Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Although many Sanskrit manuscripts were discovered over the last
century in India and Nepal, for Buddhist texts Tibet was and re-
mains an important source of old palm leaf manuscripts. Some have
been published recently and more probably remain to be discovered
in Tibetan (or Chinese) archives.1 It is easy to forget the monumental
discoveries made by Rhula Sktyyana in Tibet some seventy
years ago. In fact, many of the materials he photographed have still
not been systematically treated by scholars.2 In the present paper I
would like to present editions of two folios from Sthiramatis Tri-
ikbhya on a plate kept in Gttingen.
During his third expedition to Tibet, September 19 through 21, 1936,
at or E-va-chos-ldan monastery in gTsa province, Rhula S-
Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens / Vienna Journal of South Asian Studies, Bd. XLIX/2005, 113-149
2006 by sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien
114 Kazuo Kano
3
For his research at or monastery in 1936 and the list of Sanskrit
manuscripts once preserved there, see Sktyyana 1937: 18-19, 55; dGe dun
chos phel 1939-1940: 24.15-27.20 (ed. Zam gdo), 27.20-31.5 (ed. Hor kha);
Kano 2004: 51, n. 12.
4
Bandurski 1994: 13.
5
The contents of the fifth plate are exactly the same as of the sixth plate.
Rhula Sktyyana photographed the same sides of the same palm leaves
twice.
6
See Appendix B, Xc14/1d.
7
Bandurski 1994: 33.
8
A leaf from a TrBh ms., hidden between the photos of the Ratnagotravi-
bhga manuscripts kept in Patna (Schmithausen 1987: 337, n. 419).
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 115
the Triikkrik.9 The text on each palm leaf in Xc14/1e is di-
vided into three blocks separated by two string holes. The first folio
has seven lines and the second six.
It is very hard to date our manuscript for the lack of any positive
evidence: neither is the colophon available nor is any striking exter-
nal evidence found.10 We can just approximately date them to some
time between the twelfth and thirteenth century for palaeographic
reasons.
Aside from our two folios, Rhula Sktyyana photographed some
more folios of the Triikbhya (Lvi 24.4-25.10 and 27.29-29.17),
some time between July 31 and August 16, 1938, again at or mon-
astery.11 Gokhale (1968) reported on them in detail using the original
films at Patna and improved Lvis text on the basis of the readings
in the manuscript. Their positive prints are preserved at Gttingen,
with the shelf-mark Xc14/57.12 Since the texts contained in Xc14/1e
and Xc14/57 belong to the same work and were photographed at the
same monastery, one might think that these palm leaves might have
originated from the same bundle. However, their scripts and formats
such as string holes and number of lines obviously differ, and hence
they probably belong to different bundles.
Of the two folios of Xc14/1e the first folio begins with the last part
of a gloss on verse 15, which is followed by verses 16 and 17 with
9
For this manuscript (J), see Mimaki et al. 1989: xi and Wang 1985: no.
120.
10
Although Ka thog Si tu does refer to Sanskrit manuscripts preserved at
or monastery in his pilgrims guide, the description is too vague. See Ka thog
1920: 433.2-3 (ed. Khams sprul) and 314.11-12 (ed. bSod nams tshe brtan). On
the other hand, it is remarkable that manuscripts preserved at or monastery
were mostly copied before its foundation in 1429. According to Sktyyanas
list, the oldest datable manuscript found at or was written in 1069 (the Aa-
shasrikprajpramit) and the latest in 1305 (the Kriysamuccaya, Xc14/
40a). See Sktyyana 1935: 33, 35; Petech 1984: 46-47. This fact indicates
that the manuscripts had been previously preserved elsewhere (according to
Sktyyana 1935: 22 the Mss., which are found in the monasteries of va
lu and or, originally belong to Sa skya) and brought into or later. Thus,
the year of the foundation of or is not relevant for the dating of our manu-
script.
11
Sktyyana 1938: 140; Kano 2004: 52-53, n. 20.
12
The text fragments of the Triikbhya are contained in Xc14/57,
plate 1, leaves 1-2 (r); plate 2, leaf 1 (v).
116 Kazuo Kano
13
C/D, as well as Xc, seems to have been written some time between the
twelfth and thirteenth century. I do not take into consideration secondary
handwritten transcripts (Mss. E-I), which are modern copies of C/D. See Mi-
maki et al. (1989: xi): Originally C and D constituted one and the same
manuscript. ... Now, so far as the other manuscripts (E-I) of the Triikbhya
collected here are concerned, I is a modern copy of D. E through H are nothing
but copies of C. (E contains a number of notes by Lvi.) See also Funahashi
1986: 16-21 and Sugawaras survey of the Triikbhyas manuscripts (Tsu-
kamoto et al. 1990: 363).
