chiao, one of the most significant bodies of source material for studying their history, support the contention that they should not be construed solely as a mass or popular movement. Perhaps this indicates another way in which the elite / popular distinction simply is no longer adequate, and it is to be hoped that the many steles, inscription catalogues, and the like will come to be more widely used in Buddhist research in all fields.

NOTES

1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the VI th International Conference of the International Association for Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, Japan (1983). I am grateful to Prof. Antoninio Forte for his comments on both verSIOns.

2. Gregory Schopen, "Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions," in Indo-Iranian Journal 21 (1979); "The Inscription on the Ku~an Image of Amitabha and the Character of the Early Mahayana in India," in The Journal if the International Association if Buddhist Studies, vol. 10, no. 2 (1987).

3. Silvio Vita, "Tang Epigraphical Sources and Buddhist Hagiography: The Role of Literati," unpublished manuscript presented to the Ninth International Conference of the The International Association of Buddhist Studies (Taipei, 1989).

4. Jamie Hubbard. "Perfect Buddhahood, Absolute Delusion. The Universal Buddha of the San-chieh-chiao" in Griffiths & Keenan, ed" Buddha Nature: A Festschrift in Honor if Minoru Kiyota (Buddhist Books International: Reno, 1990).


5. Schopen, "The Amitabha Inscription," p. lOI. 6. The original study of the San-chieh-chiao memorials is that of Kanda

"Sangaikyo ni Kansuru Zui-To no Kohi" in Bukkyo Kenkyii, vol. 3, nos. and vol. 4, no. 2. See also Yabuki Keiki, Sangaikyo no Kenkyii (Iwanami 1927, reprint), pp. 23-33.

7. Both of these are reprinted in Kanda, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3 and vol. 3, respectively. 8. For example, Kimura has written, "The Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih

I'a pei, which is thought to contain the inscription of Hsin-hsing's disciple all·'c.".C. ... ,"" is believed to be the most authoritative among the extant his

records [regarding the San-chieh-chiao]." "Shingyo no Jikikan to sono " Nippon Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo, no. 49, p. 172.

9. T50.560a. 10. T.50.560a-b; Ch'en-ssu, Pao k'e ts'ung pien (Sung dynasty, included in

Shih k'e shih liao) , chuan 7, p. 19. Although we don't know when he died, their record ofa P'ei Hsiian-cheng memorial erected in 634. Cf. the Chin shih lu,

ho.570; Pao k'e ts'ung pien, chuan 7, p. 19. 11. Tsukamoto Zenryii "Zoku Sangaikyo Shiryo Zakki," in Shina Bukkyo

vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 98-102. 12. Ibid, p. 99. 13. Chao Ming-cheng, Chin shih lu, chuan 3, p. 5 (included in the Chin shih shu, Shanghai, 1888; see also the. Shih k'e shih fiao hsin pien, Taipei, 1978,

8814) . 14. Fei Pen-chi, Chin shih ts'ui pien pu mu (1851, included in the Chu hsueh ts'ung shu, 1897), chuan 1, p. 7. 15. Cf. Kanda, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 352. 16. Chao Tzu-ch'ien, Pu huan yu fang pei lu (included in the Shih k'e shih

liao hsin pien, p. 20216), chuan 2, p. 21. 17. Mao Feng-chih, Kuan chung chin shih wen tzu tz'un i k'ao (1901, included

in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 10359), chuan 1, p. 7. The last comment is rather curious. If this is true, one wonders what records (II), (III), and (IV)

based on. Kanda, op. cit., feels that Mao simply hadn't known of the redisof the stone.

18. Ku Hsieh-kuang, Ku shih hui mu, (1920), chuan 1, p. 12. 19. "Sangaikyo," p:- 353, p. 357. 20. P 25, p. 31, note 4. 21. Tsukamoto Zenryii, "Sangaikyo Shiryo Zakki" in Shinabukkyo Shigaku,

vol. 1, nos. 1-2, pp. 67-69. 22. Ku Hsieh-kuang, Ho shuo hsin pei mu, (1919, included in the Feijufii

hsia tsai chin shih ts'ung cho, 1916-1927), chuan 2, p. 15. The entry in this catalogue has caused some confusion. Although this entry is contained in chronological

. catalogue (the second chuan) , the 1st chuan, arranged by location, gives a slightly different entry for what must be the same memorial (p. 5): VIIIb: "Ku ta Hsinhsing ch 'an shih ming t'a pei. Regular script, [erected in 1 the first month of Kaihuang 14. Tang yin. A note in regular script, on the left side of the memorial, says that in T'ang Chen-yiian 20 (647) the stupa was re-worked." Now, between these two entries in the same catalogue we see that the name of the memorial is


slightly different and one gives Kai-yuan 14 and the other K'ai-huang 14. Gi the information in the extant rubbing, there can be no doubt that both ~~n name and the date should be as given in the first chuan. I don't know why, but. ~ their quote of this catalogue (from the record in 'the first chuan) Yabuki (p. 2~i and Tsuka~oto (p. 66) give Chen-kuan.20 (647!,. whereas my edition of the catalogue gIves Chen-yuan 20 (804), as dId the edItIOn that Kanda used. DnD tunately, none of.these scholars listed which. edition ofthecat~logue they us~d:

23. Ku HSIeh-kuang and Fan Shou-mmg, Ho shuo chzn shzh mu, (Shangh -: . al. Tien hua yin wu kuan, 1930), chuan 3, p. 1.

24. Ch'en Han-cheng, Chui hsueh Tang ho shou pei k'e pa wei (1933 appended to the Hsun yuan chin shih wen tzu pa wei, which is included in the Shih·. k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 14485), chuan 2, p. 6.

25. From the Hsun yuan chin shih wen tzu pa wei of Fan Shou-ming (1934 included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 14477), chuan 2, p. 7. '

26. Kanda, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 351-352, pp. 355-358. 27. Yabuki, p. 25 and p. 31, note 4. 28. Tokiwa Daijo and Sekino Tadashi, Shina Bukkyo Shiseki Hyokai (Tokyo:

Bukkyo Shiseki Kenkyukai, 1931), vol. 1, p. llO. 29. Tsukamoto, "Zatsuki" I, p. 68. 30. In his biography of Hsin-hsing, Tao-hsuan states that he went to the

Chih-hsiang ssu, the site of the Pei Hsuan-cheng stele. T.50.560a. 31. Tsukamoto, "Zakki," 1, p. 68. Of course, the possibility remains that

the T'ang-yin stele is a copy of the P'ei Hsuan-cheng memorial. 32. On close examination of their entry for this stele it can be seen that it

is not based on actual examination of the stone, as with most other entries in the work, but rather on "projection." That is, although the photo-copy, text, and description of the stele are all listed together with a photo of the Pai-t'a ssu, it is never explicitly stated that the stone is located there, neither the exact location within the Pai-t'a ssu nor the physical dimensions of the stone are recorded, and the photo is of the rubbing of the stele, not the actual stone. Given these facts and the rather detailed statements of the above records, I think that Tokiwa, having obtained a rubbing or copy of the rubbing, and based on Hsih-hsing's biography in the Hsu kao seng chuan (or, more likely, on Kanda's andYabuki's conclusions), rather fancifully "projected" the location of the stele to be at the Pai-t'a ssu. A visit to the Chung-nan shan area in the summer of 1983 in search of Hsin-hsing's stiipa and memorial stone produced no results, although one local informant, who claimed to remember the reliquary, said that it was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and the stones used to build a grain storehouse.

33. Tsukamoto, basing himself on an edition of VIII that gives Chenkuan 20 as the date of the re-working has also shown a similar confusion between Chen-yuan and Chen-kuan with regard to the date of the founding of the Fa-lung ssu. Tsukamoto, pp. 66-67.

34. Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, Yabuki, p. 9. 35. Sui shu, chuan 3, p. 8b, chuan 28, pp. 22b-23a, 32a. 36. Ch'ang an shih, chuan 10, p. 9. 37. Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei, Yabuki, pp. 8-9.


38. Ch'en-ssu, Pao k'e ts'ung pien, op. cit., chuan 7, p. 19. 39. This is contained in the Ryukoku MS of the Chen yuan lu, chuan 30,

in Tsukamoto, "Zatsuki," 1, p. 64 . • ·mLl"'~--

Ibid. T.50.636b-639a. T.50.638a. Ch'ing-yuan's biography: T.50.511 b-512a; Chih-cheng's

T.50.536b-c. See also Kimura Kiyotaka, Shoki Chugoku Kegon Shisa Shunju-sha, 1977), pp. 380-382. Chih-yen's biography in the

yen ching chuan chi lists a Lin Fa-shih as his teacher. Kimura (p. 380) that this is a mistake for Ch'ing-lin (565-640), and dismisses the

that it could refer to Ching-yuan's disciple Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu ••• "U"J~] because there is no direct link to Chih-yen in the brief notes on Fa-lin :i6bntalIleu in Ch'ing-yuan's biography. Since Chih-yen lived at the Chih-hsiang

and supposedly studied with Chih-cheng, and since there is a record of a there as well, it seems much more probable to me that Lin Fa~snih refers

Fa-lin of the Chih-hsiang ssu. 43. T.50.511c. 44. Yabuki, p. 131; Tsukamoto, "Zoku Sangaikyo Shiryo Zakki," in Shina

Shigaku, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 99. Cf. Robert Gimello, Chih-yen and the FoundaBuddhism (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University,

p. 58, where he refers to the location of Hsin-hsing's stupa as the Chihssu.

45. Tokiwa Daijo, "Sangaikyo no Botai toshite no Hozan-ji" in Shukya vol. 4, no. 1, 1927.

46. Chin shih lu, chuan 5, p. 4 (Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 8826). 47. Yabuki, pp. 26-27, 32, 69. 48. Ibid. . 49. Twitchett, Dennis. The Cambridge History oj China (Cambridge: Cam

University Press, 1979), vol. 3 (Sui and Tang), p. 345. 50. Ou-yang Pei, Chi ku lu mu (Sung dynasty, included in the Chin shih

ts'ung shu, op. cit.), chuan 2, pp. 5-6. The Pao k'e ts'ung pien (op. cit., chuan 7, p. 23) and the Pao k'e lui pien (1781, included in the Ssu k'u chin shu chen pen pieh chi, Shanghai, 1934, chuan 2, p. 21; also in the Shih k'e shih liao pien, p. 18427) also recorded the same memorial, and more recently, Lo Chen-yu recorded the rubbing of

memorial in his Hsueh t'ang chin shih wen tzu pa wei (chuan 7, p. 23). He also that although the Chin shih lUeh (included in the Hsin k'e shih liao hsin pien,

18055) records that this stele has a bac.k (as does the Chin shih lu) this is now missing. A manuscript of the Chen yuan lu also mentions this memorial. Cf. Tsukamoto, "Zakki," II, p. 110.

51. T.55.679a. 52. The most accessible version of this text is that included in Kanda's

. article, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 562-564. According to Kanda, p. 561, the text is also recorded in the" Chi yu Tang pei lu of Wei Hsi-hui," and was published by the Yu cheng ts'ung chu of Shanghai as the "Hsueh shao pao Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei." . 53. Chin shih lu, chuan 5. p. 3 (op. cit., p. 8826),

54. Pao k'e ts'ung pien, op. cit., chuan 7, p. 23; Pao k'e lui pien, op, cit., chuan 2, p. 26 (Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, p. 18429).


55. Sometime during 701 and 703, for example, Wu appointed the S ;C·. chieh-chi. ao monk Fa-tsang controller of the Inexhaustible Storehouse at .ah

u-, H . Ch' t e· ua-tu ssu III ang-an. . .... ;/

56. XVII: Na-hsin, Ho shou fong ku chi (Yuan dynasty, included in th';j Chen i fang san chung, 1811), chuan 2, p. 16. Cf. Tsukamoto, "Sangaikyo Shi:, Zakki", op. cit., pp. 62-65. ryo

57. ::ltho~g~ not .included in the Tai~hO text, a manusc~ipt f~agmentoi' the Chen yuan hszn tzng shzh chzao mu lu (800) III the Ryukoku Umverslty Libra < records 35 works of the San-chieh-chiao in 44 chuan, with.a note that they ry, ; ordered back into the catalogue in on the 18th day of the 4th month of the year of the Chen-yuan era (800). For more on this important catalogue Jamie Hubbard, Salvation in the Final Period if the Dharma: the Inexhaustible Storehouse if the San-chieh-chiao (Ph.D dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison, 1986), pp. 180-188.

58. T.55.765a. 59. In the Sung kao seng chuan, T.50.805b. The Pao Pe ts'ung pien (chuan 7, p."

30) also contains a record of another stele which Yuan-chao composed for a monk of the Hua-tu ssu in 777. It hard to say without more evidence whether or not this monk was a follower of the San-chieh-chiao.

60. Chin shih lu, chuan 8 (op. cit., p. 8849); also recorded in the Pao k'e ts'ung pien, chuan 7, p. 29. Cf. the Fo tsu t'ung chi, T. 49.364a, T.49.473a. .

61. The best summary of the scholarship surrounding this stele, including a comparison of the various extant rubbings, is f~und in two articles by Nakada Yujiro: "Kedoji Soyu Zenji Tomei Kojiki," in Otani GakuhO, vol. 31, no. 1 (1952), and "Otankeibon Sotaku Kedojihi ni tsuite," in Otani GakuhO, vol. 33, no. 4 (1954). Cf. Kanda Kiichiro, op. cit., vol. 3 no. 3, pp. 358-364; Kanda Kiichiro, "Kedoji Tomei ni tsuite," in Shinagaku, vol. 2, no. 9, (Taisho II), pp. 52-58; Yabuki, pp. 40-43. Kanda, "Sangaikyo," and Yabuki both contain the text of the memorial.

62. Chin shih ts'ui pien, op. cit., chuan 43, pp. 15-19; Chuan t'ang wen, op. cit., chuan 143, pp. 5-8.

63. The text of the memorial is included in the Chin shih hsu pien, chuan 5, pp. 5-7 (included in the Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien); Kanda Kiichiro, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 364-366; Yabuki, pp.50-52.

64. Tsukamoto, "Zakki" #1, pp. 69-71. Tsukamotc.places Ling-ch'en in Hsiang-chou, so it is not hard to imagine that he would have actually met Hsinhsing.

65. Tsukamoto, ibid., pp. 71-75. 66. Chu, Feng. Yung chou chin shih chi, chuan 2, pp. 9-10; see also Kanda

Kiichiro, "Sangaikyo," vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 366-377; Yabuki, pp. 54-55. 67. Chin shih ts'ui pien, chuan 57, pp. 18-20; Yung chou chin shih chi, chuan 3, etc.

See also Kanda Kiichiro, "Sangaikyo," vol. 3, no. 3, p. 368; Yabuki, pp. 56-57. 68. The text of the memorial can be found in the Chin shih ts'ui pien, chuan

71, pp. 1 fr. Cf. Kanda Kiichiro, "Sangaikyo," vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 559-560; Yabuki, pp. 69-71; Tokiwa Daijo and Sekino Tadashi, Shina Bukkyo Shiseki, ~ol. 1, plate 61, and Shina Bukkyo Shiseki Hyokai, vol. 1, pp. 112-114.


69. Antonino Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the \~'1j Century (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1976), p. 113. In this section i fhis work Professor Forte examined the background of the various monks t: Ived in the Commentary on the Meaning of the Prophecy about Shen-huang in the Ta ;,~IlVo hing (previously thought to be an apocryphal version of the Ta yun ching) in ~Ua:r to show that they represented the orthodoxy of the time. One of the -?husts of his study is to show that the Buddhism of Empress Wu's time cannot ,~r considered the heretical impulses of a woman infatuated with a "false (o~nk" as has been the traditional interpretation. Although Forte has ~ige~ted (p. 166) that the s.uppression of the San-ch~eh-ch~ao du.ring Wu'.s ;feign indicates her concern wIth orthodoxy (the San-c~leh-chlao bemg heretl~al) it seems to me that her pa~ronag~ of the Inex.haustible Storehouse and Fatsang indicate that the San-chIeh-chlao was conSIdered part of the orthodoxy :'arid, as with the other suppressions, we must look elsewhere for the cause. For ornore on Empress Wu and the Three Stages, see also Antoninio Forte, "II «Moniistero Dei Grandi Chou» a Lo-yang," Annali dell'Istituto Orientale di Napoli, vol. 35; "The Relativity of the Concept of Orthodoxy in Chinese Buddhism: Chihsheng's Indictment of Shih-Ii and the Proscription of the Dharma Mirror Siitra," iiuChinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. by Robert Buswell (Honolulu: University of 'Hawaii Press, 1990).

- 70. For example, in addition to the memorial stele which he did for Hsinhsing, Yuan-chao composed a stele for another monk of the Hua-tu ssu in 777; 'there is no other evidence, however, to suggest that the monk in question was a ~follower ofHsin-hsing's teachings (Pao k'e ts'ung pien, chuan 7, p. 30).

71. Hubbard, Salvation, pp. 145-147.

GLOSSARY

ch'i shan W~ UJ Ch'ing-yuan m {)#!

Chang Ch'u-chao ~~~i§'

Chao-ching kung ssu JI:l1i~:b:-~

'Chen-chi ssu Jlt;jZ ~ Chih-cheng tp IE

:Chih-hsiang ssu ~t§~

Chih-yen tp~

Ching-ming w15


. Ching-yu ssu ku ta te Fa-tsang

ch'an shih t'a ming w~~;Jtz:*~a;j~ffrfi[gff]m£:g

Chou Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei pg] fa-fTffr!'j[gff]1ifIf. Ch'uan fa pei W$~!1f.

Chiln !~

Chung-nan shan ~ m lU

Fa-ch'en $** Fa-lin $3#

Fa-lung ssu $~~

Hsueh shao pao Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei i'W~'f3iH~1=rff~gmlil\!

Hsin -hsing fa- 11" Hsin-hsing ch'an shih hsing chiao pei fa-11"ffrffigff]~tf(1ifIf.

Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ch'uan fa pei {a-1=rffrffigff]~$1ifIf.

Hsin-hsing t'a yuan {a-rrm~

. Hsing ~

Hsueh-chi i'WfI Hua-tu ssu ku Seng-yung ch'an shih

t'a ming 1tm:~;Jtz:fi~ffr!'j[gff]m£:g

Hua-tu ssu Seng-hai ch'an shih fen chi 1tm:~fimffr!'j[gff]:ljlt~2

K'ai-huang 1JfJ~

Ku ta Hsin-hsing ch'an shih ming t'a pei 1tz:*{a-11"ffr!'j[gff]£:g:ti1iJl! Kuan-ming ssu Hui-liao t'a ming 7C IjFJ ~~cr m£:g

LiCheng *~

Lung-t'ien ssu ~~ EB~

Ming t'a pei £:gm1iflf. P'ei Chil ~~£

P'eiChu-tao ~Ji53i

P'ei Hsing-chien ~1=r{~

P'ei Hsuan-cheng ~k~


li;'i'~i-kung ~i:; :;li; . [\. ,',:~a-fen /\. 7J

',t~ai-t'a ssu Bii~ 'f~gih chieh hsing chiao pei :=: ~m ~ ii& Wf. :\Seng Hsin-hsing ch'an shih t'a ming 1i{aIT~JP.~mii~ ~Jds~ng Hsin-hsing t'a ming fWr{ai'Jii~t; mSeng-shun ch'an shih she Ii t'a ming 1i)I&t~JP.~m~f!Jii~t; :;~qSeng-yung 1i ~ iSJli ch'uan fa kao seng Hsin-hsing

J ch'an shih pei fflWi*rEJ1i{ai'J~JP.~mWf.

~'3Suiku ta Hsing-hsing ch'an shih

~'ming t'a pei ffli'&*{ai'J~JP.~m~:giiWf. ,';+a ming ii~:g ~'iT'a pei iiWf. ';'f'ang Hsin-hsing ch'an shih pei m1ai'J~JP.~mWf.

;T'ang Ii Sui Hsin-hsing ch'an shih hsing

chiao pei & JL ffl1a i'J ~~ ~m ~ itt Wf. . 'Tang tsai hsiu Hsin-hsing

ch'an chih t'a pei m:j3}~{ai'J~~~miiWf.

iTang-yin ~ ~

iTa T'ang tsai hsiu Sui ku ch'uan fa kao seng Hsin-hsing

ch' an shi t' a pei * & :j3} 1~ ffl i!td$i* rEJ 1i {a i'J *¥ ~m iiWf. iTao-an ch'an shih t'a chi ~'t(~JP.~mii~2

Tz'u-jun ssu ku ta Ling-ch'en

ch'an shih t'a ming wen ~~rMl~i'&*m3~iU~~mii~:gy:

Yii-i T£t ¥ung chou chin shih chi ~1Ej'I'I4: 15 ~2


A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chao, Ming-ch' eng m §fl ~ (1081-1129). Chin shih lu

ts'ung shu ed: [Shanghai, 1888J.

___ . Chin shih lu 'il'L;p U . Shih k'e shih liao [Yen Keng-wang, ed.

1966J.

___ . Chin shih lu 'il'L;p U . Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien ed. [Taipei, 1978].

Chao, Tzu-ch'ien m T ~ (1829-1884). Pu huan yu fang pei lu 'ffll Shih k'e shih liao [Yen Keng-wang, ed. Taipei, 1966].

Ch'enSsu ~J!tl!l, (fl. 1225-1264).Paok'ets'ungpien £~U:ii~ . Shih k'eshih liao

[Yen Keng-wang, ed. Taipei, 1966J.

___ . Pao k'e ts'ung pien £~U:ii~. Pai pu ts'ung shu [Taipei, 1965-1967].

Ch'en, Han-chang ~'ii •. Chui hsueh t'ang Ho-shuo pei k'e pa wei ~1$!:§t¥ilJ.¢)j

~~UgR~' Hsunyuan chin shih wen tzu pa wei [Fan Shou-ming, 1933J

Chin shih LUeh 'il'L;p IH~ . Shih k'e shih liao hsin pie [Taipei, 1978].

Chu, Feng * 1i\ . Yung chou chin shih chi * 1+1 'il'L;p ~c . Pai pu ts'ung shu [Taipei, 1965-1971], Box 58.

Chu hsueh hsuan ts'ung shu~~n:ii1! . Ts'ung shu ching hua, 1895-1903.

Fan, Shou-ming mii~:g. Hsunyuan chin shih wen tzu pai wei i'J§Ii!'il'LEX* gR}i§ . 1933 Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien, (2), vol. 20 [Taipei, 1978].

Forte, Antoninio, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh . ..

Century. Napoli: Instituto Universario Orientale, 1967.

Hsi yin hsuan ts'ung shu 'if ~ n:ii1! .Pai pu ts'ung shu chi ch 'en. [Taipei, 1965-

1971J.

Huang, Pen-chi jl!(;:$: ~ . Chin shih ts'ui pien pu mu 'il'L;p i$: ~ 'ffll §I . Chu hsiieh

hsiian ts'ung su [Liu, shih-heng, 1895 -1903J.

Kanda, Kiichiro ;f$EEl*-.fI~. "Kedoji Tomei ni tsuite" 1t&'i'f*~(:-:J

PT. Shinagaku, vol. 2, no. 9, Taisho 11, May 1922.

_._. _. "Sangaikyo ni kansuru Zui-To no kohi" = ~~ ~X (: I*! T 6 JlJ m (J)

~1ifl! . Bukkyo Kenkyii, vol. 3, nos. 3-4 & vol. 4, no. 2, Taisho II.

Kimura, Kiyotaka *1';] f~ ~ . Shoki Chilgoku Kegon Shiso no Kenkyii

~~,;*~(7)1i7f'9i: .Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1977.