14
C covers Lvi 15.1-21.4 and 35.10-45.4; D covers 21.4-35.10. They were
once preserved at different places (C in the collection of Hem Raj Sharma
[1878-1953] and D at the Bir Library), and hence they are labeled with differ-
ent sigla. See Funahashi 1986: 19-20 and Mimaki et al. 1989.
15
For the Tibetan translation, I mainly refer to Teramotos critical edition,
which depends on the Peking, Derge, and Narthang Tanjurs. However, the edi-
tion contains some errors, which I emend on the basis of readings of the Peking
and Derge Tanjur.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 117
and some other Yogcra works are also referred to. Vin is partially
preserved in Sanskrit (abbr. Vin-skt). The commentary on the text
of our first folio is available in Sanskrit. As for the text of the second
folio, I have made use of a Tibetan translation of Vin (abbr. Vin-tib).
I have also used lists of emendations to Lvis edition by modern
scholars such as Ui and Wogihara (abbr. Ui/W).16
One will easily notice, owing to some significant variants, that the
transmission line of our manuscript differs from that of C/D. Some
readings in Xc are traceable only in Vintadevas commentary,
which, in comparison to other extant sources, contains older read-
ings. Thus, I consider these readings closer to Sthiramatis original
and, for this reason, have given more weight to them.
The folio number of our palm leaves is unknown since the photo of
the verso sides is lacking in the Gttingen collection. I thus refer to
these two folios as folio A (Xc14/1, plate 5, leaf 7) and folio B
(leaf 8).
In my diplomatic transcription, boldfaced letters refer to variant
readings that differ from those in Lvis edition. Circular symbols
() indicate string holes in the palm leaves. Triple slashes (///) mark
the broken points at the right ends of the leaves. + signs indicate
lost akaras. Square brackets enclose damaged akaras.
For my critical edition, I follow the standard orthography with re-
gard to gemination/degemination after or before semi-vowels and
sandhi. Verse-numberings inserted in the text are Lvis. Italics de-
note readings which present equally possible variants. Raised lower-
case letters in round brackets refer to a note on the word, phrase or
sentence. Asterisks indicate reconstructed Sanskrit words mostly
based on Tibetan renderings. The raised letters ac (ante correctionem)
and pc (post correctionem) after manuscript sigla indicate readings
before and after scribal correction.
16
For some other related studies, see Tsukamoto et al. 1990: 364-366.
118 Kazuo Kano
fol. A fol. B
Lvi 34.9-35.17 36.25-37.23
C/D 18v7-20r3 21r5-22r3
Tib 59.12-63.14 67.5-70.1
De 163v2-164v4 165v3-166r7
P 191r8-192v7 194r2-196v3
Vin-skt 487.24-489.10
Vin-tib De 43v4-45v5 47v3-49v1
P 48r2-50r4 52r1-53v7
A 4v6-5r1 (verses 16 and 17) 5r2 (verse 19)
J 1r8-9 (verses 16 and 17) 1v1 (verse 19)
DIPLOMATIC TRANSCRIPTION
[Folio A]
[A1]dhye | ekenaivotpattavya | na pacabhir apti | tasmd lam-
banasadbhve pacnm evotpatti | naiva votpattir ity abhyupeya
| ida m idn vaktavya ki ma[no]vi17jna cakurdivij-
nai saha pravarttate | vin ca | uta naivety ata ha | manovijna-
sabhti sarvvad sajikd te | sampatti dvayn middhn
mrcchand apy ac[i]ttakd iti | sarvvadeti | sarvvakla | cakur-
divijnai saha vin vety artha | asyotsargga[sye]/// +
17
vi is added in the upper margin.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 119