CHINESE RELIQUARY INSCRIPTIONS

. "Shingyo no Jikikan to sono Igi" {§1TO)a~t'~iJU:: of O)~~ ,

Bukkyo Gakkai Nenpo, no. 49, 1982.

279

Hsieh-kuang rim ~:Jf[;. Ho shuo chin shih mu 10J YtJl3r::S § . Shanghai:

. Ho shuo hsin pei mu foJ YtJl ~jf Wi- § . Fei ju fii hsia tsai chin shih ts'ung cho,

1919.

jiJ'!JEIi: (1866-1940). Hsueh t'ang chin shih wen tzu pa wei §!t1it'iE 1.1 --x.:¥ ~R)!€;' [Publisher and date not recorded: Otani University Library. J

Yao-lii [li ill ~ , ed. Chin shih hsil pien 3r::S;ji ~ . Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien

[Taipei, 1978J.

Feng-chih '€ ®. tz . Kuan chung chin shih wen tzu tz'u~ mien k'ao m~ r:p 3r: 1:..1 --x.:¥tf~~ Shihk'eshihliaohsinpien(2) [Taipei, 1978],vol.I4, 1901.

I3Jj 1i: . Ta chou k'an ting chung ching mu lu 7c J!J flj IE ~ m¥. § ~

T.LV, no. 2153

nfi ~W . Ho shuo fang ku chi fOJ YtJl it1J t1 §c. Chen i fang san chung ffij: ,~:¥:

~fi [1811J

Yujiro r:p 83 ~;,X fl~. "Kedoji Soyu Zenji Tomei Kojiki" ft §t ~1\ll ~ ffllj!~jji:!%I4!;1'X*§c., "Otani GakuM, vol. 31, no. 1, Feb., 1952.

'j<'-'.,--_' "Otankeibon Sotaku Kedojihi ni tsuite" ~llW~*71H,pft§t~~l\! r: --:J I,~ -C ,in Otani GakuM, vol. 33, no. 4, 1954.

Pei ~~!:E. Chi ku lu mu' ~ t1 if< § . Chin shih ts'ung shu [Shanghai,

1888] .

ts'ung shu S w.~. Taipei: I Wen Yin Shu Kuan, 1965 -197l.

k'e lui pien :i:~UMIfffi. Shih k'e shih liao hsin pien (1) [Taipei, 1978], vol. 24.

k'e shih liao hsin pien :S~US!:;f4~jf~. Taipei: Shin wen [eng, 1978.

aU-H'Llall !Ji[W. Hsu kao seng chuan ;ji~fif!!:. TL, no. 2060.

Daijo ,*,fi:7cIE. Shina Bukkyo shiseki ~f}j\{rJIl$Jzs!:~. Tokyo:

Bukkyo Shiseki Kenkyukai, 1928-1931.

-', , __ . "Sangaikyo no Botai toshite no Hozanji" ::::J?HJz 0) fiHiJ C: l-C 0)., Lli ~, In Shiikyo Kenkyii, 4, 1, 1927

Daijo & Sekino Tadashi ,*,fi:7cIE . mUf J::f.. ,Shina Bukkyo Shiseki

Hyokai ~ f}j\ {rJIl $Jzs!: ~§'F m . Tokyo: Bukkyo Shiseki Kenkyukai, 1925 -1928.


Tsukamoto, Zenryu :t'**~~1it, et al. Seiiki Bunka Kenkyu E9fWGX:1t~lf3'i;, no. 1, Tonko Bukkyo Shiryo. Kyoto: H02okan, 1958.

Tsukamoto, Zenryu ~*~~1it. "Sangaikyo Sl1iryo Zakki" ':='~~il'x~~T4~§e , Shina Bukkyo Shigaku, vol. 1, nos, 1-2, ShOwa 12 (1937) .p.;

Twitchett, Denis. The Cambridge History if China, vol. 3 (Sui and T'ang).

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Wang Ch'ang 3:~ (1725-1806). Chin shih ts'ui pien iz::fi~Jiijj. Shi k'e shih

liao [Yen Keng-wang, ed., Taipei, 1966].

Wei Cheng ft~ (580-643). Sui Shu m~. Erh shih wo shih [I wen yin

kuan edition, Taipei, 1965].

Yabuki, Keiki, Sangaikyo no Kenkyu = ~~ il'XZ ~lf3i: . Tokyo: I wanami Shoten

(1927),1974 reprint.

Yuan-chao ~ ~R,. Chen yuan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu

(TLV, no. 2157)

c','fAnOld Inscription from Amar-avaH and ""'theCult of the Local Monastic Dead in r,:i'i!lndian Buddhist Monasteries

i;(Although they have yet to be carefully studied, there are refercLences scattered throughout extant Buddhist literature to per','irnanently housing the mortuary remains of deceased monks. ',l\'ln both the Pali Udana and Apadana, for example, there is a clear ~ljnjunction addres~ed to monks-and monks alone-directing . ; them not only to perform the funeral rites for a "fellow-monk" i<r(sabrahmaciirin) , but to build a mortuary stilpa for him as well "'and to worship it.] In the Pali Vinaya, too, there is an account ;(,which describes, in part, a group of nuns performing the funeral ; rites and building a stilpa for a deceased member of the~r group. 2

>In the account of the deposition of the remains of Sariputra 'preserved in the Tibetan version of the Millasarviistivada-vinaya, 'there is a passage in which the placement of the monastic dead

<'within the monastery complex is directly addressed. Here the Buddha first gives instructions concerning the form of mortuary

"stiipa appropriate to different categories of individuals, starting with a buddha and ending with "stream-winners" (rgyun du zhugs

cpa) and "9rdinary good men" (so so'i skye bo dge ba). He then iisays: "As Sariputra and Maudgalyayana sat (in relation to the

Buddha) when the Tathagata was sitting, just so should their · mortuary stilpas be placed as well. Moreover, the stilpas ofvarious elders (sthavira) should be aligned in accordance with their

· seniority. Stilpas of ordinary good men should be placed outside : the monastery (dge 'dun gyi kun dga' ra ba, sarrtgharama)."g The · Mahasarrtghika-vinaya-according to de la Vallee Poussin-also contains such passages: "D'apres Ie Mahasarpghikavinaya,"

281


he says, "des moines hommes du commun (Prthagjana) Ont.', d · -, . 1 v:' dh d aUssl . . rOlt au stupa, a savo~r e vznaya a~a harmiiciirya, Ie Vaiyiiprtyabh_ zk.iu, Ie Vertueux-bhlk~u. Comme lIs ne sont pas des Ary ..........•..

, d I ["d d' h"] [I ] as, II n y alas, e, ~u-~an ew- IS et e stupa est dans un lie: cache. Peche a faIre autrement."4 . U .

T.here is also-thou~h again not ye~ systematically studied. -an lmportant body of mdependent eVIdence for the monasti .' .... preoccupation with permanently housing their dead from welt preserved cave sites like Bhaja, Bedsa and Kanheri. But with a ...•.. few exceptions, little certain evidence has been noted for such activity at structural monastic sites. Evidence of this Sort would in fact be difficult to detect at such structural sites fori several reasons. The first and most general reason is, of course .. that structural sites in India are far less well preserved thari . the "Yestern. <:ave Complexes. Those same .cave co:uplexes suggest In addltlOn that the structures assocIated wIth the locals monastic dead at structural sites would very likely have been.,' small, and very well might have been situated some distance'·· away from the mainstupa or center of the site. Neither of these .: factors would have favored the detection of such structures. '. Moreover, very few structural monastic sites in India have··' been extensively investigated or excavated horizontally; gener-' ally attention and effort have been focused on the main stupa of_ such sites. Anything not in the immediate vicinity would only accidentally have been noted. 5 The fact, too, that such small structures would have required-and therefore left-no sub~· " stantial foundations, that their superstructures would not only .. have been exposed to the elements, but been easy prey for those .•.• ' who used such sites for building materials-all this suggests that even horizontal surveys may have noted little. In such circumstances, stray epigraphical evidence for the housing of the local monastic dead is the most likely certain evidence to survive at structural sites, but even then such survivals may not be numerous and each possible piece should be carefully studied. The present note concerns one such possible piece from AmaravatI.

AmaravatI must have been a striking monastic site. The main stupa stood on a plain between the old city of DharaI,likota and the neighboring hills "where," said Burgess, "so many dolmans or rude-stone burying places are still to be seen."6 "Upwards of 10,000 to 12,000 [carved] figures" wereaccording to Fergusson's calculations-associated with the

CULT OF THE DEAD 283

VJ{). He calls it, perhaps without undue inflation, "a wonderful tftorial Bible of Buddhism as it was understood at the time of 6c erection of the monument."7 But through the work ofZam~ars, zealQus treasure seekers, and untrained if well inten

Poped British civil servants, most of the complex-one of the Ipgest lasting in India-has disappeared. s As a consequence, ~eknow next to nothing about the monastic quarters there and iery little about any secondary structures at the site. We do :poW that there were a number of mortuary stilpas dustered iround the main stilpa. Burgess, in 1882, referred to two of nese, in one of which he found "a small chatti [a type of Jot] ... and a quantity of calcined bones." A sirnilar "chatti" {ad earlier been recovered from another.9 Rea too excavated ~e"eral secondary stilpas, one of which still had its lower porion encased in sculptural slabs,lO and another overlay a group ;{seventeen "megalithic" urn burialsY In fact, the site-plan )l.lblished by Rea in 1909 shows almost twenty small stilpas and ltleast one "earthenware tomb." We do not, unfortunately, ,now anything more about these stilpas except for the fact that .heir placement and contents conform to a pattern found at a ;()Ilsiderable number of other Buddhist sites in India and seem oreflect the practice which I -on analogy with the Christian Nest-have called "burial ad sanctos."12 The inscription we will )e primarily concerned with. here may have been associated

,,,,ith one such stilpa. < The stone on which our inscription is inscribed was not

,<found in its original position. It had already been displaced ,,',and could have been moved even from a considerable distance, ';given its size and shape. Burgess describes it as "a circular slab «2 feet 1 inch in diameter ... with a mortise hole in the centre

•• surrounded by a lotus, and this again by a sunk area carved 'with rays. The outer border is raised ... " and it is on this raised border that our record-"a well-cut inscription"-occurs. 13

,';.This "circular slab" -a good photograph of which was also ipublished by Burgess14-is clearly the "umbrella" (chata, ,chattra) referred to in the inscription. That this "umbrella" was 'intended for a shrine (cediya) or stilpa is clear as well from the

inscription, and the comparatively small size of the chattra is .. sufficient to indicate that the stilpa was a small one. We do not,

however, know exactly where this small stilpa stood.


"With a few minor. exceptions,th~ readings of this "Well_ cut record were not dIfficult to establIsh, and after somethin .. of a false sta~t in the first ~ranscripti~p. published in Burges~ Notes, the baslc text was qUIckly establIshed. In the "additional notes" added to that same volume, in fact, Hultzsch had already come very close to his final version, which appeared a year later. 15 The text is printed there as:

uviisikiiya cadoya budhi,!o miituya saputikiiya sadutukiiya a'iriinam utoyipabhiihZnaT(l cediyasa chata df!JadhamaT(l .

and this is the basic text accepted by Luders,16 Franke/7 and, Sivaramamurti. 18 Sivaramamurti does, however, read -pabhiihinaT(l rather than -pabhahlnaT(l, and notes that "the nasal" -he means anusvara-"is not quite clear in airanaT(l and utayipabhahi_ naT(l)" although this is more true of the latter than the former.

Hultzsch first translated the text as:

''An umbrella (chhattra), a meritorious gift to the Chaitya (?) of the venerable U tayipabhahins by the female worshipper Chada (Chandra), the mother of Bud hi, together with her sons, together with her daughters"

He added as well the following note: "Utayipabhahin seems to be the name of a school like Dharmottarfya ... Perhaps utara (= uttara) is to be read for utayi, and pabhahin= prabhasin." 19 But a·· year later he published a slightly different rendering:

"Ein Sonnenschirm (chattra), die verdienstliche Gabe cler Laiin Gadii (Gandrii), der Mutter des Budhi (Buddhi), mit ihren S6hnen, mit ihren T6chtern, an die (Schule der) ehrwurdigen Utoyipabhiikis (?) (und) an das Gaitya" 20

The English translation of the record that appears in Burgess' later report looks like a somewhat garbled version of Hultzsch's second translation, and here, too, Utayipabhiihin appears to have been taken as the name of a Buddhist school. Burgess adds to it the following note: "May this not be synonymous with Uttaraparvatas, or Uttaraselas." 21 Liiders, although he proposed no emendation or equivalent, lists Utayipabhahi in his index of personal names as the name of a Bud-


;dhist "school," and translates the portion of the record which cost concerns us as: "Gift of a parasol (chhata) to the Chaitya

{Chediya) of the. venerable (a"ira) U tayipab?ahis, etc." 22 In ~act, ',SivaramamurtI alone seems to have considered other possIble 'interpretations of t~e text, but his. translation-as ~~inte~-i.s "Iso garbled and without explanatIOn or comment: Mentonbus gift of umbrella for the caitya (cediya) of the worthy ~:iiranam U tayipabhahi, etc." What "airanarp.," still carrying itscase ending, is doing in the translation is, of course, far from dear, especially since it already seems to have been translated :by "worthy." Moreover, Sivaramamurti too lists Utayipabhahi itlhis glossary as "probably U ttaraseliyas." 23

< .. The inclination to see in utayipabhiih£n the name of a ':.'school" has had, in fact, a wide currency. Lamotte says: "Les donations religieuses signalees par Ies inscriptions proviennent, non seulement de particuliers, mais encore de clans

:(kula) , de groupes (gar;a) et d'associations (sahaya). Parmi ces !dernieres, quelques-unes peuvent avoir etedes sectes bouddhiques, non mentionees en litterature," and as one example of such a group he cites the '''alra (arya) Utayipabhahi" of our inscription. 24 Much more recently, Furtseva has said: "The epigraphic data gives evidence of the existence of the schools unknown to any tradition. These are such schools as, for example, Utayibhahi in Amaravati ... ,OJ again citing our inscription. 25

Although this interpretation of our record has received wide currency, and although Furtseva, for example, seems to take it as an established fact that the inscription refers to a Buddhist school, the evidence for this was never firm: Hultzsch had only said utayipabhiihin "seems to be the name of a school," Burgess, "may this not be ... ," Sivaramamurti, "probably," etc. In fact, there are a number of things against seeing in the inscription a reference to a shrine or caitya that "belonged" to

. a specific Buddhist school, and a number of things which suggest a much more supportable interpretation.

Although the evidence is sadly fragmentary, it appears, as has already been indicated, that the main stiipa at AmaravatI was-as Marshall says of SaficI-"surrounded, like all the more famous shrines of Buddhism, by a multitude of stiipas of varying sizes crowded together." 26 The stiipa or caitya to which


our umbrella was donated appears to have been just one·· f such a multitude and-to judge by the size of the chattra::'a comparatively small one at that. !hat on~ ~f ~uch a multitude of secondary stu pas close to-or III the vicimty of-the rnai shrine would have been claimed as the special property of n specific school seems very unlikely. That monastic orders "a~ ceI?ted," and th~re.fore '~owned," spec.ific.forms of property_ relIcs, fields, bmldmgs, Images, etc.-Is vIrtually certain. it is equally certain that specific schools "owned" the main stiipa at certain sites. But there is no other case, in so far as I know where one of the small secondary stiipas was so "owned." Sec~ ondary stupas at Buddhist sites, whether near the main shrine or situated elsewhere in the complex, are almost always uninscribed and anonymous. There is, however, a small number of significant exceptions, and it is this group of exceptions which may point towards a better understanding of the record on Our small umbrella from AmaravatI.

The first exception may come from AmaravatI itself. If we can accept Sivaramamurti's reading of his no. 103 as even approximately correct, then the one other secondary stupa which had an associated inscription at AmaravatI was "the small cetiya of the mendicant monk Nagasena." Sivaramamurti gives the text of his no. 103 in the following form:

sidham (nama) bhagavata giimmamahivathasa pe7Jrfavatikasa niigasenasa khudacetiya . .. haghavii7Jikiniya patithapitam savasatamata a . .. 27 .

If we put aside giimmamahivathasa, which is clearly wrong, although it just as clearly indicated the place of residence of Nagasena, and if we follow-however reluctantly-Sivaramamurti's interpretation of. .. haghaviilJikiniya as "by the merchant's wife, Hagha," this could be translated as

Success. (Homage) to the Blessed One. The small cetiya of the mendicant monk Nagasena who lived in ... established by the merchant's wife Hagha for the ... of all ...

We do not 'know where the sculptured slab on which this record was inscribed was discovered. Already by the time of


~Burgess (1887) it had been removed to Bejwa<;ia, "possibly," Fays Burgess, by Colonel NIackenzie. 28 Sivaramamurti assumes iBn the basis of the expression khudacetiya, "small cetiya," in the 'ecord itself that the slab formed a part of one of what he calls ~e"srnaller votive stupas." That the inscribed slab did, in fact, helong to a secondary stupa appears likely. The problem ternains, however, that Sivaramamurti's reading of the record (tinnot actually be verified with the published material at :iiand. Although Burgess and Stern & Benisti both illustrate the .slab on which the record occurs, in neither case is the photograph sufficiently clear to allow the inscription to be read with ~ny confidence. 29 Sivaramamurti also reproduces the record reduced to such a degree that no certain reading is possible,30 ,and in cases where his readings can be checked they are by no means always as careful as one might wish. Given this. situation, the most that one could say is that it appears-although it 'is not certain-that in the one other case at AmaravatI in which isecondary stupa had an associated inscription that inscription does not refer to the stupa as "belonging" to a specific school, but seems to describe it as "belonging" to an individual

}rnonk, a monk who appears to have been of purely local stature and who is otherwise unknown. But this itself raises some further questions that it would be well to deal with here.

. The exact sense of the genitive construction used here in hiigasenasa khudacetiya . .. , and in other records connected with ~stiiPas "of" local monks, is not at first sight immediately clear. This, in part at least, is related to the fact that in inscriptional Prakrits, much as in the Prakrits generally, the dative casealthough it has not entirely disappeared-is very much attenuated, and dative functions have been taken over by an already elastic conception of the genitive. Given these linguistic realities, niigasenasa khudacetiya ... , for example, can be understood at least on one level in two ways: "the small cetiya if Nagasena," or "the small cetiya for Nagasena." It could be argued that the intended meaning here is more like "the small cetrya built for the merit of Nag as en a by Hagha," but the one cer

,tain case I know of that does record something like this is not only late, but articulated in a very different way. The case in point occurs in a 10th-century inscription from Nalanda where the disciple of a monk is said to have raised "a caitya of the


Blessed One, the Sugata" (bhagavata~ sugatasya caityal!) with th expressed hope or intention that his teacher, through the meri~ of the disciple's act, might "obtain the vnsurpassed station of a buddha" (pulJyeniinena labdhiisau bauddham padam anuttararrz). 31 In fact, from the earliest Buddhist inscriptions that record actsundertaken for another, the statement of purpose almost always involves an explicit expression of that fact-something like a{haya (arthiiya, "for the sake of") either in compound with the name of the person or persons involved, or with the latter in the genitive (miitiipituna athiiyii); or a construction like sukhi{ya hotu savasatiinaT(l ("for the happiness of all beings") is used.32 The transaction involved is very rarely, if at all, expressed by the simple genitive or dative. In the rare and still uncertain cases in which the simple genitive or dative might so be used it appears that the name of the person for whose benefit a gif~ is given is put not in the genitive, but in the dative. On what Rao calls "an ayaka pillar" found near the second stupa at San-nati, for example, we find: 'ahimarikiiya niiganikiiya arikii-bhiituno ..... . giridatanakasa. This would appear to indicate that the "pillar" in question was the gift of Giridatanaka, brother of Arika, "for or in honor of"-expressed by the simple dative-Naganika of Ahimara, the latter being a place name. 33 Considerations of this sort would seem to rule out niigasenasa khudacetiya . .. in our AmaravatI inscription being intended to convey "the small cetiya for the benefit or merit of Nagasena;" so, too, does the fact that, though now fragmentary, there seems to have been a separate dedicative statement at the end of the record (compare the better preserved record from Mathura cited below).

If, then, niigasenasa khudacetiya . .. does not mean "the small cetiya for the benefit or merit of Nagasena," it-and similarly constructed records elsewhere-must mean "the small cetiya of or for Nagasena" in some other sense. Since stupas or cetiyaswhether they were "memorials" or mortuary containers-were never as far as we know erected for anyone who was not physiologically dead,34 this would mean that if our inscription in fact refers to "the small cetiya of or for Nagasena," then Nagasena must have been not just a local monk, but a deceased. local monk. But in that case, it is important to note that although Nagasena was "dead," the cetiya was not said to be "of" or "for" his relics or remains, but "of" or "for" him-


•... eriod. Exactly the same thing is, of course, said elsewhere at {rnaravatI and at other Andhra sites. in regard to the cetiya of the Buddha. ?n ~ore than one occaSIOn a~ Ama,:avatI we meet ~with somethmg lIke ... bhagavato mahiic(e)tzyasa, for the Great Shrine of the Blessed One," or ... bhagavato mahacetiya-padamale i[rd:-mil1e], "at the foot of the Great Shrine of the Blessed One." 35 Similar phrasing is also found, for example, at J aggayyapeta-bhagavato budhasa mahiicetiye, "at the Great Shrine of '.the Blessed One, the Buddha." 36 In all these cases the genitive phrasing was almost certainly intended to express both the fact that the cetiya "belonged" to the Blessed One-that is to say, he .;.'owned" it-and the fact that it contained, or was thought to contain, the Buddha himself. 37 It is again important to notice 'that where we might want to say the cetiya was "of" or contained the "relics" of the Buddha, these inscriptions themselves never use a term for "relics": they say the cetiya was "of" or "for" the Buddha himself. He-not his remains-was, apparently, thought to reside inside. But if this is true in regard to the cetiyas "of" the Buddha, it would be hard to argue that exactly the same genitive phrasing applied to the cetiya "of Nagasena" -or to the stilpa "of" any other local monk-could have meant something different. This secondary stilpa-actu:ally called a "small shrine" if we can accept Sivaramamurti's reading-must either have contained, or had been thought to contain, what we would call the "relics" of a local mendicant monk named Nagasena, but what the composer of the inscription called Nagasena himself. 38

I t would seem, then, that in the one other possible case at AmaravatI where we have an inscription associated with a sec'ondary stilpa there is no support for the interpretation of the record on the small umbrella from the same site proposed by Hultzsch, Burgess, Liiders, etc. The former makes no reference to a "school," but rather points towards a very different possibility and set of ideas. It suggests the possibility at least that utayipabhiihin in the umbrella inscription may not be the name of a "school," but the name of a deceased local monk. This possibility receives further support when we look elsewhere since, although there are no other instances where a secondary stilpa is said to be "owned" by a specific "school," there is a small but significant number of cases where secondary stilpas are


explicitly said to be "of" or "for" the local monastic dead. At least one of these other cases comes from another sadly dismembered structural site.