[A2]m apavdam rabhate | sajikd te sampattidvayn mrc-
chand apy acittakd iti | tatrsajikam asajisattveu deve-
papa nnasya ya cittacaitasikn nirodha sampattidvayam
asajisampattir nirodhasampatti ca tatrsajisampattis
ttyd dhynd vtargasyo rdhvam avtargasya nisaraa-
sajprvvakea manasikrea manovijnasya tatsaprayukt-
n caittn yo nirodha/// ++
[A3]trsajisampattir ity ucyate | nirudhyate neneti nirodha |
sa puna sa18 saprayogasya manovijnasya samudcrani
rodha | rayasyvasthviea | sa ca sampatticittnantara cit-
tntarotpattiviruddhraya prpyata iti sampattir ity ucyate
nirodhasampa ttir kicanyyatanavtargasya ntavihrasa-
jprvvakea manasikrea sa19saprayogasya manovijnasya
kli[a]/// ++
[A4]manaso yo nirodha | iyam apy asajisampattivad rayasy-
vasthvisee prajapyate | acittaka middha ghamiddho pa-
hatatvd rayasya tvatklam manovijnpravtter acittakam
ity ucyate | acittik mrcch gantukenbhightena vtapittale-
mavaiamye a v yad rayavaiamya manovijnapravtti-
viruddha tatrcittik mrcchopacaryate | et pacvasth var-
jayi/// ++
[A5]danysu sarvsv avasthsu manovijnapravttir veditavy
evam sajikdiu vijne niruddhe tadapagame puna kuta
utpadyate yatas tasya na klakriy bhavati | tat punar layavijnd
evotpadyate | tad dhi sarvavijnabjakam iti | tatra vijnapari
me tmadharmopacra sa punas trividhe py uddiya vistarea
trividho pi nirdia | idnm tmadharmo[pa]/// ++
[A6]ya pravarttate sa vijnaparima eva vijnaparimn na
pthag asty tm dharmma ceti yat pratijta tatpra sdha-
nrtham ha vijnaparimo ya vikalpo yad vikalpyate | tena
tan nsti teneda sarva vijaptimtrakam iti | yo ya vijnapa
rima | trividho nantaram abhihita | aya vikalpo adhyro-
pitkras20 traidhtuk citta caitt vika/// +++
[A7]te yathoktam abhtaparikalpas tu cittacaitts tridhtuk iti |
tena trividhena vikalpenlayavijna kli a mana pravttij-
18
sa is added in the upper margin.
19
sa is added in the upper margin.
20
After t, has been erased.
120 Kazuo Kano
[Folio B]
[B1]adhysita grhyam astty adhyavasyo grhyagrhaka | tac
ca vijnena pratyate | vijyate ghyata iti yo ya nicaya sa
grhakagrha21 | prvotpannagrhyagrhakagrhkipta | an-
gatatajjtyagrhyagrhakagrho tpattibja grhadvayavsan
| tatra karmmavsanbhedd gatibhedentmabh22vabheda | bja-
bhed[d a]/// ++
[B2]rabhedavat | grhadvayavsan tu sarvakarmmavsann
yathsvam kipttmabhvotpdane pravttn sahakritva
pratipadyate tadyath pthivydayo bjasykurotpattv iti | eva
ca keval karmmavsan grhadvayavsannug ht vipka
janayantty ukta bhavati | ata evha grhadvayavsanay sa-
heti | ke prvvavip[ke]/// +
[B3]vipka janayanti | tad iti prvvajanmopacitena23 karmma
ya iha vipko bhinirvvarttita | tasmin ka i ti | kepaklaparyan-
tvasthite yathbala karmmavsan grhadvayavsansahit upa-
yuktd vipkd anyam vipka tad evla yavijna janayanty
layavijnavyatiriktasy24nyasya vipkasy25bhvt | kne prvva-
vipka ity anena/// +
[B4]vatnta pariharati | anya vipka janayantty ucchedn-
ta | cakurdivijnavyatiriktam layavijnam asti tad eva ca
sarvabjan na cakurdivijnam iti | kuta etad gamd yuktitata
ca | ukta hi bhagavat bhidharmmastre | andik liko dhtu
sarvvadharmmasamrayas tasmin sati gat sarv nirvdhigamo
pi ca | na clayavijna/// ++
[B5]rea sasrapravttir nirvvtir v yujyate | tatra sasrapravt-
tir nikyasabhg26ntareu pratisandhibandha | nirvvti sopa-
21
The scribe corrects grhakagrhaka to grhakagrha.
22
The scribe corrects bho to bh.
23
After ja, ma (?) has been erased.
24
ga, which is still visible, has been overwritten with sy.
25
sy is added in the lower margin of the leaf.