It is ironic that although we have a large nurnber of inscriptions-and a far larger number of sculptural and archi_ tectural pieces-from Mathura, we know very little really about the structures they were associated with, about what the Buddhist complexes at the site looked like or how these complexes were laid out. We have only a large number offragrnents and disassociated pieces.39 On one such piece OCcurs an inscription which van Lohuizen-de Leeuw has read in the following fashion:

sa 902 he1 di 5 asya pit (r) vvaye vi (or kha) 7Jrfavihare vastha1!Jii bhik-iusa griihadiisikasa sthuva prii-ithiipayati sa-rva sav (v) anarrz hitasukhaye

She translates the record as:

"In the year 92, the first (month of) winter, on the 5th day, on this occasion as specified, the inhabitants of the Vil)<;l.a Monas~ tery erected a stiipa for the monk Grahadasika. May it be for the welfare and happiness of all beings."4o

More than a dozen years later, this same inscription was edited again by Sircar, who seems to have been under the impression that the record was discovered in 1958. Although his reading differs on several minor points from van Lohuizen-de Leeuw's, it is significantly different in only one regard: where van Lohuizen-de Leeuw read vasthavyii, plural, "inhabitants," Sircar read vastavya- and took it in compound with the following hhik.rusa. But this makes for an odd compound and-more importantly-results in a text in which there is no possible subject for the main verb, which Sircar himself read as pra[ti*] .rthiipayati.41 The absence of such a subject renders Sircar's construction of the text highly problematic, and suggests that for the moment van Lohuizen-de Leeuw's is to be preferred. From the paleographic point-of-view, however, Sircar's vastavyawith short final -a-appears likely, and this would give a singu-


larsu~ject for the singul.ar verb. The re,sult would. be a"slight IteratIOn of van Lohmzen-de Leeuw s translatIOn: ... an

~I1habitant of the Viv<;la Monastery erected a stiipa for the monk drahadasika." > Here,of course, there is no possibility of taking the text to tIlean "for the benefit or merit of the monk Grahadasika." The text ends with an explicit statement indicating for whom the (let was undertaken, and it was not Grahadasika, but "all beings." Sircar says: "the object of the inscription is to record. the erection of a stiipa of the Buddhist monk Gramadesika" [ihis is his reading of the name]. But he adds: "In the present context, the word stiipa mean[s] a memorial structure enshrining the relics of the monk in question."42 Such an interpretation seems very likely, although here too it is important to note that where Sircar speaks of "relics" the composer of our recordalthough he certainly could have-does not. For him, the stiipa does not seem to have been a structure for enshrining relics, but a structure for enshrining in some sense the monk himself. ...... We do not, again, know where the stiipa of Grahadasika stood. Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw assumes that it "was erected in the monastery," but that is not terribly helpful. The slab on which the inscription is inscribed appears to have been a small one-the writing covers a space that is only 9.5 inches long and LJ: inches high. More than anything else it seems to resemble the small engraved slabs-to be discussed more fully belowassociated with the brick stiipas of the local monastic dead at Kanheri where the writing covers a space of almost the same dimensions. It would appear, then, that the stiipa at Mathura was a small one situated somewhere within the confines of one of the monastic complexes. But in spite of the uncertainties concerning the exact location of the stiipa it mentions, this Mathura record-like AmaravatI no. 103-does not lend any support to the view that sees in the inscription on the small chattra from AmaravatI a reference to a stiipa "belonging" to a specific monastic school. On the contrary, both this Mathura inscription and AmaravatI no. 103 would seem to indicate that when secondary stiipas or cetiyas in this period are inscribed, those stiipas or cetiyas are stiipas or cetiyas "of" deceased local monks. That this is so not just for this period but also for periods long before and after will become evident below, but


. these two cases are already sufficient to establish the suspicio that the record on the AmaravatI umbrella is, again, also refe ~ ring to such a stilpa. Neither Amaravati no. 103 nor thr

Mathura inscription, however, accounts for a peculiarity of th~ AmaravatI umbrella record, which has undoubtedly exerted considerable influence on previous interpretations.

The AmaravatI umbrella record does not at first sight ap~ear .to b: referring to ~ cetiya of a single monk. The reading......c whIch IS vIrtually c~rtam apart from the final anusviiras-is a"irana(rlJ) utqyipabhiihina(rlJ) cediyasa. aira, a Prakrit form of iirya is certainly in the plural, and the following utayiPabhiihin~ though the form is not so well recognized-was almost certainly also intended for a plural. But this use of the plural rather than suggesting that the cetiya "belonged" to a group of monks, may in fact confirm the possibility that the reference is to a single, deceased individual.

There are more than a dozen inscriptions that can be cited to demonstrate that the name and titles of a monk for whom a stilpa was built were commonly put in the genitive plural. Two are particularly informative, one from Bedsa, which Nagaraju assigns to the 1st Century B.C.E., and one from Kanheri which he dates to the early 2nd Century C.E. 43 In both instances, we are dealing with small secondary stilpas whose precise location relative to the main shrine is known. In both instances, these small secondary stilpas are inscribed and can therefore be certainly identified as stilpas "of" local monks. And in both instances the individual local monk in question is referred to in the plural.

Less than 25 feet to the left of the entrance to the main caityagrha at Bedsa there is "a tiny apsidal excavation" containing a small stilpa. On the back wall of this "excavation" there is a short "much weatherworn" inscription in two lines. Some· syllables at the beginning of both lines appear to have been lost, but what remains can be fairly certainly read and the gen- . eral sense of the record is clear in spite of the missing syllables. Burgess published the following reading in 1883:

.. . ya gabhiitinaTl} iirar;akiina perjaPiitikiinaTl} miirakurjaviisinii thupa

... [aTl}te}viisinii bhatiisii?a[?ha}mitena kiirita [ / / ] 44


"In spite o~t.he fact that ?obhuti's name and all his epithets are cinthe gemtIve plural, thIS can only mean:

The stupa of. ~ . Gobhuti, a forest-dweller, a mendicant monk who lived on Mara's Peak-caused to be made by his pupil, the devoted Asa~amita.

At Kanheri, too, we have to do with a small excavation :'containing a stilpa. The steps leading up to the chamber con'taining this stilpa are no more than twelve feet to the left of the (steps that lead to the main "hall of worship" at the site. On the harmika of the small stilpa the following record occurs:

sidhan:t heranikasa dhamanakasa bhayii-a sivapiilitanikaya deyadhan:tma theriina bhayata-dhan:tmapiiliinan:t thuba [I I] 45

Here, too, we have the name of a monk and his title in the geni-• tiveplural, and here, too, this can only refer to a single indi: vidual:

Success. The religious gift ofSivapalitanika, the wife ofthe treasurer Dhamanaka-the stilpa of the Elder, the Reverend Dharpmapala.

Bearing in mind, again, that stilpas were, in so far as we know, erected only for individuals who were dead, these two cases from Bedsa and Kanheri present us with two clear cases where a deceased local monk is referred to in the plural. These cases can only represent a specific application of the so-called pluralis majestaticus or plural of respect, and it is important to .note that in this regard they are not, apparently, exceptions, but represent something of a rule. Plurals of respect are cer

. tainly the rule in the numerous stilpa.labels found in association with the two monastic "cemeteries" that have been identified at Western Cave sites.

At Bhaja, "probably one of the oldest Buddhist religious centres in the Deccan," there is a group of 14 small stilpas clus

. tered together in what Mitra alone has explicitly noted "may


be regarded as the cemetery." 46 Nagaraju suggests that the stupas "belong to different dates ranging from late 3rd centu;e B.C. to about the end of the 2nd cer;ttury A.D."47 Although: Burgess seems to have been of the opinion that a larger numbe ...... . of these s.tupas. h~d ori~inally ~een ~nscribed,. in his day anI; five such mSCrIptIOns stIll remamed m part or III whole. One of the two inscriptions that appear to be complete reads:

theriiniirrz bhC!)!arrzta-arrzpikir;akiinarrz thupo [ / / ] The stupa of the Elder, the ReverendArp.pikiI).aka.

,

The other complete record is of exactly the same form, and enough survives of the rest to show that in every case the name of the monk for whom the stupa was built, and his titles, were always in the genitive plural. 48 The use of the pluralis majestaticus in referring to deceased local monks appears from the Bhaja cemetery labels, then, to have been both an early and a continuous practice over time. But the evidence from the Bhaja cemetery not only confirms this linguistic usage noted previously at Bedsa and Kanheri, it confirms as well the assumed character and contents-in at least one sense-of stu pas built "for" deceased local monks. Fergusson & Burgess noted in regard to at least four of these stiipas that there were on their capitals "holes on the upper surface as iff or placing relics ... and in two cases there is a depression round the edge of the hole as if for a closely fitting cover."49 The fact that Deshpande discovered at Pitalkhora exactly the same sort of "holes" still plugged with· "a closely fitting cover" and-as a consequence-still containc

ing their relic deposits, makes it highly likely that the "holes" in the stupas at Bhaja-and perhaps all such "holes" in rock-cut stilpas in the Western Caves-originally held relics: such stiipas were, as a consequence, by no means simply "commemorative,">. but contained the mortuary deposits of the monks mentioned in their accompanying inscriptions.50 The Bhaja cemetery, however, is not the only monastic cemetery in the Western Caves which provides evidence for the use of the pluralis majestaticus in referring to deceased monks.

The character of the large monastic cemetery at Kanheri was almost immediately surmised. In 1862, West had already said in regard to these groups of stiipas: "It seems likely that these topes have contained the ashes of the priesthood and that


{his gallery has been the general necropolis of the caves." 51 In },iB83, Burgess had described th~s "gallery" ~which at t~at time {~as assigned the number 38-m the followmg terms: No. 38 ;,'fj the long terrace under the overhanging rock on the brow of {~e hill, where are the bases of numerous brick stupas, being the ;fuonuments over the ashes of numerous Bauddha sthaviras or ;'ptiests who died there ... a vast number fill this gallery" -more /t]:Jan a hundred according tothe most recent count-"which is ;about 200 yards in length; many of them, however, are covered ~Q~er with the debris of decayed bricks and rock and all seem to have been rifled long ago of any relics or caskets they con"t~ined". 52 Although West had already published in 1361 an eyettopy of at least one inscription connected with "the KalJheri Bauddha Cemetery":....-.his no.53-it was never read,53 and it Was not until 1974 or 1975 that further and fuller epigraphical 'data came in the form of a considerable number of small inscribed slabs that had originally been inset into the brick

stupas, but which-after these stilpas had decayed-had 'either fallen or been thrown into the ravine on the edge of which the "gallery" sits. The exact number of inscribed insets recovered Is not clear-So Gokhale says in one place that there were "nearly 15," but in another "nearly twenty"; Gorakshkar put the number at "about forty," but Rao at "twenty-nine." 54 'Gokhale has edited eight of these inscriptions, but not always 'well, and the published photographs are not always easy to read. In spite of these problems, some important points are sufficiently clear. " Like the inscriptions associated with the stilpas of the local '.monastic dead at Bhaja, none of the inscriptions so far available from the Kanheri cemetery are donative. They are all labels, and-like the Bhaja inscriptions though more elaborate ,c-they are all consistently patterned. Both consjderations are enough to indicate that these labels-like all labels at Buddhist sites-are not the result of individual donative activity, but the results of endeavors by the monastic community or "administration" at their respective sites. Again as in the Bhaja labels, in all the Kanheri labels that are available-including that published long ago by West-the name and titles of each individual monk for whom a stilpa was erected are in the genitive plural. I cite here just two examples that can be checked against the photos.55


theriilJaf(l ayya-vijayaselJiilJaf(l tevijiilJaf(l arahantii,!af(l ihiibham The Stiipa of the Elder, the Venerable Vijayasena, One· Pos~

sessed of the Three Knowledges, an Arhat

theriilJaf(l bhadata-diimiilJaf(l aniigiimilJam thii(bhaf(l) The Stiipa of the Elder, the Reverend Dama, a non-returner.

These labels-obviously written by someone familiar with the technical textual terminology of Buddhist conceptions of "sainthood" -establish· that at Kanheri, as at Bedsa and Bhaja, deceased local monks were individually referred to in the plural. The use of the plumlis majestaticus was, in fact, the· rule in referring to such individuals. But jf the Bhaja labels establish this usage long before our AmaravatI umbrella inscription, those from Kanheri establish its continued Currency for a long time after. Gokhale had first suggested a date of "between 550 A.D. and 700 A.D." for the Kanheri labels· , later they are said to be "written in the late fifth- or early sixth-century boxheaded variety of Brahm I." 56 In any case, they date from a period long after our AmaravatI record.

The material presented so far from AmaravatI itself, from Mathura, Bedsa, Bhaja and Kanheri, must bear heavily on any interpretation of the AmaravatI umbrella inscription. This material establishes at least two things. First, it would appear that all secondary stupas from Buddhist sites that have associated inscriptions and date from well before the Common· Era to at least the 6th Century C.E. are-in every case-stu pas raised for deceased local monks. Secondly, with some exceptions that prove the rule, the names and titles of deceased individual monks that occur in stupa inscriptions or labels from this period are put in the genitive plural. The AmaravatI umbrella record comes from th~ saine period; was associated with a small secondary stupa; and has a name in the genitive plural preceded by a title commonly given to monks. Since, therefore, it conforms in every other respect to records connected with the shrines of deceased local monks, and since Utayipabhiihin is nowhere certainly attested as the name of a "school," nor is there any other instance where a secondary stupa is said to belong to such a "school," it is very difficult-if not impossible-to avoid the conclusion that U tayipabhahin in the AmaravatI umbrella inscription is the name of a local monk. Such a


'nclusion, it seems, must be accepted until there is clear and FOcontrovertible evidence to the contraryY There is however, }~e further point in regard to this name that is worth noting, a ~~int which involves us again with yet other stupas of the local monastic dead. ;. Sivaramamurti said that "the term Utayipabhiihi is puzzling," and there has, in fact, been some uncertainty in regard even to the stem form of what appears in the inscription as idOJipabhiihfnarrz or utayipabhiihinarrz. Originally Hultzsch seems to have preferred utayipabhiihin, but later he and almost everyone else seems to have preferred utayipabhiihi. 58 Given the morphological variation in inscriptional Prakrits, a genitive plural form that ends in -fnarrz or -inarrz could have been made from either an i-stem or a stem in -in. In the present case there is, therefore, no certain formal means of determining the stem, but this-in the end-may not pose a serious problem. It is perhaps more important to note that Hultzsch had proposed ~prabhiisin as the Sanskrit equivalent of -pabhiihin59 and this-the only equivalent that has been suggested -seems likely: the change of s to h is well attested in the South. 60 In fact, whether the stem form is taken to have been -pabhiihin-which seems preferable-or -pabhiihi, it seems fairly certain that in either case we would have a derivative from praYbhiis, "to shine, be brilliant," etc. It may therefore be of interest to note that other derivations from praVbhas occur as the final element of a name or title in-interestingly enough-two other inscriptions connected with the local monastic dead.

Almost a hundred and forty years ago, Cunningham published an account of his explorations and "excavations" of the Sand ruins and the "Buddhist Monuments of Central India." Much work has, of course, been done since on Sand-its art, architecture and inscriptions-but the other related sites in this complex, Sonari, Satdhara, Bhojpur and Andher, have been almost completely ignored. In fact, it is hard to find a reference to them after Cunningham. Ignored, too, is the fact that this cluster of related sites-among the earliest structural sites that we know-produced some of the clearest and most concrete evidence for the monastic cult of the local monastic dead. Cunningham discovered that the remains of ten individual local monks-representing at least three generations-


had been deposited in Stilpa no. 2 at Sane}. T~e r~mains 01 some of these same monks had also been deposIted III Sona' Stilpa no. 2, which contained the "relics" of five individua{L and in Stilpas no. 2 and 3 at Andher.61 In all these cases, thS,

deposits had been carefully labelled and the inscription on one of the Andher deposits read: sapurisasa gotiputasa kiikaniiva~';

, pabhiisanasa koqiiiagotasa, which Majumdar renders as: "(Relics) of the saint Gotiputa, the Kakanava-pabhasana, of the. Ko<;lina-gota." 62 Majumdar notes as well that "the expression kiikaniiva-pabhiisana is used as an epithet of Go tip uta and means 'the Light of Kakanava,'" Kakanava being, of course, the old, name for Sanc}. 63 A variant of the epithet also occurs at SaneI.' itself in the one donative record connected with the deposits in .' Stilpa no. 2. Majumdar reads and translates the latter as', kiikanava-pabhiisa-siha[n}ii dana, "the gift of the pupils of the Light of Kakanava," and says here that kiikanava-pabhiisa "ma'Y be taken as standing for Gotiputa himself." 64 If Majumdar is' correct in his interpretation of these inscriptions-and the" chances are good that he is65-they may provide a possible parallel for the "name" that occurs in the AmaravatI umbrella inscription. Kiikanava-pabhiisana or -pabhiisa is at Sancl and' Andher used both as an epithet of a local monastic "luminary". named Gotiputa and-by itself-as an alternative designation or name of that same individual. This may suggest that utayipabhiihin too could have been both an epithet and an alternative name for a prominent deceased local monk from a place named Utayi which was situated somewhere in the region of AmaravatI, that -Pabhiisa or -Pabhiisin might have been an'" ecclesiastical title of some currency, and that Utayipabhiisin might be translated "the Light or Luminary of U tayi" -all of this, at least, would seem a reasonable possibility.

As a result of the discussion of the material presented so far we are, then, in a position to do two things. We can offer a new and defensible translation of the old inscription on the small umbrella found long ago at AmaravatI; and we can make some ' preliminary and perhaps promising observations on the cult of the local monastic dead in Indian Buddhist monasteries. '

In light of the above discussions the AmaravatI record can now be translated -keeping close to the syntax of the origi-nal-as follows: '


Of the lay-sister Cada, the mothel of Budhi, together with her sons, together with her daughters, to the shrine of the Venerable Luminary from U tayi, the umbrella is a religious gift.

Jnterpreted and translated in this way, the AmaravatI inscrip¥ion takes its place as one of a limited series of significant ihscriptions or labels associated with stiipas of the local monasiie dead. It is significant in regard to AmaravatI itself because ttwould provide a much more certain piece of evidence than Sivaramamurti's inscription no. 103 for the presence of such {tapas at the site. The presence of such stiipas at AmaravatI is in turn significant because it allows us to add it to the list of structural sites for which we have firm epigraphical evidence to prove .the p~esence of stiipas of the loc~l monastic dead: epigraphlcal eVIdence for the presence of thIS type of stiipa at strucfural sites has come from Sane!, Sonari, Andher, Mathura, and now from AmaravatI. But the AmaravatI inscription has brbader significance as well. It provides us with an especially clear case in which the stiipa of a deceased local monk is pre~ented with "gifts" exactly like the stiipas of the Buddha himself ~ere, a clear instance in which such a stiipa receives the same lind of accoutrement-an umbrella-as did the stiipas of the Buddha. This is welcome corroboration of what we learn from the donative inscriptions associated with Stilpa no. 2 at Sand, which indicate that coping stones, cross-bars, rail-pillars, and pavement slabs, etc., were donated to this stiipa of the local monastic dead, just as they were to the stiipa of the Buddha at the site. In neither form nor content do the inscriptions associated with Stiipa no. 2 differ from those associated with Stiipa no. 1. The two sets are virtually indistinguishable, and may, in fact, have had some ofthe same donors.66 But in arriving iat our interpretation and translation of the AmaravatI umbrella inscription, we have had to look at virtually all the parallel records which are known, and even our limited discussion of this group of inscriptions allows for some interesting provisional generalizations.

The first and perhaps most obvious generalization might be stated as a simple fact: the remains of the local monastic dead were permanently housed at a significant number of monastic complexes, the majority of which are very early: we


have epigraphical evidence from Sand, Sonari, Andhe Mathura, Amaravati, Bedsa, Bhaja and Kanheri. These TT,

mains, moreover, were permanently h9used in the same type~ of architectural structure as. were ~he remains of~he Buddha.r have elsewhere collected epIgraphlcal, archeologIcal, and liter_ ary evidence that suggests that the mortuary remains or "relics" of the Buddha were thought to be possessed of "life" Or "breath," that-as Lamotte says-"la relique corporelle '. c'est un etre vivant," 57 that they were thought "to be impreg_ nated with the characteristics that defined and animated the living Buddha," that "relics" are addressed as persons and behaved towards as persons. 58 Professor A. Bareau had in fact already noted that the "culte bouddhique des reliques ... s'in-> spire en effet d'abord des marques de veneration que l'on adresse aux personnes vivantes." 59 But the fact alone, that the remains of the local monastic dead were both treated and housed in the same way as the remains of the Buddha, makes it again very difficult to argue that they were thought to be, in. any essential way, different. Professor Bareau has also said that "des avant notre ere, donc, Ie stiipa est plus que Ie symbole du Buddha, c'est Ie Buddha lui-meme." 70 To argue that the stiipa of U tayipabhahin, or the stiipa of Gobhuti were thought of any differently would require clear evidence. What evidence is available does not now favor such an argument.

The parallelism between the remains of the Buddha and the remains of the local monastic dead is not limited to the kinds of structures used to house them. There is as well a strict parallelism in the way in which these similar structures are referred to. As we have already seen, although we might describe a stiipa as a structure "for" relics or a container "of" relics, our inscriptions do not. They refer to stiipas or cetiyas "for" persons or "of" persons. This-again as we have seen-is clearly the case for stiipas "of" or "for" the Buddha or Blessed One (bhagavato mahiic (e) tiya-, bhagavaio budhasa mahiicetiye, etc.). But it is also the case for stiipas "of" or "for" deceased local monks (a'iriinan; utqyipabhiihfnan; cediya-, bhik.[usa griihadiisikasa sthuva, gobhiitinan; iira1Jakiina.,. thiipo, etc.). Exactly the same construction and phrasing are used without distinction and regardless of the person "for" whom the stiipa was intended. But if this genitive phrasing suggests in the case of the Buddha


;'ih t the stupa "of" the Buddha was thol'.ght to contain him, or ;.>~e owned or possessed by him, or to be-in some sense-the ,~uddha ~imself, the~. th~ stupas "of" Utayipab.hahin or D(}rahadasika or Gobhutl, smce they are referred ~o m exactly '~the same way, could h~rdly. h~ve been th~ug~t of differentl~. In 'ither words, parallellmgmstlc usage pomts m the same dlrec!~on as parallel architectural form. There may be yet another iparallel as ~ell. . . •.• If we stIck to actually datable stupas of the histoncal Bud-dha-and put aside the not infrequent assertions of an ''Asokan'' date for what are usually hypothetical "earlier" or "original" forms of extant structures-then it will be possible to see that . there may be few or no clear chronological gaps between the earliest actually datable stupas of the historical Buddha and the earliest examples of stilpas for the local monastic dead that we know. We might take Bharhut as an example. Scholarly consensus at least would place it at or very near the beginning of 'the known sequence of stilpas for the historical Buddha. But Benisti has recently argued that at least the rail that surrounded the Bharhut stilpa was not the earliest such rail. She has said: " ... la decoration qu'offre la vedikii qui entoure Ie Stilpa nO 2 de Sanci ... remonte, dans sa quasi totalitc, a la premiere moitie du IIe siecle avant notre ere; elle est donc, de peu, anterieure a celIe du stilpa de Bharhut ... et, tres sensiblement, anterieure a cene des torar;a du grand Stiipa n° I de Sanc!." 71 Since "Ie Stiipa nO 2 de SancI" is a stilpa of the local monastic dead, this would seem to mean either that this stilpa for the local monastic dead predates both the Bharhut and Sanci stupas of the historical Buddha "de peu" and "tres sensiblement," or-at least-that it was the first of these to receive the kind ofrail we associate with stiipas of the Buddha and, therefore, may have been considered, in some sense, more important. However this might ultimately be decided, it would appear-again at the very least-that at these early sites there is no clear or considerable chronological gap between stiipas of the local monastic dead and stiipas for the historical Buddha; rather, in regard to these structural sites, there appears to be a broad contemporarity between the two types of stilpas. This same contemporarity appears to hold for the Western Caves as well. The main caityagrha at Bhaja -Bhaja no. 12-has, for example, been called "the earliest


of rock-cut chetiyagharas of [the] Western Deccan" and a signed by Nagaraju to the 3rd Cen~ury B.C.E.72 ~ut Sorne ~f the labelled stiipas of the l~cal monast:c d~a~ at BhaJa have been assigned to the same penod. There IS, agam, no clear chrono~ logical gap. Even at somewhat later sites stiipas for the BUddha and stiipas for the local monastic dead seem to appear sirnul, taneously. The inscription in Cave 7-the main caityagrha at Bedsa-is assigned by Nagaraju to his "series III" (60

, B.C.E.), but that associated with Gobhuti's Stiipa he places in his "series IVa" (60 B.C.E. to 100 C.E.), and he says that it "probably" falls towards the end of the 1st Century B.C.E.73 Given the fact that paleography alone is rarely capable of rnaking such fine distinctions, it is clear that the two inscriptions_ and therefore the two stiipas-belong to the same broad period. Although the question requires and deserves much fuller study, it appears now that there is very possibly little, if any, chronological gap between stiipas for the historical Buddha and stiipas for the local monastic dead, little clear evidence for the kind of gap which could suggest that practices connected with the former's remains were over time extended or generalized to the remains of the latter. Archeologically and epigraphically the two types of stiipas appear now as roughly contemporary, with in some cases some indication that stiipas of the local monastic dead may actually have predated those of the Buddha. It is interesting to note, moreover, that if we look at the internal chronology or "narrative time" taken for granted in our literary sources, it would appear that their redactors also considered stiipas for the local monastic dead to predate those of the Buddha. Both the stiipas mentioned in the Udana and Apadana, and that referred to in the PaIi Vinqya, for example, long preceded-according to the narrative time assumed by

. our texts-those erected for the Buddha. 74 It might in fact some day be possible to argue that the relic cult and stiipa of the historical Buddha only represents a special and particularly well known instance of what was a common and widespread monastic practice. It may, indeed, have been much more widespread than our certain evidence now indicates.

I t is certain that there were stiipas of the local monastic dead at Sanci, Sonari, Andher, Mathura, AmaravatI, Bhaja, Bedsa and Kanheri. This is certain because at all these sites we


~ave either ~onative inscriptions or ~ns.cribed labels to prove it. These insc~lbed and therefore certam mstances ar~, of course, inIportant m themselv:s. But t~ey. als? .have ~n, Imp.ortance chich goes beyond theIr respectlve mdIvIdual sItes. GIVen the toor state of preservation of most Buddhist sites in India, and ,fhevirtually complete absence of contemporary documentation concerning them, we often must, and can, argue-as in /~rcheology in general-from those cases which are certain to those that are less so. In this situation, the individual labelled stiipas in their own small sep~rate shrines placed near the. main shrine at Bedsa and Kanhen, the clearly labelled stiipas m the ordered monastic cemeteries at Bhaja and Kanheri, and the nIultiple labelled deposits-in Stiipa no. 2 at Sand, all have con~ siderable indexical or typological importance. They establish the important fact that all secondary stiipas at monastic sites 'which are situated in small separate shrines near the main stiipa, or in ordered groups away from the hub of the complex, or that contain multiple deposits, are-in every case in which they are labelled and it can therifore be determined-mortuary stiipas of the local monastic_ dead. In light of this, it would seem that unless, and until, there is evidence to the contrary forthcoming, we are obliged to' assume that those stiipas found at monastic sites which are similar, but not actually labelled, are also stilpas of the local monastic dead. On this basis we may be able to identifya considerable number of additional stilpas of this category.

We may note, for example, using Nagaraju's numbers, that Cave 1 at Bedsa, and Caves 2c, 2d, and 2e at Kanheri, are alllike the shrines of Gobhuti at Bedsa and Dharp.mapala at Kanheri-excavations grouped around the main cairya-hall at their respective sites; they are all small chambers; they all contain a single stilpa. 75 If these are not mortuary stiipas for the local monastic dead like those of Gobhuti and Dharp.mapala, they have no readily explainable function. We may note as well that both at cave and structural sites there are groups of unlabelled small stiipas which look remarkably like the labelled monastic cemeteries at Bhaja and Kanheri.

Among the Western Caves, Sudhagarh provides an early example. Here in "a large low-roofed cell" Kail found a group of eight stilpas ranging in height from three-and-a-half to fourand-a-half feet. Kail, without citing his evidence or good illus-


tration, said th~se "are not devo~iona~ stupa! but are funerar . mounds, the relIcs ... of a Buddhist samt bemg enshrined inY hollow receptacle in the square abacu~." 76 Nadsur also pr~ vides a good example. Here in Cave 3-which measur~ 34' X 20' -there are twelve stilpas differing somewhat in sizs

form, and type of construction, making it virtually certain th:t they were not cut or constructed all at the same time. In fact four of these stupas were structural and in the most complete of these Cousens found "a handful of old rice husks, and about as much grey ash." 77 We might cite Pitalkhora as a final example from the caves. At Pitalkhora, on the side of the ravine opposite the main caityagrha and the living quarters, Deshpande describes a cluster of four excavations all of which contain at least one small stupa, and one of which contains three, again dating to different periods. None of this cluster of small stu pas is well preserved, but in at least one Deshpande noted "two holes," one with "a ledge ... to receive a cover," which-on analogy with similar still plugged holes still containing "relics" in the stupa of his Cave 3-could only have been used to hold mortuary deposits. 78

There are no inscriptions associated with these stupas at Sudhagarh or Nadsur or Pitalkhora, but at all these sites we seem to see a number of common characteristics. In so far as . we can tell from the reports, there is evidence at all three sites that these were mortuary stupas. At all three sites these stupas had been placed together in orderly groups over more or less long periods of time. In so far aswe can tell-and this is pare ticularly clear at Pitalkhora-these groups were situated well away from the public areas oftheir complexes. All three caseson analogy with similar but inscribed and, therefore, certain cases at Bhaja and Kanheri-can only have been, it seems, cemetery shrines for the local monastic dead. This same kind of argument could be made for several structural sites as well.

This argument could be made for Bhojpur, for example, where at least fifty small stupas whose mortuary character is strikingly evident-large deposits of bones being found in several-are placed together away from the hub of the complex in a way which parallels the placement of the local monastic dead in the cemeteries of the Western Caves and, significantly, at the structural site at Sand. 79 I t could be made for the orderly rowS


{Jllortuary stilpas at GUl).tupalle, in Andhra, which Longhurst 'iong ago suggested .could represent "the ruined tombs of monks >ho died" at the slte. 80 It could be ma<;1e for the area "to the 1st and north-east of monastery 19" at SravastI, which "seems ~ohave been specifically utilized for the erection of stilpas." 81 It tould, as well, be made in regard to the sti~l curious orderly a.rrangement of secondary stilpas at Laupya Nandangarl;, 0hose mortuary character is again clear and whose Buddhist hfliliation now seems sure. 82 All these sites-and a number of 6thers-have all or several of the characteristics which define 'inscribed and therefore certain monastic cemetery shrines, and this would suggest that they too belong to this category.

It is, however, not just individual labelled shrines or labelled monastic cemeteries which have uninscribed parallels. The certain cases of the deposition of the mortuary remains of a number of local monks together in a single stilpa at Sand, Sonari and Andher argue well for Longhurst'S interpretation of the deposits he discovered in at least two stilpas at NagarjunikOl).Qa. Longhurst found in the spaces created by the "spokes" and cross-walls of the foundations of his stilpa no. 4 "twelve water-pots covered with inverted food bowls ... together with six large begging-bowls ... placed on the floor of the chamber near the other vessels. The pots were in small groups of three or four and filled with a mixture of bone ash and fine red earth." By itself, in a separate space, he also found a distinctively shaped "globular" pot inside of which was a silver "casket" which contained in turn "a tiny gold reliquary." Longhurst suggests that this stilpa "was built to contain the remains of twelve monks and the ashes of SOme important divine" from the monastery in front of which it stands. In his stilpa no. 5 Longhurst again discovered six "water-pots and bowls" of the same form and content, and again suggested that this stilpa too "was erected to contain the remains of monks or priests" belonging to its associated monastery. 83

None of the deposits in the two stilpas at Nagarjunikol).<;la were labelled, and Longhurst does not cite the Sanc!, Sonari, and Andher deposits which are. The latter, however, establish a sure precedent for the deposition of the mortuary remains of a number of local monks together in a single stilpa, and they indicate again that, until we have equally sure evidence or


examples to the contrary, we must assume-even in th';, absen.ce of inscriptions-these stiipas at Naga~junikoI).<;la als~ contam~d, as Longhurst suggested, the remams of the local~ mOI}astlc dead. The same may apply as well to other instanc> At Sravastl, for example, Marshall~iscovere~ in the northe::i" corner of a very early stiipa three earthen Jars", filled" h

" . h' + d d I " 84 ' e says, WIt a mIxture 01 san an cay. To round out the range of the possible, we might cite sevedC

examples in which there are neither associated inscriptions nor parallels with such inscriptions, but which nevertheless have been interpreted as possible stiipas for the local monastic dead," Ghosh, for instance, in referring to the still badly reported Gho~itarama monastery at KausambI, has said: "the portion ,. presently excavated contained the foundations of a large number of small stiipas and pavements with numerous roughly-circular .... post-holes. It appears that ordinary monks were memorialized .. by the erection of small pillars, their relics being buried in earthen pots in the floors adjoining the small stiipas." 85 In vihiiras at Taxila, Kalawan, and Mohra Moradu, Marshall found small stiipas built in what originally could only have been the living quarters of individual monks. He suggested that these stiipas were funeral monuments intended "as memorials to signalise the sanctity of the cell where some specifically holy bhikshu had lived and died," that these stiipas "probably" contained the ashes of these monks, or "doubtless contained the bodily relics" of a former resident. 86

I t would appear, then, that the list of certain, probable, and possible monastic sites for which there is evidence for the permanent housing or enshrinement of the local monastic dead is already a long one: SancI, Sonari, Andher, Mathura, Bedsa, Kanheri, Bhaja, AmaravatI, Sudhagarh, Nadsur, Pitalkhora, Bhojpur, GUl).tupalle, Sravastl, Lauriya Nandangarl;l, Nagarjunikol).<;l.a, KausambI, Taxila, Kalawan, and Mohra Moradu. This list-which is nothing more than preliminary and provisional-is startling if for no other reason than that it reflects only what a superficial survey turned up in reports of explorations and excavations which were almost completely unconcerned with, and uninformed about, the treatment of the local monastic dead. A good deal could be said about early archeological methods in India and the character of the published


;~~;i· .rts much of which would not be kind. One thing, howl,[~pois 'clear: Buddhist historical archeology in India was from 'eyer, . . :it~e beginnmg-and to a large degree remams-text -bound. 87 :ianfortunately, the texts that were, ~nd to some degree con~'J'lle to be, the best known are commg more and more to be :tin . d 1 h . t'len as least representatIve an -at east as t ey w~re mter-;\:~;eted-less than a sure guide to actual practice. 88 This meant, t~fcourse, that investigators of Buddhist monastic sites often ~aid not know what to look for or did not recognize what they gtyere seeing. Since, for example, it was taken on good scholarly ':1{iithority that "the Vinqya" contained no rules governing the ;?dlsposal of the monastic dead,89 it is hardly surprising that no 1!attempt was made to survey sites for evidence of such prac:.t1d~s. What is, however, surprising is that especially the early ',investigators sometimes actually noted such evidence, and in :;some cases accurately identified it for what it was. It is still (more surprising that, in spite of anything even approaching a ,:systematic attempt to locate evidence for the treatment of the IIlonastic dead, our list of sites for which there is such evidence-however casually or incidentally reported-is as long

::a.sit is. Had there been any attempt to locate such evidence, it isreasonable to assume, our list would have been far longer. But this list is impressive not just by its length. It contains a

'considerable number of early sites and several of the earliest sites that we have certain knowledge of (Sanci, Sonari, Andher, Bhojpur, .Bhaja, Pitalkhora); it incl~des some of the m<;-in BudLdhist sites referred to in Nikqya-Agama literature (Sravastl, Kausambi); it includes sites from the South (Amaravatl, NagarjunikOl;H;la, GUl.ltupalle), from the West (Bedsa,

. Kanheri, Sudhagarh, Nadsur, etc.), from the Northwest (Tax-ila, Kalawan, Mohfa Moradu), from Central India (Sanci, Sonari, etc.), and from the Buddhist heartland. In short, this list testifies to a preoccupation with permanently housing or enshrining the local monastic dead that was very early and geographically very widespread. Again, if nothing else, this preoccupation with local monks forces us towards a long overdue recognition of the limited character of the so-called "great tradition" and an acknowledgement of the potential significance of the purely local in actual Buddhist communities. In an interesting sociological study of the monasteries and mod-


ern monks ofBhubaneswar, Miller and Wertz found that wh people were asked to name a "holy man," by far the great:~ number of them (38.2%) named contemporary ascetics in th local community. Only 11.3% named hi~torical religious figure: such as the Buddha, Guru Nanak, or Sankara. 90 These figure must at least remind us of the distinct possibility that whereas we tend to locate the "holy" almost exclusively in major histor~ cally known Indian religious men, actual Indian communities· -including monastic communities-may never have done so. In fact, the mere existence of the architecturally marked presence of the local monastic dead in so many Buddhist monastic complexes already suggests that those who lived in such complexes located the holy at least as much in purely loc~l figures as they did in pan-Buddhist figures like the Buddha or Sariputra and Maudgalyayana. We are, moreover, already able to say a little more about who or what these local figures were, and about the individuals or groups who were preoccupied with preserving their permanent presence. ..

Information regarding the individual local monks whose remains were preserved at Buddhist monastic sites is, of course, limited to what is contained in the inscriptions and labels associated with their stupas or the deposits of their "relics." In some cases, there are indications of the monk's place of origin or residence, but in all cases the individual monk involved is given an ecclesiastical title, or a title indicative of his religious practice and status, or both. It is, however, almost immediately obvious that these titles-whether ecclesiastical or religiousare not, until very late, elaborate. There is little indication that these individuals were "great saints," at least in terms of what we might have expected from textual descriptions of religious achievements. 9! Nor is there much indication that they were high ecclesiastics or "pontiffs." Grahadasika in the Mathura record is simply called a bhik~u, a monk. Dharp.mapala at Kanheri, and all the monks in the Bhaja cemetery, are referred to only as "Elders" (thera) and given the title bhadanta, "Reverend." The monks whose remains were deposited inStupa no. 2 at SaiicI may be referred to collectively as uinqyakas, which should mean "guide, leader, or trainer, discipliner," but may be an alternative expression for vinaya-dhara, "preserver of the Vinaya," "Vinaya master." But only one of the monks is indi-


"dually so called. Two are called ara, but the significance of the 'X~rrIl is unclear. Most scholars have taken it to be equivalent to Jfhat although that is not likely.92The term arhat occurs in the 'frakrit inscript.ions of Central India not infrequently. as afahataJ arahaJ anhaJ ariiha, but never as ara. ara could m factJu.st

lias easily be from iirya, although the common form of iirya m these same inscriptions is aya. 93 One of these monks is also Called an iiciirya and one is called a "pupil" (iiteviisin). Most sigtIificantly, however, all of these monks are individually referred :to as sapurisa, and in eight out of the ten individual labels that is all that they are called. At Sonari, too, sapurisa is the only 'religious title that occurs in the four labels; and at Andher, although one individual is again called a "pupil" and another a pabhiisana or "luminary," both are p.lso called sapurisas, and the two other individuals named there are called only that. The (me thing, then, that all of these monks had in common-in addition to the fact that their remains had been enshrined in a set of Central Indian stilpas-was classification as a sapurisa. Unfortunately what such a classification meant is not very clear. sapurisa in Pali seems to mean little more than "a good, worthy man" and is cited as "equal to ariya";94 in Sanskrit sources, too, it is said to mean literally a "worthy or true man." Edgerton says both that "they are evidently a lay category" and that "the term satpuru0a may include monks." 95 Although the monk in our AmaravatI umbrella inscription may have a title (-pabhahin) which may be related to one of the titles that occurs at Andher (-pabhiisana), and although he is also referred to as an arya, the title sapurisa occurs neither in this inscription nor in any of the other inscriptions or labels associated with the local monastic dead. It seems to reflect a purely local classification and-at the very least-one which has no demonstrable connection with "canonical" or textual definitions of religious achievement or "sainthood." In fact, only two of the early inscriptions connected with the local monastic dead contain references to a distinct type of religious practitioner recognized by the textual tradition. In Amaravati no. 103, Nagasena is called a pelJrfavatika, a "mendicant monk," and in the stilpa

. inscription from Bedsa, Gobhuti is called both a perfapiitika and an iiralJaka, a "forest-dweller," as well. Both pilJrfapiitika and iirar;yaka are, of course, known in the literature, .primarily as


two of the twelve or thirteen dhutangas or dhutagur;as. But the . s~atus. and :value placed on these "ascetic pr~~tices" -espe_ CIally In Pall sources-are less than clear. The PaIr Text Society. Dictionary, for example, refers to a passage that occurs twice in the Piirivara "deprecating such practices," and says that each· of the dhutahgas is "an ascetic practice not enjoined in the Vinaya." It notes as well that "the Milinda devotes a whole book (chap. VI) to the glorification of these 13 dhutangas/' but says "there is no evidence that they were ever widely adopted." That there was a certain amount of ambivalence towards these practices in at least some of the literary sources seems fairly sure, and it appears that nowhere were they considered obligatory or an integral part of the career of the arhat. I t is therefore curious that they and they alone find mention in Buddhist epigraphs which refer to significant individuals in actual communities. 96 What is perhaps even more significant, though, is what is absent in these epigraphs. Nowhere in these early inscriptions which refer to local monks whose remains were treated like those of the Buddha is there any reference to the "classical" textual definitions of Buddhist "sainthood," no certain references to arhats or any of the levels of spiritual attainment associated with or preliminary to this ideal. There are, in fact, no indications-apart from references to pir;rjapiitikas or iirmzyakas-that "canonical" or textual definitions of religious achievement or "sainthood" ever penetrated into actual early monastic communities in India, no indication in these records that they were known at all. The absence of such indications in early records connected with the local monastic dead is in itself striking. But it is even more so in light of the fact that such indications are fulsomely found-in spite of what might have been expected-in the latest series of such inscriptions, long after, one might have thought, the arhat ideal had lost its predominant place. It is not until the 6th or 7th century, and even then only at Kanheri, that we find in records associated with the local monastic dead certain references to arhats-seven of the eight Kanheri labels published by Gokhale in 1985 refer to monks who are called arhats-and to characteristics associated with textual definitions of "sainthood" -tevija; -?arjabhijiiiina; aniigiimin, etc. This situation is, again, not what might have been expected, and deserves fuller study. But it would appear,


atthe very least, that we have here yet another case which indicates that we need not-and probably should not-assume that the presence of an idea in a canonical Buddhist text necessarily means that that same idea was current in actual Buddhist communities. The two need not-and probably often did not-have any necessary connection, chronological or otherwise. Our inscriptions, for example, suggest that the significance of the individual local monks whose remains were carefully and percmanently preserved at early monastic sites was not linked to their having achieved the religious ideals articulated in what 'are taken to be early texts. Such a linkage occurs, in fact, only later, long after we think those early texts were composed. Although it would lead too far afield to discuss it here,it is also at least worth noting that nowhere in these inscriptions-even very late and at Kanheri-is there the slightest hint or trace of the religious ideals we associate with the Mahayana. When we do finally encounter textual definitions of the ideal, they are definitions articulated in traditions firmly rooted in the nikiiyas and iigiimas, and show no influence of the Mahayana sutras, even though a very large number of the latter seem to have been composed long before. 97

If, then, epigraphical data tells us something about the local monks for whom stupas were raised and whose remains were preserved in early India, if it tells us that such monks were not thought-until very late-to have been arhats, but are instead said to be theras or bhadantas or, sometimes, pir;qaPiitikas, that same material also tells us something, finally, about the people who made considerable efforts to ensure the permanent presence of those theras and bhadantas in their midst, who established, honored and adored the structures that housed them. Our best information concerning these matters comes, perhaps, from Stiipa no. 2 at Sand.

Among the labels found on the deposits in Stupa no. 2 at SanCl there is, as we have seen, one donative inscription. Majumdar reads the latter as: kiikanava-pabhiisa-siha[n}ii dana, and translates it: "the gift of the pupils of the Light of Kakanava" - "the Light of Kakanava" being the monk and sapurisa

. Gotiputa mentioned also in an Andher label. If Majumdar's reading and interpretation are correct, then so too must be his conclusion: "It may, therefore, be concluded that the casket on


whi~h this inscription occurs was .the. gift of the disciples of GotIputa, the Kakanava-pabhasa. It IS hIghly probable that th other three caskets, which do not bear any donative inscripti~' but were deposited along with this one in the stone box weon

likewise contributed by the same persons." 98 Although Maju~~ dar's derivation of what he reads as siha from Sanskrit faiksa i·.·· not entirely free of problems, 99 his interpretation of the re~or~ appears to be the most satisfying to date, and it suggests that the deposition of the monastic remains in Stupa no. 2 at SaiicI was the result of monastic endeavors. But even if this sugges_ tion cannot be taken as entirely certain, even if some doubt might remain concerning the donors of the deposit itself, there

. can be no doubt that the structure that housed this deposit was disproportionately paid for by monks and nuns. There are ninety-three donative records connected with Stupa no. 2 at Sand in which the status of the donor is clear, and which record the gifts of coping-stones, cross-bars, rail-pillars, pavement-slabs and berm and stairway balustrades. Forty-four of these inscriptions record the gifts of monks (28) and nuns (16), and eight more the gifts of pupils (antevasin) of monks and nuns. lOO This means that well over half the donors who contributed to the construction and adornment of this stupa of the local monastic dead were monks and nuns, some of whom were sutaikas, "versed in the Suttantas," and bhar;akas, "reciters (of the Dharma)." Unless one would want to argue that monks and nuns made up more than half of the population in the area around Sand, it would appear that monks and nuns not only made up an absolute majority of the donors concerned with Stupa no. 2, but that their numbers were disproportionately large in light of the fact that they almost certainly constituted only a small percentage of the local population-Sancl, after all, was very near "the famous and populous city of Vi dis a" and, perhaps, a "nodal point" on an important commercial route between Andhra and the north. lOl I t should, therefore, have had a large lay catchment area.