26
After g, bha (?) is erased.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 121
dhieo nirupadhiea ca nirvadhtu | tatrlayavijnd anyat
saskrapratyaya vijna na yujyate | saskrapratyaybh-
ve pravtter apy abhva | layavijnnabhyupagame pratisandhi-
vijna v sa/// +
[B6]rapratyaya parikalpyeta | saskraparibhvit v a vij-
naky | tatra ye saskr pratisandhika vijnapratyayatve-
neyante | te ciraniruddhatvn niruddhasya csatvd asata ca
pratyayatvbhvn na saskrapratyaya prati sandhivijna
yujyate | pratisandhau ca nmarpam api na kevala vijna |
tatra vijnam eva saskr[a]/// +
CRITICAL EDITION
[Folio A: Lvi 34.9-35.17]
dhye | ekenaivotpattavyam | na pacabhir apti | tasmd lambana-
sadbhve pacnm 27evotpatti | naiva votpattir27 ity abhyupe-
yam |(a)
idam idn vaktavya ki manovijna28 cakurdivijnai
saha pravartate | vin v29 | uta naivety30(b) ata ha |
manovijnasabhti sarvadsajikd te |
sampattidvayn middhn mrchand apy acittakd (16) iti |
sarvadeti | sarvaklam | cakurdivijnai saha vin vety artha |
asyotsargasyemam31 apavdam rabhate |(c) sajikd te sam-
pattidvayn middhn32 mrchand apy acittakd iti |(d) tatrsaji-
kam asajisattveu devepapannasya ya cittacaitasikn dhar-
m33 nirodha (e) sampattidvayam asajisampattir nirodha-
sampatti ca tatrsajisampattis ttyd34 dhynd(f) vtar-
gasyordhvam35 avtargasya(g) nisaraasajprvakea manasi-
krea manovijnasya tatsaprayuktn ca36 caittn(h) yo ni-
27
api cotpattir D (= Lvi); apy utpattir Ui.
28
manojna Xcac.
29
ca Xc D (= Lvi); em. (with Tib).
30
Om. Tib.
31
asyotsargasya D (= Lvi) Vin-skt ~~ Tib (spyir bta ba dii).
32
Om. Xc.
33
Om. Xc.
34
ttya D (= Lvi).
35
vtargasya nordhvam Dpc (= Lvi); vtavtargasyordhvam Dac. Ui suggests
to omit na.
36
Om. Xc.
122 Kazuo Kano
37
saprayogasya Xcac.
38
sampatticittnantara cittntarotpattiviruddhraya Xc; sampatticittd
anantarotpattiviruddhraya Dac.
39
saprayogasya Xcac.
40
acittaka D.
41
gantunbhightena D (= Lvi).
42
leavaiamyea D.
43
manovijnavttiviruddha Dac.
44
tatrcittak D.
45
pacvasth D.
46
mano is omitted in Xc and Tib.
47
D adds a daa.
48
yatas tasya na klakriy bhavati Xc.
49
tatra Xc.
50
parime Xc D (= Lvi).
51
trividhe py Xc.
52
prajapyate D (= Lvi).
53
na vijnaparimt sa pthag asti tm dharm ceti D; na vijna-
parimt sa pthag asti tm dharm veti Lvi. Ui proposes to omit sa.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 123
middle
right
left
Xc14/1e, fol. B (r)
124
left
middle
Kazuo Kano
right
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 125
vijnaparimo ya vikalpo yad vikalpyate |
tena tan nsti teneda sarva vijaptimtrakam55 (17) iti |56
yo ya vijnaparimas57 trividho nantaram abhihita | so58 ya
vikalpa |59 adhyropitrthkrs60 traidhtuk61 cittacaitt62 vi-
kalpa ucyate (o) yathoktam
abhtaparikalpas tu cittacaitts tridhtuk63 iti |
tena trividhena vikalpenlayavijnakliamanapravttivijnasva-
bhvena64 sasaprayogea yad vikalpyate65(p) bhjanam tm skan-
dhadhtvyatana66 rpaabddika vastu tan nstty ata sa67
vijnaparimo vikalpa ucyate |(q) asadlambanatvt68 | katha
punar etad vijyate | tadlambana
54
pratij Dac.
55
mtram D (unmetrical).
56
Lvi omits the daa.
57
parima | Xc.
58
Om. Xc.
59
vikalpo Xc.
60
adhyropitkras Xcpc; adhyropit kras Xcac; C adds a daa after
kr.
61
traithtuk Lvi (typo).
62
citta caitt Xc.
63
tridhtuk Lvi.
64
layavijna klia mana pravttijnasvabhvena Xc; layavij-
nakliamana | pravttivijnasvabhvena C.