I t is unfortunate that we do not have comparably rich data for other stupas of the local monastic dead. But what we do have points very much in the same direction. We know, for example, that the stupa of Gobhuti at Bedsa was "caused to be made" by the monk-pupil of Gobhuti. It is also virtually certain that the

CULT OF THE DEAD 313 ~);l!:';~<:;::"

j;~::;-ljJa of Grahadasika at Mathura was erected either by a monk ~i/g:group of m~nks who resid.ed in the yir;c.ia Monaste~!:: The ~:,:iibelled. stiJPas m the monastlc cemeten~s a~ both BhaJa and iE,jZanhen could have been erected and mamtamed only-almost :\i;ertainly-by the monks of their respective establishments. t~Had they had individual "donors," it is reasonable to assume .'0that those donors would have been named -as they are at l,'Bedsa, Mathura and elsewher:-in their associated inserip~,.tions. But no donors are mentIOned. Moreover, the labels at i'~'I{anheri especially could only have been written by persons ;;familiar with the textual, technical definitions of "sainthood," ;',and this too would suggest monks. Even in the case of the unin~'scribed stiJpas, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ,rnonks themselves were responsible for the deposit of the reY~ains of what appear to be local monastic dead. At Nagarjuni',koI).c.ia, for example, neither stilpa no. 4 or 5 was the main stilpa >at the site. Both appear to have been the private stilpas of the "rnonasteries that they are closely and physically associated

with. Again, it is unlikely that anyone but the monks could ,2 have established and maintained the orderly groups of stilpas ", at, for example, Sudhagarh and Nadsur. Moreover, and much ',' more broadly, there is evidence to indicate that from the very

beginning constructional activity at monastic sites was-not surprisingly-under the supervision and control of specifically

•.•. designated monks, and that, as a consequence, what we see at such sites is the reflection of monastic choices and monastic values. Already at Bharhut and Sonari, at Amaravati, Nagarjunikor;c.ia, Kanheri, etc., we find evidence for the presence of navakammikas, monks "appointed by the Chapter as a superintendent of the building operations." 102 Njammasch has in fact

, gone some ways towards showing that "Der navakammika war offen bar eine wichtige Personlichkeit in der Struktur der indischen buddhistischen Kloster." 103 The earliest navakammika that we have reference to is Isipalita at Bharhut, and he appears to have been by no means an "average" monk-in addition to being a "Superintendent of Works," he is also a bhadanta, an iirya, and a "Reciter (of Dharma)" (bhiirJaka); 104 at Amaravati, the Navakammika Budharakhita is called both a thera and a bhadanta-that is to say, he belonged to the same class as did so many of the monks for whom stilpas were built; 105 at Nagarjuni-


kOI).Q.a, the three n~va~ammi~as mentioned in "the Second Apsi_ . dal Temple InscnptIOn F are all called theras, the monk responsible for the construction of the cefiya and vihiira referred to in "Detached Pillar Inscription H" is called "the Master the Great Preacher of the Law, the Thera Dharpma[gho]sa'~ (acariyena mahiidhaJ!lmakiithik [e Jna dhaJ!lma[gho J sa-therena anuthitaJ!l) , and the miihacetiya was said to have been brought to completion by "the Reverend Ananda, who knows the Dfghaand the Majjhima-nikiiyas by heart" (dzgha-majhima-nikiiya_ dharena bhajaJ!ltiinadena nithapitaJ!l). 106 Monks-and often times learned monks-supervised and controlled building activities at monastic sites, then; they determined, it would appear, what was and. what was not built and where it was to be placed. Their choices and their values are, again, what we see expressed at Buddhist monastic sites. These monastic choices and monastic values have. almost certainly determined the presence-whether they are inscribed or not-of the stiipas of the local monastic dead at so many sites in India.

Although the evidence that we have primarily points directly and ir"!directly to monastic initiative for the deposition of the remains of the local monastic dead and the establishment of permanent structures to house them, and although . this same evidence suggests that monks would have been predominantly preoccupied with and active in any cult of the local monastic dead, there is as weIl some evidence to indicate that the laity was not entirely excluded. The AmaravatI umbrella inscription, for example, records the gift of an Upasika or "lay sister" to the stiipa of a local monk, although the stupa itself seems, obviously, already to have been in existence. 107 At Kanheri, however, "the stiipa of the Elder, the Reverend Dharpmapala" is explicitly said to be "the religious gift of Sivapalitanika, the wife of the treasurer Dhamanaka." 108 In . addition to these records, there are the donative inscriptions from Stiipa no. 2 at Sand which also reveal lay participation in activity connected with the local monastic dead. But that participation at Sand, as everywhere else, seems to have been overshadowed by that of the monks. The place and participation of the laity in activity connected with the local monastic dead seems everywhere to have been restricted, and this in turn may be reflected in the literature.


; Conflict-potential or actual-is a consistent theme in fterary accounts of the deposition of the Buddhist dead. "The ';~ar of the relics," never actually launched, is an es~ablished

lement ofihe accounts of the death of the Buddha. lOg Ananda's 'death and the deposition of his remains also takes place in a context marked by the threat of war between competing claim~ 'artts for his remains. llo But the conflict over the remains of ,'Sariputra may be of particular inten;st. Although the only canonical Pali account of the death of Sariputra has either suf'fered-or been intentionally altered-in transmission, still it is clear from the accou~t in the Sal(lyutta-nikaya that the collection and preservation of Sariputra's remains was thought to have been an exclusively monastic affair.ll1 The account of these same events in the Millasarviistiviida-vinaya, however, presents a much more compli~ated situation. 112 Although here too the initial collection of Sariputra's remains was undertaken by a monk, and they were taken possession of by another monk, the

;Elder Ananda, in this account the monastic claim to exclusive possession and access is chall~nged by the wealthy layman An

. athapi:Q.c;lada. He approaches Ananda and asks for the remains, but Ananda flatly refuses. This conflict between the monastic and lay claims has then to be mediated by the Buddha himself, who initially seems to favor Anathapi:Q.c;lada, and instructs .Ananda to hand over the remains. But that the redactors of this version did not see this either as a happy solution or as signalling the end of monastic control seems apparent from what follows: Anathapi:Q.c;lada takes the remains and enshrines them in his own house, but this only restricts access to these relics in another way. People come to Anathapi:Q.c;lada's house, but find the door locked. They complain to the Buddha, who as a result indicates that stilpas for deceased monks-although they might be erected by laymen-have to be erected within the confines of the monastery.

Although this quick summary does not do justice to the text,a text which deserves to be translated in full, it at least

. suggests that its author assumed or asserted the priority of an exclusive monastic claim to the remains of the monastic dead; it suggests that that claim at some point had been challenged, and that the monastic response, to the challenge had been, at best, ambivalent: it allowed lay participation and involvement,

316 jIABS VOL. 14 NO.2

but it restricted it to the confines of the monastery and indo cated that lay participation was to be governed by monasti2' rules. .

The account of the deposition of the remains of Sariputr' in the Miilasarvastivada-vina;ya is-in so far as we can now tell; only a story; as such it can only tell us what its compilor 0

redactor thought or wanted his intended audience to thin{ The same applies as well to the accounts in the Pali Udana and Apadana in which the Buddha is presented as di::ecting monks,i and monks alone, to perform the funeral and bUIld a stiipa fofa( deceased fellow monk, or the account in the Pali Vina;ya concerning a group of nuns doing the same for one of their: deceased members .113 There is, of course, as of now no way to relate any of these geographically unlocalizable and largely. undatable documents directly to any of our sites. The most that. we can say is that it appears that all ofthe compilors or redac~ tors of these stories assumed or asserted that concern for the local monastic dead was originally and primarily a concern of monks and nuns, that the laity, if they were involved at all, were thought, or directed to be, only secondarily, even tangen~ tially, involved. This assumption or assertion, moreover, would appear to have been widespread.

These and other passages from the canonical literature, deserve to be much more carefully studied for what they can tell us about attitudes and ideas concerning the local monastic dead that various authors or redactors attributed to the Buddha. It is, however, very likely that they will not tell us very much, and this, perhaps, gives rise to the broadest generalization that we can make. The epigraphical and archeological' material we have looked at-although it too requires much fuller study-already tells us some important things about the limitations of our literary sources. We know from the epigraphical and archeological sources not only that the remains of the local monastic dead were housed in permanent structures that paralleled structures used to house the remains of the Buddha; we know too that the relationship between the local dead and the structures that housed their remains was expressed exactly as was the relationship between the "dead" Buddha and his stiipa-that in both cases the structure was said to be "of" or "for" the person, not "for" or "of" his remains. We


f~kllow that there was little, if any, chronological gap between f1:,'!~tdpas forth: Buddha and stupas for the local mon~stic dead; !tfuat a consld~rable amou.nt ?f effort and expendIture went ';'i;~:wards ensunng the contmumg presence of deceased purely ~iii~cal monks in their resp~ctiv~ communities! that the remai~s g'{local monks were deposIted m separate shnnes near the mam ~l,'itiipa of som.e sites, or that. the reI?ains o~ several local monks f"were deposIted together m a smgle stupa, or-most comi'~fu:only-in ordered groups of individual stiipas placed away ;\from the central hub of the complex. We know that there were ~~.xocal, perhaps regional, definitions of "sainthood," and that the '''~tatus of bhadanta or thera appears to have had more than '!Il1erely ecclesiastical significance in actual communities; that 'ithe preoccupation with the local monastic dead was primarily ii;hrd predominantly a monastic concern and activity. Finally,;iand perhaps most importantly-we know that these concep/.tions and practices concerning the local monastic dead were cer,~tainly current at Sand, Sonari, Andher, Mathura, Amaravatl, tBhaja, Bedsa and Kanheri, and probably at a dozen or more widely separated actual sites, and that such activity was not only

(widespread, but in most cases very early. We know all of this . Trom epigraphical and archeological material. But almost none

of this could have been clearly perceived, precisely understood, ()r even known from our canonical sources for the simple reason that all of it took place at a local level in actual monastic communities, and our canonical sources know nothing of-or say nothing about-the vast majority of the actual local sites at which we know early monastic Buddhism was practised. There is, moreover, for the vast majority of such sites, no evidence that the canonical sources we know were known or used by the communities that lived there. These sources have, in this sense,

. no direct documentary value at all. If the study of Indian Buddhism is ever to be anything other than a study of what' appears to be an idealizing and intentionally archaizing literature, if it is ever to deal directly with how this religion was actually practised in actual local monasteries, these facts will have to be fully confronted, however uncomfortable that might be.


NOTES

1. P Steinthal, Udiina (L~ndon: 1885) 8.21;. ~ikkhu J. Kashyap, The Apadiina (II)-~uddh~vaT(lSa~CaTlya.Pltaka [Khuddakamkaya, vol. VII] (Nalanda~ DevanagarI-Pah-Senes) (BIhar: 1959) 125.16 (54.6.216). .

2. H. ,?ldenberg, The Vintrya PitakaT(l (Lor:do.n: 18~?) iv 308-09; Cf.· G. Schopen, The Stupa Cult and the Extant Pah Vmaya, Journal of the Piili Text Society 13 (1989) 91 n.l9 . "

3. For the Tibetan text see D. T Suzuki, The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition (Tokyo-Kyoto: 1958) 44, 95-2-1; certain aspects of this text-largely sho;n" of their context-have been discussed several times: W. W. Rockhill, The Lifed" the Buddha and the Early History of His Order derived from Tibetan Works in the Bkah.;: hgyur and Bstan-hgyur (London: 1884) 111; L. de la Vallee Poussin, "Staupikam," Harvard Journal of" Asiatic Studies 2 (1935) 276 ff; A. Bareau, "La Construction et Ie culte des stupa d'apres les vinayapitaka," Bulletin de l'ecole franfaise d'extreme_ orient 50 (1960) 236,240,247,264; G. Roth, "Symbolism of the Buddhist Stilpa according to the Tibetan Version of the Caitya-vibhaga-vinayodbhava-siitra the Sanskrit Treatise Stupa-lak;;aJfa-karika-vivecana, and a Corresponding Pas~ sage in Kuladatta's Kriyasarp.graha," in The StiJpa. Its Religious, Historical and Architectural Significance, ed. A. L. Dallapicco1a & S. Z. Lallemant (Wiesbaden: 1980) 183 ff; see below pp. 315-316.

4. de la Vallee Poussin, "Staupikam," 288. 5. For a survey of the kind and character of the "excavation" work done

on Buddhist sites up until the '50s-and comparatively little major work has been done on such sites since then-see now D. K. Chakrabarti, A History of Indian Archaeology from the Beginning to 1947 (New Delhi: 1988).

6. J. Burgess, ".Is Bezawa<;la on the Site of Dhanakataka?" Indian Antiquary 11 (1882) 97-8. There is a good drawing of the plan and elevation of one of these "dolmens or rude-stone burying places" at Amaravatl in J. Fergusson, "Description of the Amaravatl Tope in Guntur," Journal of" the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (= JRAS) (1868) 143, fig.6. AmaravatI is not the only Buddhist site in Andhra built on or near proto-historical burials. There is evidence of such burials at NagarjunikoJf<;la (R. Subrahmanyam, et aI, Nagarjunakonda (1954-60), Vol. I (Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 75) (New Delhi: 1975) 165 ff), Yeleswaram (M. A. W. Khan, A Monograph on Yelleshwaram Excavations (Hyderabad: 1963) 4 ff),Jaggayyapeta (R. Sewell,Quelques points d'archiologie de l'inde meridionale (Paris: 1897) 5-6), Goli (K. P Rao, Deccan Megaliths (Delhi: 1988) 23), etc. The association of Buddhist sites with proto-historical burials is also by no means limited to Andhra-see, for convenience sake, D. Faccenna, A Guide to the Excavations in Swat (Pakistan) 1956-62 (Roma: 1964) 62, 65-and deserves to be much more fully studied as a general pattern.

7. Fergusson, "Description of the Amaravati Tope in Guntur/' 138, 140. 8. For the modern history of the site and a summary account of the work

done on it see N. S. Ramaswami, Amaravati. The Art and History of the StiJpa and the Temple (Hyderabad: 1975) 14-23. There is epigraphica1 evidence of Buddhist devotional and donative activity at the site in the 11 th Century (E. Hultzsch, ''A


t(~!1ava Inscription from Amarav~ti," Madras Journal qf Literature and Science for .r,fS86- 7 (Madras: 1887) 59-62), In the 12th and 13th Century (E. Hultzsch, ;~:Arwo pillar In~criptions at Amaravati," Epigraph~a Indic~ [= EI) 6 \ 1900-0l) 3i46-60), and In the 14th C.enturr(S,,, Par~navltana, ~a<;laladeI:nya Rock;'~it cription of Dharmmaklrttl Sthavlra, Epzgraphza Z~ylanzca 4 (1935) 90-110. ;J's~~e of the earliest w~rk on the site had ~,lrea~y re~ea1ed str~y sculptures, relief 0,t ork and plaques whICh belonged to a late period, and In 1954 D. Barrett !fha,d made an attempt to describe "the Later School of Amaravati" which he ~t/ituated between the 7th and 10th Centuries (D. Barrett, "The Later School of ;~Xrnaravati and its Influence," Arts and Letters 28.2 (1954) 41-53). More recently, i!oa:certain amount of attention has been focused on what is rather loosely called ',.';tanttic" material from AmaravatI and other Andhra sites (K. Krishna :}¥urthy, Iconography qf Buddhist Deity Heruka (Delhi: 1988); K. Krishna Murthy, ;Sculptures qf Vajrl1)!iina Buddhism (Delhi: 1989), and, although this recent work is \often careless and badly done, still it makes clear that we have much to learn ,·.about the later phases of Buddhism in Andhra and suggests that it persisted for ;'16nger than we are wont to think. There is, moreover, evidence for this persisnence not just at Amaravatl, but at Salihul).<;lam (R. Subrahmanyam, Salihundam. A Buddhist Site in Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad: 1964) 91 ff), GUl).tupalle (I. K.

•.. Sarma, Studies in Earl:J Buddhist Monuments and Briihmz Inscriptions qf Andhra Defa i(Nagpur: 1988) 59-91), Gumma<;lidurru (M. H. Kuraishi, "Trail Excavations

atAlluru, Gummadidurru and Nagarjunakonda," Annual Report qfthe ArchaeologSurvey qf India ( = ARASI) for 1926-27 (Calcutta: 1930) 150-61), and a numof other sites.

9. J. Burgess, Notes on the Amaravati Stupa (Madras: 1882) 4, 9. 10. A. Rea, "Excavations at Amaravatl," ARASI 1905-06 (Calcutta:

1909) 118-9 & pI.L-Rea's pI. XLVI I. 6 reproduces "evidently a late example" of the kind of sculpture referred to above in n. 8.

11. A. Rea, "Excavations at Amaravatl," ARASI 1908-09 (Calcutta: 1912) 90-91 and figs. 1 & 2. Rea called these burials "neolithic pyriform tombs," but Rao (Deccan Megaliths, 46) has pointed o~t that " ... taking into account the recent evidence, we can safely assign them to the megalithic period." Note, too, the "late" sculptures illustrated in Rea's pIs. XXVI lId and XXXId.

12. G. Schopen, "Burial 'ad sanctos' and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism. A Study in the Archeology pf Religion," Religion 17 (1987) 193-225.

13. Burgess, Notes on the Amaravati Stupa, 49. 14. J. Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas qf Amaravati and Jaggl1)!yapeta in the

Krishna District, Madras Presidency, Surveyed in 1882 (London: 1887) pI. xlv.6. 15. Burgess, Notes on the. Amaravati Stupa, 49 (no. 88b); 55 (88b).

Hultzsch's final version appeared in E. Hultzsch, "Amaravatl-Inschriften," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschqft (= ZDMG) 37 (1883) 555-56 (no. 24).

16. H. Liiders, A List qf Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to about A.D. 400 with the Exception qf those qf Asoka (Appendix to Epigraphia Indica 10) (Calcutta: 1912) no. 1276.

17. R. O. Franke, "Epigraphische Notizen," ZDMG 50 (1896) 600.


18. C. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Mi .' (Bulletin. of the Madras Government Museum, N.S.-General Sec. VOl.Us;V') (Madras. 1942) 295, no. 92. . .,'

19. Burgess, Notes on the Amaravati Stupa, 55 ~nd n. 2. 20. Hultzsch, "AmaravatI-Inschriften," 555-56, no. 24. 21. Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas qf Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta, 87. 22. Lilders, A List qf Brahmi Inscriptions, no. 1276. . .\ 23. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Nladras Government lV11Us .... ,. eurn

295, no. 92; 342. .,.' 24. Et. Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien. des origines a l'ere faka (L(j~U

vain: 1958) 583-84. . . 25. O.R. Furtseva, "On the Problem of the Territorial Distribution ofth

Buddhist Schools in Kushana Age (According to the Epigraphic Data)," i~' Summaries qf Papers presented by Soviet Scholars to the VIth yVorld Sanskrit COriference October 13-20,1984, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US.A. (Moscow: 1984) 55; see als6 A. M. Shastri, "Buddhist Schools as Known from Early Indian Inscriptions" Bhiiratz, Bulletin qfthe College qfIndology, no. 2 (1957/58) 48; etc.'

26. J. Marshall, A Guide to Sanchi (Calcutta: 1918) 87. 27. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Nluseurn ,

298. 28. Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas qf Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta, 72. 29. Burgess, The B~ddhist Stupas qf Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta, pI. xxxi.6;

Ph. Stern & M. Benisti, Evolution du style indien d'Amariivatz (Paris: 1961) pI.lxvi. 30. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum;'

pi. lxv.8. 31. G. Schopen, "A Verse from the Bhadracarzprar;idhiina in a 10th Century

Inscription found at Nalanda," The Journal qf the International Association qf Buddhist Studies 12.1 (1989) 151-53.

32. See for references G. Schopen, "Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: the Layman / Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit, " Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10 (1985) 44-45.

33. M. S. Nagaraja Rao, "Brahm! Inscriptions and their Bearing on the' Great Stupa at Sannati," in Indian Epigraphy. Its Bearing on the History qf Art, ed. F. M. Asher & G. S. Gai (New Delhi: 1985) 41-45, esp. 42, no. 8. There are a number of problems concerning the inscriptions from this recently discovered site in Karnataka, and their nature even is not fully understood. For example, although Rao takes the record cited above as a donative inscription and says it occurs on "an ayaka pillar," it is very likely-to judge by the illustration in his pi. 62-that it is a memorial pillar, not an ayaka pillar, and the record might well then be simply a label.

34. Literary sources do, of course, refer to kefanakha-stupas, "stupas for the hair and nail clippings," and these are-as Feer has said'-presented as a kind of "monument eIeve a un Buddha de son vivant" (L. Feer, Avadiina-r;;ataka. cent legendes bouddhiques (Paris: 1891) 482). References to this type of stiipa occur, moreover, widely. They occur in the Avadiinafataka U. S. Speyer, Avadiinayataka. A Century qf Edifying Tales belonging to the Hznayiina (St. Petersburg: 1906-09) i 123.1; 307.1 if; ii 71.3; etc.), in the Divyiivadiina (P. L. Vaidya, Divyiivadiina (Dar-


;~'Si a' 1959) 122.1-25: dharmatii khalu buddhiiniiT[l bhagavatiiT[l fivatiiT[l #~:~b~~~~~niinii7?l yiipqyatiiT[l kefanakhastupa bhavanti . .. -this is a particularly impor-

9'a as~age, perhaps, and a part of it is quoted as well by Santideva (C. Beni Pr;ikshiisamuccqya. A Comfendiu,,: qfBuddhistic Te~chin~ (St. Petersburg: 1897-~) 148.13) where he attnbutes It to the SarvastlVadms: iirya~sarviistiviidiiniiT[l athyate), and scattered t~ro.ughout t~e v~~:us of t?e Millasarviistivada-vinqya:

!:i~rlieC!Vara-vastu (N. Dutt, Gz.lgz: Manuscn~ts 1~~. 2 (Sn~agar: 1942) 143.12), the ,ji,;'"iivasika-vastu (N. Dutt, Gdgzt Manuscriprs 1ll 3 (Snnagar: 1943) 98.4), the

'~"" .' asana-vastu (R. Gnoli, The Gilgit Manuscript qf the Sqyaniisanavastu and the 'karaTjavastu (Roma: 1978) 28.1,5), the K~udraka-vastu (The Sde-Dge Mtshal-Par

'(' a'-'Gyur. A Facsimile Edition qf the 18th Century Redaction qf Si-Tu Chos-kyi- 'byunI,Z!'naSPrepared under the Direction qf H.H. the 16th Rgyal-dban Karma-pa (Delhi: 1977) :;l~oL 10,9.6, 7) etc. There are also a number of references to a kefanakha-stilpa in ~~'soIne of the versions of the meeting of the Buddha with Trapu~a and Bhallika t!,'(forsome of these-and for further references to kefanakha-stilpas in general--'see ~:i\A.: Bareau, Recherches sur la biographie du buddha dans les siltrapitaka et les vinqyapitaka !~'~nciens: de la quite de l'eveil a la conversion de fiiripuira et de maudgalyiiyana (Paris: ;;:Jg63) 106-23; A. Bareau,"La construction et Ie culte des stupa d'apres les vini~(ayapitaka," BEFEO 50 (1960) 261-63; de la Vallee Poussin, "Staupikam," 285-\,,86' etc.). But in spite of the fact that there are numerous references in literary 1ts()~rces to such stilpas, and in spite of the fact that the Chinese pilgrims refer to (ZJhem(Li Yung-hsi, A Record qf Buddhist Countries by Fa-hsien (Peking: 1957) 32; S. f;Beal, Buddhist Records qfthe Western World (London: 1884) ii80, 173; etc.), there is Wasyet no archeological or epigraphicalevidence to confirm their actual exis:~>tence. Moreover, the texts themselves indicate that though such stilpas were / thought to have been built while the buddhas in question were still alive, such ;,stupas were only built for buddhas, certainly not for local monks like Nagasena. '!'Finally, it might be noted that the possibility of cetiyas being made during the i life time of the Buddha is also explicitly raised in the PaIi Kiilingabodhijiitaka: :: Sakkii pana bhante tumhesu dharantesu yeva cetiya7?l kiitun (V. Fausboll, The Jiitaka together . with its Commentary (London: 1887) iv 228.17), and-although the text is not

i entirely clear-what we normally think of as stilpas, siiririka-cetiyas, are clearly and obviously ruled out. Things like the bodhi-tree which the Buddha had "used" are alone clearly allowed (cf. de la Vallee Poussin, "Staupikam", 284-85.) The classification of cetiyas into siiririka, piiribhogika, and uddesika found in the Kiilingabodhijiitaka and other Pali sources, although frequently cited, shows several signs of being very late; cf. E. W. Adikaram, Early History qf Buddhism in Ceylon (Colombo: 1946) 135, but note that he has overlooked the}iitaka passage.

35. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum, nos. 102, 118; cf. no. 51.

36. G. Buhler, "Inscriptions from the Stupa of Jaggayyapeta," Indian Antiquary 11 (1882) 258 (II.6), 254(.6); also in Burgess, The Buddhist Stu pas qf

, Amaravati andJaggqyyapeta, 110 (no. 2,1.5; no. 3,1.4). 37. For both ideas see Schopen, "Burial 'ad sanctos' and the Physical

Presence of the Buddha," 194-225, esp. 206-09; G. Schopen, "The Buddha as an Owner of Property and Permanent Resident in Medieval Indian Monasteries," Journal qfIndian Philosophy 18 (1990) 197-200.


38. It is worth noting here that it is in Andhra alone that st;'uctures .....•••. nee ted with the local monastic dead are called cetryas. Elsewhere even in co:' Deccan they are referred to as stilpas. A similar-but not exactly the same_ t e

h . d . . pat-tern seems to old as well In regar to structures connected WIth the "dead'; Buddha: in Andhra they are consistently called cetryas, usually maha-ceti , while elsewhere in inscriptions-apart from the Western Caves-such stryr aJ, . uc, tures are usually called stilpas. In the Western monastic cave complexes there" evidence to suggest that the structures connected with the "dead" Buddha we;s, called cetryas (e.g. caityagrha) , while the word stilpa was used "primarily td denote" what Sarkar calls "small-sized memorial stilpas raised in honour of some elder thera" (H. Sarkar, Studies in Early Buddhist Architecture if India (Delhi: 1966) 4). Obviously these regional differences must be more fully studied and precisely plotted, but it is, again, worth noting that some canonical Pali litera~ ture-like Andhran epigraphy-shows a clear preference for the term cetiya, and that this shared preference may evidence mutual contact and influence (cf. Schopen, "The Stilpa Cult and the Extant Pali Vinaya," 89-91). .

39. Although it is neither well written nor well documented, C. Margabandhu, "Archaeol?gical Evidence of Buddhism at Mathura - A Chronologi_ cal Study," in Svasti Srz. Dr. B. Ch. Chhabra Felicitation VOlume, ed. K. V Ramesh et al (Delhi: 1984) 267-80, provides an overview of work on the site; for attempts to reconstruct even the basic outlines of the development of the site see M. C. Joshi & A. K. Sinha, "Chronology of Mathura-an Assessment,': Puratattva 10 (1978-79) 39-44; R. C. Gaur, "Mathura-Govardhana Region: an Archaeological Assessment in Historical Perspective," in Indological Studies. Prqf· D. C. Sircar Commemoration volume, ed. S. K. Maity & U. Thakur (New Delhi: 1987) 103-13; S. C. Ray, "Stratigraphic Evidence of Coins from Excavations at Mathura," in Sraddhiinjali. Studies in Ancient Indian History (D. C. Sircar Commemoration VOlume), ed. K. K. Das Gupta, et al (Delhi: 1988) 375-84; M. C.Joshi, "Mathura as an Ancient Settlement," in Mathurii. The Cultural Heritage, ed. D. M. Srinivasan (New Delhi: 1988) 165-70; etc. There are two papers which-fordifferent reasons-are particularly important for the site, neither of which is directly connected with Buddhist material: K. W. Folkert, ''Jain Religious Life at Ancient Mathura: the Heritage of Late Victorian Interpretation," in Mathurii. The Cultural Heritage, 103-12, which discusses some of the distortions in interpretation which have arisen at least in part from the piecemeal discovery and publication of the material from Mathura; and H. Hartel, "Some Results of the Excavations at Sonkh. A Preliminary Report," in German Scholars on India. Contributions to Indian Studies, VoL II (New Delhi: 1976) 69-99, which both establishes a clear, datable stratigraphical sequence, and-by contrast-makes clear what could have been gained by systematic excavation of specific complexes at Mathura.

40. J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, The "Scythian" Period. An Approach to the History, Art, Epigraphy and Palaeography if North India from the 1st Century B. C. to the 3rd Century A.D. (Leiden: 1949) 181-83; van Lohuizen-de Leeuw refers to a still earlier treatment of the record in V S. Agrawala, "New Sculptures from Mathura," Journal if the United Provinces Historical Society 11.2 (1938) 66-76, but I have been unable to consult this paper.

41. D. C. Sircar, "Brahmi Inscriptions from Mathura," EI34 (1961-62) 9-13, esp. 1O-11 & pI.


42. Sircar, "Brahmi Inscriptions from Mathura," II. 43. S. Nagaraju, Buddhist Architecture qf Western India (c. 250 B. C.-c. A.D.

:~;OO) (Delhi: 1981) 113 S a read~ng o~ t~e Bedsa r:cord is gi:en on p. 329 as well); j~~~art iii places the Kanhen IllscnptlOn earI: III t.he penod ~.etween 100 A-? :,H~I1d 180 AD. (see also 333, no. 6 under Kanhe:l). V DeheJ1a, Early BuddhIst !~~lI.Ock Temples. A Chronology (L~ndon: 1972) 177, assIgns the record from Bedsa to tl:~, 50-30 B.C."; for Kanhen see 183-84. J'~'""C. ;·'f:. 44. J. Burgess, Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and their Inscriptions ;0~IArchaeological Survey of Western India, 4) (London: 1883) 89 (VL2) & pI. ';slvii; see also D. D. Kosambi, "Dhenukaka ra," journal qf the Asiatic Society qf Bom,bqy30.2 (1955) 50-71, esp. 70; ~or the ~patial loca~ion o~ this stiipa wi;,hin t.he :;'iBedsa complex the most useful sIte plan IS that publIshed III A. A West, CopIes '('~fInscriptions from the Caves near Bec;isa, with a Plan," journal qf the Bombay :'ljranch qf the Royal Asiatic Society 8 (1864-66) 222-24 & 2 pl.-this contains as :!)well an eye-copy of the inscription. ~. 45. J. Burgess, Report on the Elura Cave Temples and the Brahmanical andjaina ~JfCaves in TMistern India (Archaeological Survey of Western India, 5) (London: .'.)883) 78 (no. 10) & pI. Ii; for the position ofthis small "shrine" within the com>Jj!ex see Nagaraju, Buddhist Architecture qfWestern India, 197-98 & fig. 39;]. Fer;'gusson &J. Burgess, The Cave Temples qfIndia (London: 1880) pl.liii. . 46. D. Mitra, Buddhist Monuments (Calcutta: 1971) 153.

.... ..... 47. Nagaraju, Buddhist Architecture qfTMistern India, 129; Dehejia, Early Bud-!;dhisl Rock Temples, 47-48; 154, assigns the inscriptions to c. 70-50 B.C. z· • . ' 48. For these records from Bhaja, see Burgess, Report on the Buddhist Cave

Temples and their Inscriptions 82-83 (I.2-5); Kosambi, "Dhenukakata," 70-71; Na.garaju, Buddhist Architecture qfWestern India, 330; etc.

49. Fergusson & Burgess, The Cave Temples qfIndia, 228. . 50. M. N. Deshpande, "The Rock-cut Caves of Pitalkhora in the :Deccan," Ancient India 15 (1959) 66-93; esp. 72-73. On "relic" deposits in monolithic or rock-cut stu pas see also Fergusson & Burgess, The Cave Temples qf

'india, 186 n. 1; H. Cousens, The Antiquities qf Sind. with Historical Outline (Cal.cutta: 1929) 105 (referring to Karli); etc~ .' 51. W. West, "Description of Some of the Kanheri Topes," journal qf the ·Bombay Branch qfthe Royal Asiatic Society [= jBBRAS] 6 (1862) 116-20, esp. 120. . 52. Burgess, Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and their Inscriptions, 67-on the same page there is a good wood-cut illustrating what a part of the cemetery looked like in his day.

53. E. W. West, "Copies ofInscriptions from the Buddhist Cave-Temples of Kanheri, etc. in the Island of Salsette, with a Plan of the Kanheri Caves," JBBRAS 5 (1861) 1-14, esp. 12, no. 58.

54. S. Gokhale, "New Inscriptions from Kanheri," journal qf the Epigraphical Society qf India 5 (1975) 110-12, esp. 110; S. Gokhale, "The Memorial Stiipa Gallery at Kanheri," in Indian Epigraphy. Its Bearing on the History qf Art, ed. F. M. Asher & G. S. Gai (New Delhi: 1985) 55-59 & pI. 94-101, esp. 55; S. Gorakshkar, ''A Sculptured Frieze from Kanheri," Lalit Kalii (18 (1977) 35-38 & pis. xvi-xviii, esp. 35; M. S. Nagaraja Rao (ed.), Indian Archaeology J983-84-A Review (New Delhi: 1986) 154 (cf. M. S. Nagaraja Rao (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1982-83-A Review (New Delhi: 1985) 122).


55. Gokhale, "The Memorial Stupa Gallery at Kanheri," 56 (no. 1 I ) ( . ) , p . 95 ; 57 no. 4, pI. 98 . . .

56. Gokhale, "New Inscriptions from Kanheri," 110; Gokhale, "Th Memorial Stupa Gallery at Kanheri," 56.' e

57. Before leaving the question of the use of plurals of respect in BUddhi inscriptions-a question which also requires further study-it is important tst

note that the use of such plurals, though characteristic of records referring to the local monastic dead, is not restricted to records of this kind; see, for exam~ pIes, E. Serrart, "The Inscriptions in the Caves at Nasik," EI8 (1905-06) 76. Burgess, Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and their Inscriptions 85, no. 7; 87, no: 22; 95, no. 17; etc;. D. C. Sircar, Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan (Calcutta: 1975) II (there is here, however, the additional problem that the inscription Sircar is referring to may not be Buddhist-cf. S. Siddhanta, "The Jagadishpur Copper Plate Grant of the Gupta Year 128 (A.D. 44-48)," Journal of the Varendra Research Museum 1.1 (1972) 23-37); Schopen, "The Buddha as an Owner of' Property and Permanent Resident in Medieval Indian Monasteries," 188 (refer-ring to the Valabhl grants); etc. .

58. Burgess, Notes on the Amaravati Stupa, 55 (no. 88b) and n. 2; Hultzsch "Amaravan-Inschriften," 555-56; Burgess, The Buddhist Stupas of Amaravati and Jaggayyapeta, 87; Liiders, A List of Brahmi Inscriptions, no. 1276; Sivaramamurti Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum, 295 (no. 92). '

59. Burgess, Notes on the Amaravati Stupa, 55 n. 2. 60. M. A. Mehendale, Historical Grammar of Inscriptional Prakrits (Poona:

1948) 122 (§232, c ii); O. von Hiniiber, Das Altere Mittelindisch im Uberblick (Wien: 1986) III (§221).

61. A. Cunningham, The Bhilsa Topes; or Buddhist Monuments of Central India (London: 1854) esp. 184-89; 203-05; 223-36. The local character of the monks whose remains were deposited in the stupas at Sand and related sites has been obscured by an ear.ly and persistent tendency to identify some of these monks with some of the monks involved in the so-called "Third Council" which is known only from Sri Lankan sources. This sort of identification started with Cunningham himself (pp. 184-89) and has been reasserted-with variation and differing degrees of certitude-over the years: J. F. Fleet, "Notes on Three Buddhist Inscriptions," JRAS (1905) 681-91; W. Geiger, The MahiivaT[lsa or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon (London: 1912) xix-xx; E. Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (Serie Orientale Roma VIII) (Roma: 1956) 14-15; Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, 333-34; etc. Such identifications have not, however, gone entirely unquestioned, and recently Yamazaki has presented an argument which has put the question of the "council" and the identification of the monks named on the Sand area deposits in an entirely new light: G. Yamazaki, "The Spread of Buddhism in the Mauryan Age~with Special Reference to the Mahinda Legend," Acta Asiatica 43 (1982) 1-16. It is, moreover, important to note that even if we were to accept thatsome of the monks whose remains were deposited in stupas at Sand, Sonari and Andher were connected with a "Third Council," the majority were not. At least seven of the ten monks-like the named' monks at Bedsa, Bhaja, Kanheri, Mathura and AmaravaU-are completely unknown in the so-called "GreatTra" dition," and could only have been local monastic "saints."

CULT OFTHE DEAD 325

': 62. J. Marshall, A. Foucher & N. G. Majumdar, The Monuments if Siiiich'i: z.f(Delhi: 1940) Vol. I, 294. "{., 63. For some more recent remarks on Kakanava/Sand see P. H. L. ;;'i.Eggennont, "Sa~ch~-Kakanada and the Hel~enistic and Buddhist Sources," i~ :':peyadharma. Studzes zn Memo'Cy if Dr. D. C. Szrcar, ed. G. Bhattacharya (DelhI:

"/1986) 11-27. . .. ..... 64. Marshall et aI, The Monuments ifSiiiich'i:, Vol. 1,294.

65. Majumdar's interpretation of siha, which he says "can be equated Arddha-MagadhI seha, corresponding to Sanskrit faiksha," remains, howproblematic; see below n. 99. 66. For the inscriptions from Sand Stupa no. 2 see Marshall et aI,

Monuments if Siiiich'i:, Vol. I, 363-75, nos. 631-7l9, nos. xvi-xxi, nos. 803, 819-21.

67. Lamotte, Histoire du bouddhisme indien, 474. 68. Schopen, "Burial 'ad sanctos' and the Physical Presence of the Bud

" 203-11; G. Schopen, "On the Buddha and his Bones: the Conception of in the Inscriptions of Nagarjunikol,lr;la," Journal if the American Oriental

108 (1988) 527-37, esp. 530-33. 69. Bareau, "La construction et Ie culte des stupa d'apres les vm

ayapitaka;" 268. 70. Bareau, "La construction et Ie culte des stupa d'apres les vm

'ayapitaka," 269. 71. M. Benisti, "Observations concernant Ie stupa n° 2 de SancI," Bulle

:',tind'etudes indiennes4 (1986) 165-70, esp. 165. . . 72. Nagaraju, Buddhist Architecture if Western India, 119; 129.

73. Nagaraju, Buddhist Architecture if Western India, 112-13. 74. For references see ns. 1 & 2 above. 75. Nagaraju, Buddhist Architecture if Western India, 107; 191. 76. Very little work has been done on the Buddhist caves at Sudhagarh,

the primary source of information on them being O. C. Kail, "The Buddhist Caves at Sudhagarh," Journal if the Asiatic Society if Bombay, ns. 41/42 (1966/67)

184-89, figs. 1-7. Kail assigns the caves to a period ranging from 200 B.C.E. to 150 B.C.E. (p. 188).

77. H. Cousens, An Account if the Caves at Nadsur and Karsambla (Bombay: 1891) esp. 3-4 & pI. II; see also J. E. Abbott, "Recently Discovered Buddhist Caves at Nadsur and Nenavali in the Bhor State, Bombay Presidency," Indian Antiquary 20 (1891) 121-23. Cousens (p. 10) says: " ... 1 think we cannot be far wrong in ascribing to these caves as early a date as Bhaja or Kondane, i.e., about B.C. 200"; Dehejia, Ear(y Buddhist Rock Temples, 118, assigns the sculpture at Nadsur to "the period of Sane hi II," but the inscriptions to "around 70 B.C." (p.153).

78. Deshpande, "The Rock-cut Caves ofPitalkhora in the Deccan," esp. 78-79; see also W. Willetts, "Excavation at Pitalkhora in the Aurangabad District ofMaharashtra~" Oriental Art, ns. 7.2 (1961) 59-65; Mitra, Buddhist Monuments, 174-the latter says: "Curiously enough, all the four caves of this group

. are associated with stiipas .. . evidently made in memory of some distinguished resident-monks as at Bhaja."


79. A. Cunningham, The Bhilsa Topes; or Buddhist Monuments qf India,211.,...20. .

80. A. H. Longhurst, "The Buddhist Monu,ments at Guntupalle, District," Annual Report qf the Archaeological Department, Southern Circle, Madras .fi the Year 1916-17 (Madras: 1917) 30-36 & pIs. xvii-xxvii, esp 31, 35; see ~1 or R. Sewell, "Buddhist Remains at GUJ)tupalle," JRAS (1887) 508-11; A. Bareaso

"Le site bouddhique de Guntupalle," Arts Asiatiques 23 (1971) 69-78 & figs. 1~ 32. Professor Bareau noted that "de tels alignements de petits stiipa se retro _ vent sur d'autres sites bouddhiques," and evidence for the mortuary charactU

. er of these stiipas is accumulating: see A. Ghosh (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1961-62_A Review (New Delhi: 1964) 97; B. B. Lal (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1968-69-'A Review (New Delhi: 1971) 64. For other results of recent work on the site see L K. Sarma, "Epigraphical Discoveries at Guntupalli," Journal qf the Epigraphical Society qf India 5 (1975) 48-61 & pIs. i-ix (pL i gives a good photograph of the rows of stupas on the middle terrace); Sarma, Studies in Early Buddhist jV10numents and Brahm! Inscriptions qf Andhradefa, 57-91. .'

81. See, for convenience's sake, M. Venkataramayya, Sravastz (New Delhi: 1981) 15.

82. T. Bloch suggested that "the funeral mounds in Lauriya go back the pre-Mauryan epoch," and hinted at a "Vedic" connection (T. Bloch, "Excavations at Lauriya," ARASI1906-07 (Calcutta: 1909) 119-26. Bloch's views are still occasionally referred to (e.g., P. V Kane, History qf Dharmafastra Vol.IV (Poona: 1953) 234,254), in spite of the fact that Majumdar's later work on the site (N. G. Majumdar, "Explorations at Lauriya-Nandangarh," ARASII935-36 (Delhi: 1938) 55-66 & pIs. xix-xxi; N. G. Majumdar, "Excavations at Lauriya Nandangarh," ARASI1936-37 (Delhi: 1940) 47-50 & pIs. xxi-xxiv) "proved that many of the mounds at Lauriya are Buddhist in character, enclosing stiipas" (so G. N. Das, "Coins from Indian Megaliths," Bulletin qfthe Deccan College Research Institute 8 (1947) 208; cf. Mitra, Buddhist Monuments, 83-85). A good survey of work on the site may be had in]. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, "South-East Asian Architecture and the Stupa ofNandangarh," Artibus Asiae 19 (1956) 279-90; esp. 281 ff .

. 83. For both stiipas and Longhurst's comments see A. H. Longhurst, The Buddhist Antiquities qf NagarjunakOT}qa, Madras Presidency (Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey ofIndia, no. 54) (Delhi: 1938) 20-21. There may as well be a third stiipa of this type at NagarjunikoI.J.Q.a-see A. Ghosh (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1955-56-A Review (New Delhi: 1956) 25, under Site XXV

84. ]. H. Marshall, "Excavations at Saheth-Maheth," , ARASI191O-11 (Calcutta: 1914) 4.

85. A. Ghosh (ed.), Indian Archaeology 1955-56-A Review (New Delhi: 1956) 9; see also G. R. Sharma, "Excavations at Kausambl, 1949-55," Annual Bibliography qf Indian Archaeology 16 (Leyden: 1958) xlii-xliii.

86. ]. Marshall, Taxila. An Illustrated Account qf Archaeological Excavations carried out at Taxila under the Orders qf the Government qf India between the Years 1913 and 1934 (Cambridge: 1951) VoL I, 246; 335; 361;]. Marshall, Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization. Being an Official Account qf Archaeological Excavations at MohenjoDaro carried out by the Government qf India between the Years 1922 and 1927 (London:

CULT OF THE DEAD 327 ;':>j",~J

j~~r~'-'

~1'931) Vol. I, 120-21-see also R. D. Banerji, Mof:enJodaro. A Forgotten Report (Var'e " i' 1984) 59 fT. The burial deposits in what has been taken to be a Buddhist jdlJ1a;a'stery at Mohenjo-daro may also be connected with the local monastic ~:,re~d, but the interpretatio~,of this data remains controversial. . . . ri ',: 87. cf. G. Schopen, Archeology and Protestant PresuppOSItIOns In the ; 'Study oflndian Buddhism," History qfReligions 31 (1991) 1-23. »,. 88. Schopen, "The Stiipa Cult and the ExtantPali Vinaya," 96-98; '~p. Schopen, "Monks and the Relic Cult in the Mahiiparinibbiinasutta: An Old ;fMisunderstanding in Regard to Monastic Buddhism," in From Benares to Beijing: iiCEssays on Buddhism and C~inese Religions in Honour qfProf. Jan Yiln-hua, ed. G. Schopen i&K. Shinohara (OakvIlle: 1991) 187-201. :.L 89. See H. Oldenberg, Buddha. Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde (Berlin: :~1881) 384 n. 3; H. Oldenberg, Buddha: His Life, His Doctrine, His Order, trans. W.

Boey (London: 1882) 376 & note (which contains a significant addition); T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhist Suttas (Sacred Books of the East, Vol. XI) (Oxford: 1900)

("xliv-xlv; but see too G. Schopen, "On Avoiding Ghosts and Social Censure: 'Monastic Funerals in the Miilasarvastivada-vinaya," Journal qfIndian Philosophy

;20 (1992) in the press. 90. D. M. Miller & D. C. Wertz, Hindu Monastic Life. The Monks and

Monasteries qfBhubaneswar (Montreal: 1976) 100, table 8. 91. See most recently-although limited to Pali sources-G. D. Bond,

. "The Arahant: Sainthood in Theravada Buddhism," in Sainthood. Its Manifestations in World Religions, ed. R. Kieckhefer & D. G. Bond (Berkeley: 1988) 140-71.

92. Marshall et aI, The Monuments qfSiiiichZ, Vol. 1290 n. 5. 93. Mehendale, Historical Grammar qf Inscriptional Prakrits, 169 (§294); 166

(§290 b, i). 94. T. W. Rhys Davids & W. Stede, The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dic

iionary (London: 1921-25) 680. 95. F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (New Haven: 1953) 554. 96. These references to "ascetic" monks-one specifically called a

"forest-dweller"-may suggest that what has been noted recently in regard to such monks in modern Thailand and Sri Lanka may have a long history; see

. S. J. Tambiah, The Buddhist Saints qfthe Forest and the Cult qf Amulets (Cambridge: 1984); 5.]. Tambiah, "The Buddhist Arahant: Classical Paradigm and Modern Thai Manifestations," in Saints and Virtues, ed.]. S. Hawley (Berkeley: 1987) 111-26; M. Carrithers, The Forest Monks qfSri Lanka. An Anthropological and Historical Study (Delhi: 1983); etc.

97. There are also epigraphical references to the Mahayana, or related to what we call "the Mahayana," which almost certainly predate the Kanheri labels-at least two at Kanheri itself; see G. Schopen, "Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions," Indo-Iranian Journal 21 (1979) 1-19; G. Schopen, "Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit," Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10 (1985) 37-43; G. Schopen, "The Inscription on the Ku~an Image of Amitabha and the Character of the Early Mahayana in India," The Journal qf the International Association qf Buddhist Studies 10.2 (1987) 99-134; G. Schopen, "The Buddha as an Owner of Property and Permanent Resident in Medieval Indian Monasteries," 211 n. 49.


98. Marshall et aI, The Monuments qfSiiiichz, Vol. 1,294. 99. Elsewhere at Sand itself we find sijhii- for saik.fii-, and sejha

which suggests a development different from that s,uggested by Mehendale, Historical qrammar qf 1nscriptiona;l Prakrits, 151 (§267.b, §286.a also von Hiniiber, Das Altere Mittelindisch im Uberblick, 114-16 (§§232-36).