65
vikalpyate | Xc.
66
yatana C (= Lvi).
67
ato Xc (instead of ata sa).
68
asadlambanatvtvt Dac.
69
*svasantna- (or: *svasantne) adhysita Xc; *svasattdhysita (ra
yod pas gnas pai) Tib Vin-tib.
70
grhyagrhaka Xc.
71
grhakagrhaka Xcac.
72
grhyaka Cac.
73
bhovabheda Xcac.
126 Kazuo Kano
74
vsans C; vsanys Lvi (em. silently).
75
arvdayo Cpc (= Lvi); arvdoyo Cac; abdayo Lvi 1932 ~ ~ Tib (chu la sogs
pa); abvdayo W.
76
kurasyotpattv C (= Lvi).
77
Om. Xc.
78
vsannught Xc Lvi ~ ~ Tib (bag chags kyis zin pas).
79
vsany Cac.
80
anyadvipka C (= Lvi). nya is lacking in Xc because of the loss of
the right end of the palm leaf but can be restored on the basis of the analogy
to the next sentence.
81
Xc adds a daa.
82
Om. Xc.
83
prvajama (?) Xcac.
84
bhinirvtas C; bhinirvartita | Xc. Cf. Tib: *abhinirhtas (mon par bsgrubs
pa).
85
ka iti | Xc; ke iti | C (= Lvi).
86
kle paryantvasthite Lvi (em.).
87
grhadbaya Lvi (typo).
88
upabhuktd C (= Lvi).
89
anyad C (= Lvi).
90
janayanty Xc.
91
vyatirekenyasya C (= Lvi); vyatiriktaga(?)nyasya Xcac.
92
vipkabhvt Xcac.
93
anyad C (= Lvi).
94
sarvabjan Xc.
95
kurdivijnam C.
96
| kuta etad gamd yuktitata ca | Xc.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 127
andikliko dhtu sarvadharmasamraya |
tasmin sati gati97 sarv nirvdhigamo pi ca98 |(x)
na clayavijnam antarea sasrapravttir nivttir99 v yujyate |
tatra sasrapravttir nikyasabhg100ntareu pratisandhibandha
| nivtti101 sopadhieo nirupadhiea ca nirvadhtu | tatrlaya-
vijnd anyat saskrapratyaya vijna na yujyate | sask-
rapratyayavijnbhve102 pravtter apy abhva |103 layavijn-
nabhyupagame pratisandhivijna v saskrapratyaya pari-
kalpyeta104 | saskraparibhvit v105 a vijnaky | tatra ye106
saskr prtisandhika107vijnapratyayatveneyante108 te ci-
raniruddhatvn109 niruddhasya110 csattvd111 asata ca pratyayatv-
bhvn112 na saskrapratyaya pratisandhivijna yujyate |(y)
pratisandhau ca nmarpam apy asti113 na kevala vijnam |114
tatra vijnam eva saskrapra(z)
NOTES
(a) tasmd lambanasadbhve pacnm evotpatti | naiva votpattir ity
abhyupeyam.
Ds reading (= Lvi) is possible,115 but the adopted reading of Xc is
more understandable:
97
gat Xc; gati C.
98
v C (= Lvi).
99
nirvtir Xc.
100
nikyasabhgbha Xcac.
101
nirvti Xc.
102
pratyaybhve Xc.
103
C (= Lvi) adds sasrasya (which relates to pravtter but seems to be a
later addition).
104
parikalpyeta C.
105
saskrabhvit | C; saskrabhvit v Lvi (em.).
106
tatreme Ui.
107
pratisandhika Xc; prtisandhik C.
108
Xc and C (= Lvi) add a daa.
109
tvt | C (= Lvi).
110
nirudhasya C.
111
tvt C (= Lvi).
112
bhvt | C (= Lvi).
113
api Xc (instead of apy asti).
114
Om. C (= Lvi).
115
D (= Lvi) reads tasmd lambanasadbhve pacnm api cotpattir ity
abhyupeyam, Therefore, one has to accept that, when [all five kinds of] objects
are present, also (ca) all (api) five [sense-perceptions (vijna) may] arise [in
addition to the manovijna]. Cf. Lvi 1932: 104.
128 Kazuo Kano
Therefore, one has to accept that, when [all five kinds of] objects are
present, [either] all the five [sense-perceptions (vijna)] arise, or
that [there is] no arising [of sense-perception] at all (naiva votpattir)
[because there is no reason to single out one and to neglect the oth-
ers].
This is supported by the Tibetan translation116 and Vintadevas
gloss (yadi v pacnm api vijnnm utpatty bhavitavyam, yadi
v naikasypti).117
116
Tib 59.13-14: de lta bas na dmigs pa yod na la char byu baam | ya na
mi byu bar khas bla dgos so.
117
Vin-skt 487.27.
118
Tib 60.1-2. Lvi (1932) emends ca to v.
119
Lvi 34.15.
120
I.e., sajika, asajisampatti, nirodhasampatti, acittaka middham,
acittik mrch. See verse 16 and Lvi 34.15-35.2.
121
One can presuppose that one or two akaras were lost here, judging from
broken parts of other lines.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 129
partly illegible and omitted in the other versions (D = Lvi; ~ Tib;
Vin-skt), this reconstructed reading is supported by a parallel for-
mula in the Abhidharmakoabhya (tasyotsargasyyam apavda).122
Moreover, imam apavdam (the following exception) corresponds
to iti in the next sentence and hence fits better with the present
context.
122
AKBh 65.5, 230.21.
123
Lvi 27.18.
124
See Lvi 34.20-21: tatsaprayuktn ca caittn yo nirodha so tr-
sajisampattir ity ucyate; Vin-skt 487.41-42: tepapannasya ya cittacaitt-
n nirodhas tad sajikam ucyate; AKBh 68.13-14 (ad II.41): asajisattveu
devepapannn ya cittacaittn nirodhas tad sajika nma dravyam;
AKBh 68.26 (ad II.41): yathaivsajikam ukta nirodha cittacaittnm iti;
AKBh 70.2 (ad II.43): nirodha cittacaittnm iti.
125
Vin-skt 488.3.
126
Compounds like ttyadhyna seem to be comparatively rare except as
members of larger compounds. See AKBh 35.14, etc., but also ibid. 228.9.
130 Kazuo Kano
127
Lvi (1932: 105) understands nordhvam and avtargasya separately as
mais qui nest pas encore au-dessus (de celle-ci), ntant pas encore Libr des
Attractions (du stage suprieur).
128
Vin-skt 488.4. In the Sanskrit edition of Vintadevas commentary, the
editor, P.S. Jaini, proposes to add na before rdhvam, but the manuscript he
used lacks the negation.
129
Vin-skt 488.13.
130
There is a semantic difference between the following two cases: a substan-
tive is preceded by an adjective that is either separated from it or occurs as
part of the same compound, e.g., mahn matsya versus mah-matsya. The
former connotes a general idea, whereas the latter indicates something specific,
e.g., a special kind of fish. The present context requires the former (suggestion
by Prof. Schmithausen).
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 131
supported by Vintadevas commentary (cittntarotpattiviruddha ra-
ya)131 and by a phrase in the Abhidharmasamuccayabhya (ni-
rodhy rayasyvasthviea), in which nirodhin and raya are not
compounded.132 Accordingly, the reading of D is preferable: And
this [extinction] is called sampatti because (iti) [this] raya (= laya-
vijna) which blocks the arising of other [kinds of] minds is ob-
tained immediately after the mind of Absorption.
The Tibetan rendering, on the other hand, is problematic; it reads:
*s ca sampatti cittd anantaram (soms par jug pa de ya sems kyi
og tu).133 If one follows the rendering which takes s as being in ap-
position to sampatti, a semantic problem would inevitably arise:
And this sampatti is called sampatti ...134
(j) gantukena
Instead of gantukena (Xc), D (= Lvi) reads gantun. Both readings
are semanticaly identical (accidentally), but gantukena is slightly
better since it is traceable in Vintadevas testimony (gantukena).135
Sthiramati uses gantuka in a previous passage (Lvi 21.16) and
chooses to use the same word also in his Madhyntavibhgak.136
(k) manovijne
Xc and Tib omit mano. However, the context requires manovijne,
and the expression is traceable in Vintadevas gloss (manovijnam
adhiktya pcchann ha).137
131
Vin-skt 488.14.
132
ASBh 9.18. The Tibetan translation of the Abhidharmasamuccayabh-
ya reads *viruddh instead of nirodhy. See De (4053), li, 8v1, P [113] (5554),
i, 10r4-5: ... da mi mthun pai.
133
Tib 61.6-7. This Sanskrit reconstruction is based on Nozawa Yamaguchi
1952: 333, n. 1.
134
This conflicts with Vintadevas interpretation (Vin-skt 488.13-15).