100. See Schopen, "The Stilpa Cult and the Extant Pali Vinaya," 97 n. for a detailed tabulation.

101. Marshall, A Guide to Sanchi, 2; H. P. Ray, "Bharhut and Nodal Points in a Commercial Interchange," in Archaeology and History. Essays i7L Memory qfShri A. Ghosh, ed. B. M. Pande & B. D. Chattopadhyaya (Delhi: 1987) Vol. II, 621-29-it should be noted that Ray's figures and remarks concernin the donors at both Sanci and Bharhut are unreliable; they are entirely based g Liiders List and do not take into account the much fuller and more complete lections of inscriptions from both sites published after 1912.

102. This is the definition of navakammikas given by J. Ph. Vogel, "Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Nagarjunikonda," E120 (1929-30) 30.

103. M. Njammasch, "Der navakammika und seine Stellung in der Hierar" chie der buddhistischen Kloster", Altorientalische Forschungen 1 (1974) 279-93 esp. 293; but see also P. V. B. Karunatillake, "The Administrative Organizatio~ of the Nalanda Mahavihara from Sigillary Evidence," The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities 6 (1980) 57-69, esp. 61-63; G. Fussman, "Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence for the Chronology of Early Gandharan Art," in Investigati7Lg Indian Art, ed. W. Lobo & M. Yaldiz (Berlin: 1987) 67-88, esp. 80-81 and the sources cited there.

104. H. Liiders, Bhiirhut Inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum' 2.2), ed. E. Waldschmidt & M. A. Mehendale (Ootacamund: 1963) 38 (A59).

105. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum, 290 (no. 69).

106. Vogel, "Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Nagarjunikonda," 22;24 (for an important correction to Vogel's reading of the "Detached Pillar Inscription H," see K. A. Nilakanta Sastri & K. Gopalachari, "Epigraphic Notes," EI24 (1937-38) 279, VI); 17.

107. See above p. 108. See above p. 109. See, for convenience sake, A. Bareau, Recherches sur la biographie du

buddha dans les sutrapitaka et les vinayapitaka anciens: II les demiers mois, le parinirvii7}a et les funerailles, t.ll (Paris: 1971) 265-88.

1l0. Suzuki, The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition, 44, 243-3-5 ff; cf. J. Przyluski, "Le partage des reliques du buddha," Melanges chinois et bouddhiques 4 (1935-36) 341-67, esp. 347 ff.

lll. The account of Sariputra's death occurs at L. Feer, SaT(lyulta-nikiiya, Part V (London: 1898) 161-63, and is translated in F. L. Woodward, The Book qf the Kindred Sayings, Part V (London: 1930) 140-43. The text as it appears in Pali has a close parallel in the Tibetan K.fudrakavastu (Suzuki, The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition, 44, 93-1-7 ff) as well. The textual situation for the Pa.li version is complicated. In the text as printed by Feer, when Cunda announces Sariputra's death he says: iiyasmii bhante siiriputto parinibbuto idam assa pattaclvaran


;~f!("Sir the Venerable Sariputta has passed away-here are his robe and bowl." ~";ihis r~ading represents the Sri Lankan mss., but Feer notes that one of his Bur:';i, e rnss. has ... idam assa pattacfvaraT(l idaT(l dhiituparibhiivanan ti, and Woodward's ~;;\f1~:suggests this reading is characteristic of the Burmese mss. What ;1:1;;~iituparibhiivanri means is not immediately obvious, but it almost certainly con~ i;{t~ins a reference to relics. In fact the text of the SaT(lyutta on which Buddhaghosa :1'" ote his commentary-the Siiratthappakiisinf-also appears to have had a refer*,tr;ce to relics. Buddhaghosa, citing the text, says: idam assa pattaczvaran ti ayam t;liidssa hi paribhaga-patta. idam dhiitu-parissiivanan ti evaT(l ekekaT(l acikkhi (F. L. WoodfiWard, Siirattha-Pakiisinf, Vol. 3 (London: 1937) 221.28): "'This is his robe and :'\bowl' [rneans] this is indeed the bowl [actually] used by him. 'This is the [or :t;"a' or 'his'] water strainer [full] of relics' -he described them thus one by one." . Where the Burmese mss. have the difficult dhiitu-paribhiivana, the text cited by ;'Buddhaghosa had, then, the more immediately intelligible dhiitu-parissiivana, '\"water strainer [full] of relics." The latter, in fact, may well represent a "correc-

ti()n" introduced by a scribe who also had had difficulty with the meaning of f" , cfaribhiivana. The Tibetan version, though it has nothing corresl?onding to either

"-paribhiivana or -parissiivana, also clearly refers to relics. When Sariputra's death : .is announced it is done so in the following words: btsun pa fii ri'i bu ni yongs su my a .ngan las 'das}e/ de'i ring bsrel dang / lhung bzed dang / chas gas kyang 'di lags so /: "The . Venerable Sariputra has passed away. These are his relics and his bowl and

'·robe.'" All of this will require fuller study to sort out, but it seems virtually cer·(tain that the Pali text as we have it is defective. It appears that in the only

canonical Pali account of the death of Sariputra reference to the preservation of his relics has either dropped out, or been written out, of the Sri Lankan mss. of

·····the SaT(lyutta. 112. What follows here is based on the Tibetan translation-see above n. 3 . .113. For references see above ns. 1 & 2.

II. REVIEWS

)~~liddha in the Crown: Avalokitesvara in the Buddhist Traditions if Sri Lanka, \',pyJohn Clif~?rd Holt. New York and Oxford: Oxford University • press, 1991. xu + 269 pp. ','

·gI~.eligicius change through assimilation has fascinated a number of tZrecent investigators of Sri Lankan Buddhism, for such change, it has t~'been argued, often reflects patterns which are amenable to theoreti"tal interpretation. In this recent contribution to the field, what is :.:offered is an "extended case study" of the way the celebrated

Mahayana bodhisattva AvalokiteSvara (whose characteristic sculptures .il.lsually carry as a distinctive iconographic attribute a buddha in the .:.crciwn, hence the book's title), came to be incorporated into the es?istmtially Theravada culture of Sri Lanka's Sinhala population. Mainly ;.historical and anthropological in approach, the present work high(;lights some striking phases in this process. According to its account, 'shedding Mahayanist associations, AvalokiteSvara was in the course l)ftime transfigured into the guardian deity Natha (an abbreviation

i·apparently of LokeSvaranatha, one of the bodhisattva's alternative . Iiames) , and was further changed in identity later to emerge as Met

teyya (Maitreya in Sanskrit), the buddha of the next "world epoch" r\{kappa). In analyzing the assimilation and legitimation of the beliefs ;.of one tradition by another thus manifested, Holt sees a notable theo

retical principle at work. New religious forms, he claims, are accepted . not only because they are found to be "immediately efficacious," but

also because they can be given meaning ("rationalized") within the accepting tradition's grounding beliefs and telos. The material studied, Holt maintains, provides reasons for recognizing the existence of a shifting, interactive relationship between two Sinhala terms which are crucialin the projection of the Sri Lankan Buddhist world-view, laukika and lokottara (frequently defined contrastively, these terms are generally taken to mean, respectively, "worldly" and "otherworldly" concerns). Graphic support for this is identified within the long-sustained Sri Lankan iconographic traditions focused on AvalokiteSvara-Natha: there, insists Holt, both laukika and lokottara orientations are equally manifested, prompted by changing social and political factors. Holt also regards the appropriation of the veneration of Avalokitesvara (the cult of "half Asia" in some estimations) on the part of the Theravada Buddhists of Sri Lanka as a pointer to the existence of an absorbing and pliable bent (characterized as "in-

331


clusivity") in their religious and cultural orientation. And he •..••... ( .• '. 1 l' d f h' ,sees Illstr~n:enta va ue III a rno ern a:-vareness 0 t I~ of~en overlooked fact: It IS, he suggests, a locally avaIlable means ofJustIfying and' moting a greater tolerance of diversity within the island, now tor!to-l ethnic strife. Y /

Buddha in the Crown is organized in nine chapters, and is sut, ported by illustrative material which serves in particular to bri~. into relief an array of diachronically arranged AvalokiteSvara-Nathg,fi statuary (dated from the eighth century to recent times, and foun~; in various parts of Sri Lanka). After identifying the theoretical issues" relating to religious change which AvalokiteSvara worship as prai;l tised here poses, and also articulating his own informing perspec: tives on this score just noted, Holt enters into his subject proper with some elucidations on the historical and doctrinal background of the' bodhisattva. Even the original perceptions of Avalokitesvara, he' argues, probably were coloured by theistic ideas elaborated in Hindu and other systems. Mentioned in several classic Sanskrit sources which inspired Mahayana belief in India and the Far East (sucha~ the Saddharmapuljr!arzka or "Lotus" sutra), AvalokiteSvara, accordingl to Holt, was "understood preeminently as a buddhistic hierophant) of compassion and wisdom." Mahayana metaphysics tended to treat him as the sambhogakiiya (the body of the eternally present buddha-" realization), imbued with capacities of both creation and preserva~ tion. Given thus the characteristic epithets of LokeSvara ("Lord of' the World") and Lokanatha ("Protector of the World"), Avalokitesvara has his "altruism of compassion" underscored in the seventh" century text, Avalokitefvara GUljakaraljr!avyuha sutra where his is, besides, ascribed the important attribute of sahgharatna ("Jewel of the Sangha") in acknowledgement of his special concern for the grounding of dharma ("righteousness") everywhere. These epithets, among

. others, are held to point to a discernible intermingling of laukika and lokottara orientations in Sinhala Buddhism. The particular account of " Sri Lanka's AvalokiteSvara-Natha cult presented in this book, it is well' to reiterate, places great emphasis on this: fluctuations in the relative influence of these two orientations is indeed projected as a central datum, borne out by historical and anthropological evidence alike.

To turn to some salient details of the account, Holt connects the rise of AvalokiteSvara veneration in Sri Lanka to the entrenchment (amidst the established Theravada orthodoxy's vehement opposition) of Mahayana teachings in the early centuries C.E. among religious dissidents there (especially those at the Abhayagiri monastery, situated in the ancient Sri Lankan capital of Anuradhapura). He concedes that what is central to the bodhisattva idea is not alien to

REVIEWS 333

i~+heravada Buddhism. It is, for instance, ~oted ~s ba~ic to the latter' ii:,i~ m's recountings of Gautama Buddhas prevIOUS lIves, and to be ~rYds~eitted in certain Pali texts, including the Mahiivamsa of Sri Lan-ila m . h hh' kId f" %j{ provenance, t roug t en common ac now e gement 0 a next ~;~dha,,, Metteyya. Y~t the ~ult focuse~ on Aval.okiteSvar~ ~hat j:i'erged in parts of the Island IS regarded m the mam as a relIgIOus ;i~~ovation that went beyond accepted Theravada doctrinal frames. :'tdeed, much ofthe "impetus" for the late medieval cqnflation there i;i~"bodhisattva, king and god" is squarely placed outside those frames. d,tnany event, in delving into the richly complex history of AvalokiteS'ara's actual entry into the Sri Lankan religious scene, Holt iden

:,rifies a northeastern location in the country (Tiriyana) as the site for i~orne of the earliest specimens of his statuary. Dated in the eighth !c;entury, these specimens, adorned with the meditating dhyiini buddha 'in their head gear (jatiimakuta), tended to establish a basic pattern '[or many of the later portrayals of Avalokitesvara throughout Sri 'Lanka. Cross-cultural contact, it appears, was an important spur to ,the deepened local veneration paid to this bodhisattva. Influences i~treaming from the Pallava kingdom of South India (with which the :island is shown to have maintained very close relations from the iiseventh to the tenth centuries), it is argued, had a major formative Impact on the early developmenfof the cult. Iconography associated

'with the cult of this period-as witnessed by massive rock-carved 'AvalokiteSvara figures found at Situlpahuva and Buduruvegala-is . held to bear out this impact strongly.

What can the student of religion learn from iconography in the present context? According to Holt, as already hinted, an ascetic (lokottara) orientation was quite marked in most of the early represen

;tations of AvalokiteSvara. But a tendency to invest him with worldly (laukika) attributes is discerned in the late medieval Sinhala culture which evolved in the central (Kandyan) areas of Sri Lanka. Here, Holt believes, AvalokiteSvara was effectivley transformed into a "national guardian deity," Natha Deviyo. The "strong royal resemblance" assumed by contemporary images ofNatha (still preserved in certain shrines or devalaya dedicated to him, such as those at Vegiriya and Pasgama) is taken as a reflection of this change. Further processes of "domestication" are noted still later. Virtually shorn of AvalokiteSvara's old ascetic features, Kandyan Natha statuary of the eighteenth

,century, is held to display an even greater predominance of "royal motifs"; on the other hand, more recent icons of the deity (one at the Bellanwila temple complex near Colombo, where Natha is portrayed as a youthful prince is regarded as typical), are actually thought to exude a "fleshy this-worldliness."


Holt does not explain AvalokiteSvara's cultic presence in S. Lanka by iconographic evidence alone; he also cites epigraphic h·rr

torical and anthropological data, e.g., Sinhal~ Buddhism's eVol~ti~Sduring the late medieval period (when the bodhisattva, it is argue: was incorporated into the local "socio-political cosmos," and rer~ giously legitimated anew, thereby); and the "mythic and ritualre~_ nants" still kept alive at the Kandy Natha Deavalaya and in a "handful of outlying villages" located in the Kandyan cultural area. Much of the second half of the book is actually concerned with the investi_ gation of these data. The main findings at this level deserve notice.

AvalokiteSvara's later emergence as Natha (in the role of "a powerful national deity" and hence the "epitome of laukika efficacy") is taken to be a change initiated in the era of the rulers who adopted Gampola as their capital (14th to 15th centuries). Holt interprets this change to mark the operation in the main of "twin pressures".: the influence, on the one hand, of "international Buddhist theories of royal legitimation" emanating from outside Sri Lanka (prin~ipally Southeast Asia, with whose Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms the island is shown to have come into various types of contact in this era, though South India also remained a general source for extra-Theravada influence then) and, on the other, the status already acquired by AvalokiteSvara inside the country as a "boon-conferring protective regional deity" under the alias Natha (this is traced to a general waning of the memory of his Mahayanist antecedents among devotees). Significantly, in his new role as a god-protector AvalokiteSavara retained a special association with the sustenance of royal power. This association persisted throughout subsequent periods, reaching its "apex" in the sixteenth century under Kandyan rulers, some of whom consciously adopted symbols that projected the "image of the bodhisattva / king / god." Identified as unusually assimilative, the culture of the Gampola era is admiringly highlighted here as "syncretic" and "eclectic"; Holt finds the characteristics in question amply reflected in the era's religious edifices and its distinctive genre of poetry, sandesakiivya. Amidst frequent invocations of Buddhicized Hindu divinities, some notable tokens of Natha devotionalism are observed in this poetry (where, besides, Holt recognizes a coming together of the laukika outlook and the lokottara concern, with the preservation of the dhamma as important element in the latter). The cultic presence of Natha is considered to be particularly pronounced in the life and work of Sri Rahula,the celebrated fifteenth century Sinhala monk-writer and sandesa poet. A recipient of the royal patronage ofParakramabahu VI -the last Sinhala king to rule over a Ul~ited Sri Lanka-Sri Rahula is seen as practising a type of religious inclusivism that reflected the spirit of his age.

REVIEWS 335

Natha's present-day role in Sinhala Buddhism is examined in •..... veral later chapters of the book, which bring to the fore another se urce for an overall understanding of the Avalokitesvara-Natha cult ;J Sri Lanka::. field s:udies of ritual life ar:d myths ker:t alive in a few Kandyan Natha shnnes. Readably descnbed at consIderable length, the observations basic to these studies establish a notable general point: tho~gh ~er'Y m~ch diminished in pop~lar influence and changed WIthal m IdentIty and status, Natha stIll commands some veneration among Sinhala Buddhists. How exactly is he perceived by devotees now? Through a particular interpretation of oral and written mythic material preserved in certain shrines, Holt contends that there is presently a "reassertion of Natha's bodhisattva orientation," which was subordinated earlier when his "worldly (laukika) efficacy" came to be stressed. Indeed, far from being a legitimator of royal authority, he is, it is argued, increasingly looked upon as a symbol of spiritual hope-the manifestation of the "next buddha," Metteyya. But, notably enough, devotees are still held to credit him with a protective interest over the few rural localities where Natha shrines have survived. These shrines are regarded by villagers as places where sacred power is concentrated, and rituals practised in them to procure the deity's help-seen as a throwback to an aspect of popular Buddhist practice in earlier times-are a focus of much attention in the book's final discussions. Considered overall, says Holt, the rituals serve to project Natha as standing for the principles of purity, order and village power, and, true to the AvalokiteSvara heritage, an available source of laukika assistance as well (especially to ward off certain bodily ailments). Further evidences of Natha devotionalism are noted in the annual religious processions (perahara) and festivals (manga!Jrrya) of the shrines of central Sri Lanka, albeit intermixed with Buddhist and other beliefs. Thus, amidst ceremonial homage to Buddha relics and symbolic rites for ensuring fertility and seasonal rainfall, Natha's laukika interest is held to be very much avowed within the famous Kandy perahara. A parallel orientation is discerned in festivals at remote Natha shrines. One such festival described encompasses an oral reinforcement of AvalokiteSvara's protective compassion on the part of a ritual specialist who temporarily becomes "possessed" by Natha.

All in all, though it is basically "extracanonical," Holt credits the particular aspect of "traditional Sinhala Buddhism" he highlights in this book with considerable value. It is, in his vew, quite a contrast to the intolerant militancy of "Buddhist modernism" or "Protestant Buddhism" manifesting in the island (where, notably enough, an endeavour to seek nibbiina "here and now" is identified). Indeed, the


histori~ally evolved cult tha~ presently lin~s Nat~a ~n~ Metteyya, he' finds, IS more "accommod.atmg, and provIdes withm It~ frames reli, gious means tor a proxImate assuagement of suffermg (dukkh ) amidst a progressive striving toward ultimate'spiritual fulfillment a,'

A noteworthy addition to the growing literature on Sinhala B~<i~ dhism, Buddha in the Crown serves to enlarge modern understandin of the subject in some significant ways. It of course encompasseg

material pertinent to a wider study of religion as well (the strikini evidences of encounter and accommodation in the sphere of belief here highlighted, for instance, contain historical insights that can be brought to bear on the clarification of religious pluralism, Whose theoretical basis and normative value has recently come under some scrutiny in Ninian Smart, Religion and the f1!estern Mind, Albany, 1987). But more important, this investigation can be fruitfully related to several other recent interpretations of Theravada practice in Sri Lanka. Holt's inquiry into the AvalokiteSvara-Natha cult is obviously much broader and deeper than that incorporated into the survey of the veneration of gods in Sinhala Buddhism in Mohan Wijayaratna's Le cult des dieux chez les bouddhistes singhalais (Paris, 1987; pp. 71 ff, 152 ff., 256 ff.). Its treatment of religious change in Sri Lanka might usefully be juxtaposed to that presented in Buddhism TranifOrmed by R. Gombrich and G. Obeysekere (Princeton, N.J., 1988). But significantly, in adducing a long history of Sinhala Buddhism's accommodation of "diverse forms of Hindu and Mahayana Buddhist spirituality" (the Avalokitesvara-Natha cult is actually taken as a "prime example" of that phenomenon), Holt also undermines a major thesis of this latter work i.e., that such syncJ;'etism is recent. In any event, though highly controversial reductive explanations are not central to Buddha in the Crown, its analyses and accountings are by no means always persuasive. It is, on the contrary, quite possible to challenge some of them on the basis of the positions taken in certain relevant writings both old and new (ranging from traditional Sri Lankan Pali and Sinhala works to modern interpretative studies that deal with Theravada practice on theisland) which Holt, judging by the book's bibliography, seems to have overlooked. This contention calls for some elaborations.

I t is interesting to observe that Holt's views about Avalokitesvara's changing roles in Sinhala Buddhism, and the claim that, trans-' figured as Natha, the bodhisattva actually emerged in the later middle ages as a "national guardian deity," are not corroborated in recent investigations into the manifestations of theistic belief in Sri Lanka's Pali chronicles (cf. Le Cult des dieux chez les bouddhistes singhalais, pp. 58 ff., "Les dieux dans les chroniques"). The grounds for them might in

REVIEWS 337

Ii tbe somewhat substantially disputed if one adopts the interpre~'f."e frames for which others have argued (but Holt himself does ta~ forthrightly entertain). In this connection, those set forth by fAe translator of a notable medieval Pali text which tends to articulate the bodhisatt~a c~nceptions of c.ontemporary T~eravad~sm, Dasabodhisattuppattzkatha (see text ed. wIth trans., The Bzrth Stones if the Ten Bodhisattas, by H. Saddhatissa, London, 1975, Introduction) ... re very significant. Some strikingly pertinent critical ideas are to be {bund in the translator's excursus into "Metteyya and Ceylon" (ibid. pp. 32 ff.). Notably enough, no complicated hypothesis is advanced in this latter context to account for the emergence of Natha or the devotion focused on Metteyya. Rather, it is suggested that, following a fading of their respective antecendents in course of time, AvalokiteSvara was "confused" with Metteyya in Sri Lanka: the Lokanatha (or LokeSvaranatha) alias of the former, and Metteyya's identification as Metteyyanatha (or Metteyyalokanatha in some Pali settings, cf. ibid. p. 38, which cites Jatakiit(hakathii conclusion) are indeed taken as specific factors that could perhaps have facilitated this process. This accounting, so strikingly simple (and hence appealing on grounds of "parsimony"), certainly merits attention. The demonstrable historical depth of the Sri Lankan tendency to invoke and reverence Metteyya( often as Metteyyanatha) might be counted as a further consideration in its favour. To be sure, even what is apparently one of the oldest Pali works composed on the island, Buddharakkhita's Jiniilankiira (see text ed. with trans., Embellishments if Buddha, by James Gray, London, 1981; going by a postscript to the text, Gray dates Buddharakkhita's birth in 426 B.C.) carries in its conclusion an expression of an aspiration to approach the protector Metteyya and pay homage to his person before finally winning salvation ( cf. verse 247: Metteyyaniitham upasankamitvii / tassattabhiivam abhipujitva / ... ). In the context cited above, Saddhatissa identifies similar expressions in a wide range of subsequent Sri Lankan writings, both in Pali and Sinhala. Uttered in the spirit of a prayerful wish, the statement of resolve, "I shall indeed hear the dhamma of Metteyya" (Metteyyaniithassa sunomi dhammam) constituted in certain instances the last reported words of dying heroic figures of local history. All in all, taking the mingling of these and other long entrenched beliefs focused on Metteyya with those relating to AvalokiteSvara as a strong possibility, Saddhatissa sees no need to postulate the subtle workings of a "religious logic" to explain the development of the AvalokiteSvara-Natha cult in Sri Lanka. Interestingly, it is to a "confusion" of beliefs that he traces the stylistic peculiarities of AvalokiteSvara sculpture and the origins ofNatl-ta shr;:J.es. (Though


Holt seems to have lost sight of it, "iconic confusion" resulting fro a "breakdown" in the transmission of the relevant conventions is rn consideration which a book he himself cites br:oaches in its discussio a of Sinhala Buddhism's" changing pantheon"; cf. Buddhism Transjorme; p. 30). It should be observed lastly that anyone reading the Dasa~ bodhisattuppattikathii itself is likely to encounter there passages that might pose problems for some of the interpretations Bolt advances. The text at I:4, for instance, portrays Metteyya as a veritable future herald of this worldly happiness (sukha), ensuring by his special efficacy (iinubhiiva) , among other things, freedom from sickness (or health, arogii) for everybody.