135
Vin-skt 488.27.
136
MAV 223.2, etc.
137
Vin-skt 488.31.
138
These pronouns indicate an undesired consequence (cf. Tib ... gyur). One
can also take yatas or yat in the sense of because in this context: because
132 Kazuo Kano
not die?139 Of the readings yat (D = Lvi) and yatas (Xc), yat seems
to be a lectio difficilior. But yat and yatas, as well as Vintadevas
gloss yena, have the same meaning.140
Instead of na klakriy bhavati (Xc), D (= Lvi) provides a different
word order (klakriy na bhavati). Ds sequence is attested in Vinta-
devas gloss (yena tasya yogina klakriy na bhavatti).141
[it has to re-emerge since] the [respective person] does not die (lit. no dying
occurred).
139
Sthiramati presents the answer as tat punar layavijnd evotpadyate.
The idea presupposes the Initial Passage of the layavijna in the Yog-
crabhmi and related passages (see Schmithausen 1987: 18, 21).
140
The Tibetan translation reads ga gi phyir (Tib 62.6).
141
Vin-skt 488.32-33.
142
Tib 62.11.
143
See also Lvi 16.5-6: tmdyupacro rpdidharmopacra cndiklika
pravartate, as well as l. 11-12: yatrtmadharmopacra pravartate.
144
See Lvi 16.6: rpdidharmopcra.
145
Vin-skt 488.38: tm dharm ca vijnaparimn na bahir bhavantti;
Tib 62.12-13: rnam par es pa gyur pa las gud na bdag da chos med do es. Cf.
Cheng wei shi lun 38c14: .
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 133
(o) so ya vikalpa | adhyropitrthkrs traidhtuk cittacaitt vi-
kalpa ucyate.
This means:
This is (none other than) vikalpa. The mind and mental factors be-
longing to the three spheres, which have forms of objects superim-
posed [on them], are called vikalpa.146
The reading so ya (D = Lvi), in place of aya (Xc), is syntacti-
cally preferable since so ya corresponds to yo ya.147
Instead of vikalpa | adhyropitrthkrs (D = Lvi; ~ Tib), Xc
reads vikalpo adhyropitkras (wrong sandhi); adhyropitkras mod-
ifies vikalpo, and does not relate to cittacaitt. This is not in accord-
ance with Vintadevas understanding (adhyropitrthkr itydi |
ye traidhtuk cittacaitt adhyropitkrea pravartante te vikalpaab-
denocyante).148
146
This corresponds to the Tibetan translation (Tib 63.4-6): de ni rnam par
rtog pao sgro btags pai don gyi rnam pa khams gsum pai sems da sems las
byu ba ni rnam par rtog pa es bya ste |.
147
Lvi 35.10.
148
Vin-skt 489.1-2.
149
Tib 63.8-9: kun gi rnam par es pa da on mos pa can gyi yid da |
jug pai rnam par es pai ra bin; Vin-skt 489.5-7: yasmd anena trividhen-
layavijndikena sasamprayogea yad vastu vikalpyate bhjandika tad bh-
trthena nsti.
150
Vin-skt 489.7 and Tib 63.12.
134 Kazuo Kano
(t) pthivydayo
Xc reads pthivydayo, the Tibetan translation *abdayo. Vintade-
vas gloss has both pthiv and ap (*pthivyabdayo, sa da chu la sogs
151
Tib 67.4-5 = Vin-tib De 47v4, P 52r3.
152
The whole sentence as preserved in C runs: tatra vijnt pthag eva sva-
santndhysita grhyam astty adhyavasyo grhyagrha Of the [twofold
clinging], the clinging to an object is the ascertainment that there is an ob-
ject which is absolutely separated from the mind [and] superimposed (adhy-
sita) on its own stream (according to the reading of Tib and Vin-tib: as an
independent existence).
153
Cf. Tib 67.12-14: dzin pa gis kyi bag chags ni las kyi bag chags thams cad
ji ltar ra gis (text: gi) phas pai (text: pa) lus skyed (text: bskyed) pa la ugs
pa rnams kyi lhan cig byed pa id du gyur te (I have emended Teramotos
readings based on Triikbhya De 165v5, P 194r5 and Vin-tib De 48r1-2,
P 52r7-8).
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 135
pa).154 In the light of the context, both earth (pthiv) and water (ap)
are suitable as an example of an auxiliary (or co-operative) cause
(sahakrin) that assists a bud in sprouting from a seed. But the use
of earth is more common.155 On the other hand, C reads arvdayo,
which could be a corruption of urvydayo (earth, etc.).