Was Natha actually as focal to Sinhala Buddhism in certain periods as Holt tries to make out? This again may be disputed. Indeed, it is possible to take a different view of the eminence accorded to this deity if the reality of henotheistic attitudes is conceded. Typically, such attitudes, as F. Max Muller has shown in the course of his celebrated interpretations of Vedic religiosity, lead to showering of special laudatory attention on a particular god in a particular devotional context, even though votaries acknowledge and reverence other divinities as well. Given, as Holt himself notes, Sri Lankan Buddhists' veneration gods such as Vibhlsana, Upulvan, Saman and Skanda throughout the middle ages and later, there is room to wonder whether contemporary evidences of Natha worship s·hould not, after all, be traced to the operation of henotheistic attitudes. One might, however, raise more substantial critical objections to the positions taken on the above topic. Natha devotionalism, significantly, is not projected as a widely influential movement in other recent studies of Sinhala Buddhism in relevant periods, but rather as a practice cultivated for the most part by gamaviisi monks, a sect with recognizable Mahayanist proclivities; cf. A. H. Mirando, Buddhism in Sri Lanka in the 17th and 18th Centuries, with Special Riference to Sinhala Sources (The Ceylon Historical Journal Monograph Series, vol. 10, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka, 1985, p. 9). Mirando acknowledges that the versatile Rahula was a member of the latter sect. Still, he insists that mainstream Sinhala Buddhism was represented in Rahula's time by monks who identified themselves a "forest dwellers" (vanaviisi). Indeed, citing Vidagama Maitreya's Hamsasandefaya (where other gods, not Natha, are shown to receive mention), he goes so far as to argue that dissociation from the Natha cult was a characteristic stance of these monks. The reasons for regarding them as the real upholders and carriers of Sri Lanka's Theravada inheritance are on the whole strong. Quite in evidence in earlier epochs (for instance, Vedeha, who authored the notable 13th-century Pali poetical com-

REVIEWS 339

jJosition, Samantakii(avarJrJanti, calls himself an araiiiiavtisin; if. In Praise if Jo.Iount Samanta, trans. by A. N. Hazlewood, London, 1986, Intro~uction), the ess~ntial vanavtis! outlook i.s a con~ir:uing inspiration t~ the serious pr.actIce of BuddhIst renunClant rehgIOusness among Sn Lankan monks (cf M. Carrithers, The Forest Monks rf Sri Lanka: An Anthropological and Historical Study, Delhi, 1986). In any event, the centrality ascribed to Natha can be impugned on other grounds too. For example, the Sinhala panegyrical work on Rahula's patron, King Parakramabahu VI, Parakumbtisirita (see text ed. with English trans. by K. D. P. Wickremasinghe, Colombo, 1970) encompasses no focal references to Natha.

Several of the wider interpretative positions retained in Buddha in the Crown also appear on occasion inadequate or misconceived. The reiterated observation that those who turned to Avalokitdvara or Natha for laukika help, sought to "assuage" dukkha thereby, should leave readers who are sensitive to Theravada doctrinal perspectives quite puzzled. Is it not necessary to disavow kamma in particular (and hence think outside those perspectives) in order to entertain such a position? Further, in adopting it Holt seems to disregard the "broad spectrum of meanings" the Theravada conception of suffering as projected in dukkha entails (cf J. W. Boyd, "Suffering in Theravada Buddhism," in Sujftring: Indian Perspectives, ed. by K. N. Tiwari, Delhi, 1986). Clearly, the veneration of deities cannot be a means of assuaging the more inveterate manifestations of dukkha-suffering associated with transience and the conditioned character of our existence (viparirJtima-dukkha and saizkhtira dukkah respectively in Buddhaghosa's famous typology as expounded in the Visuddhimagga). No doubt, the immediate pain, grief and despair from which devotees hope to obtain relief by such means are also forms of suffering (dukkha-dukkha in the above typology). But the religiousness that comes into play here is apt to be seen by Sri Lankans themselves as devotions aimed at seeking blessings (or stintikarma, cf. Religiousness in Sri Lanka, ed. by John Ross Carter, Colombo, 1979, p. 19), not dukkha-assuagement. On the other hand, it is perhaps useful to take notice of the fact that the Theravada scriptural tradition sometimes projects very different perspectives on this whole issue: in a rationalistic spirit, the Dhammapada (verse 186) tends to trace the motivation behind cultic religiousness simply to fear (bhaya). Then again, Holt's readiness to admire and even give normative scope to the assimilative fusion of Buddhist and non-Buddhist ideas from the Gampola period onwards might not be fully shared by Sri Lankan Buddhists knowledgeable about their past. For that, after all, was a time of decline and decadence in local history. (It would be pertinent to


remark that Tantric beliefs, intermingled with which Avalokitesvar veneration in some of its aspects first infiltrated Sri Lanka earlie a have in particular been decried as a source .of unwholesome infl~~ ence in several studies, cf. Charles Eliot, Hinduism and Buddhism, London, vol. II; N. Mudiyanse, Mahayana Monuments in Ceylon, Colombo 1967, p. 71). Besides, the assimilative processes witnessed the~ (whic.h of.cou~se res:rlted in the loss or at lea~t the compromising of the hlstoncal mtegnty of Theravada BuddhIsm, a clearly negative development in the eyes of Sinhala Buddhist traditionalists), were not in the main inspired by reflective endeavours to harmonize different religious viewpoints. To describe those processes as "syncretic" and "eclectic" (which Holt does), therefore, hardly appears justified or proper.

There are, finally, some rather curious oversights to be noted in the book's concluding remarks. The negative evaluations of Sri Lankan "Buddhist modernism" are for the most part unexceptionable if what is meant by that term is the chauvinist extremism of the likes of K. N. Jayatilleke (cf. R. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, London, 1988, pp. 196-197). But it is necessary to point out that practising or interpreting Buddhism with a due regard to the spirit of our time is not reprehensible, nor for that matter strictly disallowed by Buddhist doctrinal principles. Indeed, though lost on social scientific thinking still wedded to the assumption that protest or Protestantism are the only inspiring sources of recent developments in Sri Lankan Buddhism, adaptive modernism in the sense just hinted might fairly be rooted in that old idea in Buddhist apologetics, "skillful means" (upaya; see Digha Nikaya, III: 220). In any event, why should nibbiina "here and now" be coupled with "Buddhist modernism"? This was an anciently upheld belief, basic to the Theravada soteriology woven around the arahant ideal (cf. I. B. Horner, The Early Buddhist Theory qf Man PerJeeted, London, 1936, p. 42; the religious idea that comes into play in this context, it is well to add, actually has parallels in practically all spiritually-oriented Indian systems, as witnessed by their common admission of the possibility "liberating oneself while living" or becomingajtvanmukta) frequently encountered in Pali texts (see, for example, Dhammapada verses 89, 402 which carry the revealing phrases lake parinibbutii and eva khayam). No doubt, to "outsiders," it will seem a visionary goal. But given their religious monuments and historical-literary traditions that attest to "living arahants" of yore, Sri Lankans themselves are apt to take a different view of attaining nibbiina "here and now." There is, moreover, little reason to be dismissive about the characteristic religiousness that that belief inspires-:-

REVIEWS 341

,,' er self-culture which emphasizes meditation. For it sits at the Wry heart ofTheravada spirituality, and when engaged in seriously, iehas salutary results, both on the individual and society. Besides, it ~ .... on the whole more vital to traditional Buddhist practice in Sri tanka than the veneration of deities (George D. Bond's recent investigations into the place of meditation in the revival of Buddhism there earlier this century brings to the fore several instructive considerations on this score; see The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition, Reinterpretation, Response, Columbia, S.C., 1988, chap. 4, 5, 6).

Clearly, then, there is room to argue against many of the positions taken in Buddha in the Crown: its core interpretations in particular are sometimes open to dispute, and may fairly be countered with other accountings. Still, the new contribution to the study of religious change in Sri Lanka presented in this book fully merits attentive reading. Given its overall focus-Mahayanism in Sri Lanka's Theraviida setting, a hitherto insufficiently examined subject-it is a source of much factual information. And even those who cannot quite agree with them are likely to find the theoretical approaches developed and applied here often both distinctive and thought-provoking.

Vijitha Rajapakse

High Religion: A Cultural and Political History if Sherpa Buddhism, by Sherry B. Ortner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. pp. xxi + 245.12 illustrations and 3 maps. Cloth: $35. Paper: $12.95.

Sherry Ortner knows the Sherpa area of Nepal well. She spent seventeen months there on general field-work in 1966-68; and in 1976 she helped to make a film in the area. In 1978, she published the book for which she is best known: Sherpas Through Their Rituals (Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press). The book reviewed here is the result of field-work carried out again by the author

. between January and June, 1979. It is based mainly on information collected orally in the field during that period. However, considerable use has also been made by S. B. O. of M. Oppitz, Geschichte und SOzialordnung der Sherpa (Innsbruck-Munchen, 1968), translated by a nameless student (p. 231), and of the Shar-pa'i chos-byung sngon-med tshangs-pa'i dbyu-gu Uunbesi-Nanterre, 1971), translated into English for her by P Pranke and C. Huntington (p. 234). Seemingly, Sherry Ortner does not read Tibetan; and she does not read Nepali (p. 207).


As is w:11 known, the Sherpas. are a sm~ll,. ethnically Tibetan 'group who lIve close to Mt. Everest III three dlstncts of north-east.' Hindu Nepal (Khumbu,Pharak and Solu)ocToday, they live at y~; tudes varying between 8,500 and 14,000 feet. They combine agrt ttture (wheat and pot~toes) with herding (yaks,. cross-breeds ~~d~ cows) and trans-frontIer and local trade (salt, annhals, etc.). Th; villages are small and their homesteads 'sometimes isolated. TheIr are organised in patrilineal clans which regulate clan-exogamo~Y marriage. Property in herds, houses and land is privately owne; Since 1950, the boom in "trekking" and the proliferation of foreigri mountaineering expeditions have opened up, to all ranks of Sherpa socie.ty, possibilities ot non-traditional employrr:ent and the rapid earmng oflarge sums III cash. The Sherpas practIce Mahayana BUd-' dhism and they are thought to have started migrating from Kham~ (Eastern Tibet) towards their present habitat in the 15th or 16th centuries C.E. Solid information concerning the religious habits and customs of the Sherpas prior to their arrival in Khumbu is scant: like many other Central and Southern Tibetan groups, they lay claim, in their writings, to prestigious ancestors in the North-East.

The central problem examined in this book is how, why, where' '. and by whom Sherpa monasteries were founded. The dates of the principal foundations were already known locally: the dgon-pa at Tengboche, Chiwong and Thami with which this volume is mainly concerned, all were founded within the past seventy or eighty years. Sherry Ortner has much that is new and interesting to tell us about the social motivations and mechanisms behind these foundations. The Sherpas who first settled in Khumbu were few in number, and the accumulation of capital sufficient to meet the cost of building large and fairly complex religious edifices took time. During that time, individuals became rich in widely differing ways, as tax-collectors, as political leaders, as traders, as labour-contractors in Darjeeling, etc. Some of this was already known through the works of Ch. von Furer-Haimendorf and others. The novelty of S. B. O.'s approach is that she draws attention to a "cultural schema" which, according to her, characterised Sherpa society during the years in question. She writes: "The tales begin with a political or fraternal rivalry, or both. The protagonists struggle back and forth, often quite violently, and the rival appears to gain the upper hand. The hero then departs for remote places and acquires a powerful protector. He returns to the conflict, and witli the aid of his protector, defeats the rival. He acquires the rival's subjects. The rival is humiliated and leaves the area permanently. The hero founds a temple, an act of great virtue" (p. 71). The author emphasizes "the extraordinary cul-

REVIEWS 343

":<1 generality of this story line" without, however, adducing muoh ?ftl~terial to substantiate her claim. Indeed, throughout the book, culm: 1 social, economic and religious comparisons with other Tibetan i6~~I' cultures in the Himalaya~ (Limi, Mu~~, J?olpo, Mustang, ,Walung, etc.) .are absent .. Even TIbet as a condltI.or:mg cultural pres'"ce is only dImly perceIved. Most of the book IS m fact concerned 5~tha threesome played out among "the Sherpas," the Raj in British india and the Gorkha Raj in Kathmandu. S. B. O. is convinced that ~he founding of "celibate monasteries" marked "the transformation [Sherpa religion" (p. 126). I am doubtful about this: it seems to me ~at the Sherpas were Buddhists before and after such events: society w~snot changed. ..... The book under review also aims to contribute to discussions ~rnong Western academic authorities concerning what has come to be known as the Theory of Practice (see, especially, pp. 11-18, 193-202). rdo not feel qualified to assess the importance of the contribution this book makes to such debates. So, as I have personal knowledge ofthe Sherpa area, I shall focus my remarks on what might be called the celibacy issue. Is a non-celibate monastery a monastery? Let us

.start with the buildings. C. Jest, for instance, in his Monuments rf :North Nepal (Paris, UNESCO, 1981), pp. 31-32, divided the types of buildings he had studied into monastery (dgon-pa), temple (lhakhang), chapel (bla-brang) , meeting house (mi-mtshogs-pa) and hermitage (mtsham-khang); and he stuck to this classification through-out. Whatever its merits or demerits, it corresponds to Tibetan and local usage. S. B. O. cares for none of this and jumps from one English word to another in her attempts to render local expressions. On p. 24 she writes: "The early Sherpa lamas are shown ... founding gompa, which I will translate in the present context as "chapels." On p. 48: "Even if the early temples were not separate monasteries .... " On p. 68: "He erected a gompa (that is, Zhung temple] ... " and on

. p. 209, note 21: "The Sherpas use gonda and gompa interchangeably for any religious temples." The perplexity thus induced in the reader's mind will be increased by the appearance of the term labstang, which the Glossary, p. 222, assures us derives from Tib. bslab-tshang, "a celibate monastery." Whatever this latter expression may mean-slob-pa means "to learn" and slob-grva is "a school"-it cannot mean "a celibate monastery." One wonders whether grvatshang, "dwelling for novices," is not "behind" S. B. O.'s labs tang; see Das, Dictionary, q.v., p. 1020 and Jaschke, Dictionary, q.v., p. 75. To my mind, when monasteries are cOj1.sidered as institutions, account should be taken, by an anthropologist, of the vows pronounced by their inmates. Of these, we learn next to nothing froin S. B. O. Is the


supreme aim of a Rnying-ma-pa-society to have, in its midst Co . , tn-

munities of celibate monks? Agam, I am very doubtful about thO . Yet, almost unwittingly, Sherry Ortner seems to me to have putlS.

finger on an aspect of Tibetan society which, to date, has been littt studied by Western Tibetologists. Undoubtedly, there were Or are celibate communities in Tibet, Bhutan, etc. Such communities were and are considered by local communities as super-natural-powe~ houses. Nevertheless, if a village household calls a monk to do a ritual in a case of extreme difficulty, it will, in my experience, SUtn

mon a 'Brug-pa kun-legs type of individual rather than a chaste monk from one of the great Lha-sa monasteries. Buddhism has never got rid of magic. S. B. O.'s view of Buddhism seems to me to be conditioned by American Pruitanism-in religion, sexless is best--:and by the literature in Western languages authored by those in contact with Dge-Iugs-pa. May I state quite simply that I admire this book as Anthropology? I respect it less as Tibetology. In Sherpa-land I knew very well a lama who "fell" for a woman. No one, in the local community, criticised his sexual activities. Everyone considered the fact that he had broken his vows as despicable. Homosexual relationships provoke less reprobation in local society. It has always seemed to me that Tibetans are much less worried than Westerners are by who has sexual relations with whom: and this sometimes makes the anthropological study of Tibetan kinship difficult.

Post-script:

Sherry Ortner starts her book by paying homage to her fieldassistant Nyima Chotar, who died in 1982. While writing this review, I received the sad news that Sangs rgyas bstan-'jin had died on 12 July, 1990. For a partial view of his life, see "The autobiography of a 20th century Rnying-ma-pa lama" in Journal if the International Association if Buddhist Studies, 4/2, 1981, p. 63-75. Before he died, he had completed a supplement to the Shar-pa'i chos byung which deals mainly with Sherpa marriage rituals. This, along with the SherpaTibetan Phrase-Book and Word-list we had compiled, has been made over to our German colleagues F.-K. Ehrhard and C. Ci.ippers of the Nepal Research Centre at New Bhaneswar: and it is hoped that some of these materials will be published in the not too distant future. Sangs-rgyas bstan 'jin was a remarkable scholar; and several other Westerners beside myself have benefited greatly from his learning and teaching.

Alexander W. Macdonald

REVIEWS 345

W/iidhyarnika and }ogiiciira: A Study of Mahayiina Philosophies. By Gadjin M. N gao. Edited, translated, and collated by Leslie S. Kawamura. Albany, 'N~W York: State University of New York Press, 1991. xiv + 304 pp.

&ine of the si~teen essays collected here appeared in Japanese in Profesor Nagao's Chukan to yuishiki [Miidhyarnika and YogiiciiraJ published in

tokyo in 1978. A.lmost all have appeared in English bef~re, though in widely scattered Journals, volumes of conference proceedlllgs, and fest~chriften; but several of those earlier translations have been revised for this ,'volume in an attempt to create a consistent style. Anglophone readers of Nagao's work should be delighted to have this useful collection to hand; and if what is offered here is combined with John P. Keenan's recent translation of Chukan tetsugaku no kornponteki tachiba (as The Foundational Standpoint of Miidhyarnika Philosophy), published by the same press in 1989, then it is fair to say that such readers now have access to a representative .selection of Nagao's important work on Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy . • , Nagao, Emeritus Professor of Buddhist Studies at Kyoto University, is one of the half-dozen or so most important and influential interpreters of Buddhist thought of his generation inJapan. While his textual

. work-for example his edition of the Sanskrit text of the Madhyiintavib-·hiigabhiiva and his trilingual index to the Mahifyanasutralaizkarabhiivahas been widely known and used in the West for almost thirty years, his creative attempts to offer a systematic religio-philosophical interpreta

.tion of Mahayana Buddhist thought have been much less so. These recent publications should begin to correct this.

The essays in this volume vary widely in their range and specificity, though there is a definite unity of interpretation. They are offour basic kinds. First, there are a number of specialized and detailed studies of the semantic range of particular terms-sa1?ZV'(ti, afraya, parir;arnana, upek~a, funyata-as they occur in both Madhyamika and Yogacara texts (though with more emphasis on the latter). Second, there are a number of detailed and subtle pieces of exegesis in which particular texts are analyzed. Notable here is the comparative study of Mulamadhyarnakakarika 24: 18 and Madhyantavibhiiga 1: 1-2. Third, there are more wide-ranging interpretive studies in which particular Buddhist concepts are used to offer a systematic view of the fundamental religio-philosophical purpose of these texts: important here are the essays on Buddha's silence, the "threenature" (trisvabhiiva) theory, and the "three body" (trikaya) theory. Fourth and finally, at the highest level of generality, there are Nagao's attempts to state the fundamentals of his own interpretive perspective. Of key importance here are the early essay on the "logic of convertibility"; that on the bodhisattva's return to the world; the presidential address


given to the sixth conference of the International Association of Budd h·"··· •. . Studies in 1983 on the theme of :'ascent and descent"; and the rece~~ (1986) attempt to offer a systematIc reassessmecnt of Yoga car a theory.

Nagao's goal .is to offer. an. inter?retation that will make sense of Ma~ayana BuddhIst theory I~ Its entlr:ty, and t? use the categories of IndIan Yogacara to do so. He IS not afraId of offenng a normative defi . tion of Mahayana Buddhism-"when these two notions (sc. of asce~; and descent] are found within a certain Buddhist system, the criterion for discerning whether that system is Mahayana or not is established'" (xii)-nor of presenting Madhyamika as an incomplete version of Buddhist thought, a version properly completed by the Yogacara of Asanga and Vasubandhu. There are many examples .Of this last move. In his disc cussion of subj ectivity Nagao presents Nagarjuna's denial of essences as incomplete precisely because it does not fully elucidate the meaning of human existence as Yogacara does (12); he offers a Yogacara interpreta_ tion of emptiness (51-60); and in the striking comments that conclUde the volume he says that " ... the Yogacaras can be said to have com~ plemented the Madhyamika's general tenets, and thereby brought the Mahayana thought to its full scope and completion" (225).

The essentials of Nagao's Yogacara interpretation of Mahayana Buddhist thought are easy to state. Such thought has a dialectical struc- .. ture. It begins with negation, the rejection of verbal and conceptual proliferation (prapafica) and of all improper cognitive and affective habits. I ts heart or pivot is the idea of "convertibility" (parii1f(tti / pariV1:tti) , which involves "the meaning of conversion from being to non-being, and vice versa" (130). And it leads to affirmation, a renewed involvement with the world. The movement of ascent and descent, of which Nagao makes so much, both in this collection and in the Fundamental Standpoint, has to do precisely with this movement of disengagement from and re-engagement with the world, a movement which pivots around the idea of conversion. Buddhist, thought is properly Buddhist, claims Nagao, when both sides of the dialectic are emphasized; undue emphasis on disengagement leads to quietism, an exaltation of wisdom (prajfiii) at the expense of compassion (karufJii) , while undue emphasis on re-engagement leads to the opposite faults. The Yogacara trisvabhiiva theory forms the ideal conceptual tool for grounding this view of Buddhism, for it is just here that the idea of convertibility (of paratantra from parikalpita into parini-}panna) is central.

I recommend this volume enthusiastically to all those concerned with Indian Buddhist philosophical thought. It is the mature work of a master in the field, philologically impeccable, textually well-grounded, and conceptually exciting. My only regret is that Professor Nagao was not better served by his editor and publisher, for the book's production

REVIEWS 347

i~' . arred by many careless errors, most especially in the notes and bib-1!~J11raphies. These are too many to list, but some examples will give an ,.jiog. d Th f .. d 'idea of theIr. extent. an nature: . ere are te~. err?rs 0 O~llS~lOn an 'tbrnJ11ission m the hst of abbrevlatlOns alone (XU-XIV); the bIblIography ;263:'-272) averages five significant errors on each page, mostly involv-1lg J11is-spellings of words in European languages other than English or l~iors in the transliteration of Sanskrit words; and a roughly similar :froportion of errors occurs throughout the notes. In addition, the bib!t6graphY is radi~ally incomplete, no~ ~isting a ~lUmber of works men:donedelsewhere m the text. Most stnkmg here IS the fact that Nagao's 'bWll two-volume work on the Mahayanasangraha (ShOdaijoron: wayaku to (chiikai [Tokyo: Kodansha, 1982, 1987J), mentioned and (rightly) said to be "definitive" (2), does not appear in the bibliography. Errors of this kind, while numerous and troubling, do not compromise the value of the work, which I hope will be widely read and discussed.

Paul]. Griffiths

CONTRIBUTORS

Prof. Ronald M. Davidson Dept. of Religious Studies Fairfield University Fairfield, CT 06430

Prof. D. N. Gellner Institute of Social and

Cultural Anthropology University of Oxford 51 Banbury Road Oxford, England OX2 6PE

Prof. Paul]. Griffiths The Divinity School University of Chicago Swift Hall 1025 East 58th Street Chicago, IL 60637

Prof. Jamie Hubbard Dept. of Religion Smith College Northampton, MA 01060

Prof. Alexander W. Macdonald Laboratoire d'Ethnologie

et de Sociologie Comparative Universite de Paris X 92001 Nanterre, France

Dr. Vijitha Rajapakse 35950 Timberlane Drive Solon, OH 44139

Prof. Gregory Schopen Center for Asian Studies SSB4, 126 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712

349

JIABS 14-2

Documents