154
Vin-tib De 48r2, P 52r8.
155
For instance, in his MAV 43.1, Sthiramati refers to the example of
earth.
156
Lvis conjecture to read anught is not necessary. Ui suggests to read
ananught.
157
Vin-tib De 48r2, P 52r8 (ba ig ma yin gyi) and De 48r3, P 52v1 (dzin
pa gis kyi bag chags med par). However, the gloss ba ig ma yin gyi seems to
confirm the reading *na kevala instead of na keval.
158
Note that the Tibetan rendering has a different syntactical structure (Tib
67.15-17): de lta na las kyi bag chags ba ig ma yin gyi | dzin pa gis kyi bag
chags kyis zin pas rnam par smin pa skyed do Thus, ... the karmic impres-
sions, not alone (*na kevala) but (gyi) supported (anughta) by the grhadvaya-
vsan, produce the vipka.
136 Kazuo Kano
159
The Tibetan rendering dus kyi mtha (Tib 68.4; Vin-tib De 48r5, P 52v3)
supports the reading klaparyanta in a compound.
160
yos su spyod pa is my emendation based on the equivalent found in the
Mahvyutpatti, no. 2581 (yos su spyad pa = paribhukta). The readings in the
Tanjur are problematic (Vin-tib De 48r5: yos su dpyad pa; P 52v4: yos su
bcad pa).
161
upayuktd, which is ambiguous, might be a lectio difficilior.
162
See Wackernagel 1930: 592 (though Patajali allows such a compound,
almost all the cases discussed by him are considered problematic).
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 137
(w) layavijnavyatiriktasynyasya vipkasybhvt.
Instead of vyatiriktasya, C (= Lvi) reads vyatirekea. Both readings
are possible. vyatirekea is closer to the Tibetan rendering (ma gtogs
par)163 and used in Sthiramatis Madhyntavibhgak.164 The alter-
native reading vyatiriktasya, on the other hand, occurs in a previ-
ous phrase (even though compounded): tadvyatiriktnyakualbhvc
ca.165
(x) nirvdhigamo pi ca
This verse from the Abhidharmastra166 is also quoted in the Ratna-
gotravibhga, which likewise has pi ca.167 C (= Lvi) reads pi v,
which is not inconceivable since Sthiramati uses v in his gloss to this
verse (sasrapravttir nivttir v).168
163
Tib 68.8 = Vin-tib De 48r6, P 52v4-5.
164
MAV 20.5, 149.22.
165
Lvi 27.24. vyatirikta appears also in Lvi 17.26, 19.2, 37.9-10 and 39.2,
whereas vyatireka never occurs in the present work, except for the alternative
reading here.
166
In his Triikkvivti (a commentary on Vintadevas Triikk),
Vairocanarakita explains abhidharmastra as follows: abhidharme mahyn-
bhidharme. kimbhte. mahyna stryate (3r3).
167
RGV 72.14.
168
Lvi 37.14. v is used here in the sense of whether you take A or B: both
will (or will not) work.
169
This is supplied on the basis of a previous sentence: pratisandhivijna
v (Lvi 37.18).
138 Kazuo Kano
APPENDIX A
CORRECTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE READINGS TO LVIS EDITION
OF THE TRIIKBHYA
170
Tib 69.11-12, Vin-tib De 49v4, P 53v2-3. Xc also inserts a daa after i-
yante. Ws suggestion to read *pratyayatve neyante for pratyayatveneyante is
unlikely. This is probably based on the Tibetan translation but pratyayatve
does not work as an equivalent for rkyen du (as a condition [of]).
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 139
Lvi 34.9-35.17 Xc14/1e, fol. A
34.29 gantun gantuken
35.4 parime tma parima tma
35.6 prajapyate pravartate
35.6-7 na vijnapari- vijnaparimn na
mt sa pthag asti pthag asti
35.7 dharm veti dharma ceti
35.10 iti yo iti | yo
35.11 traithtuk traidhtuk
35.13 dhtuk iti dhtuk iti
35.15 yatana yatana
APPENDIX B
IDENTIFICATIONS OF TEXTS NOT IDENTIFIED IN BANDURSKI 1994
Bandurski 1994 was the first attempt to publish a complete cata-
logue of the plates with images of the Sanskrit manuscripts photo-
graphed by Rhula Sktyyana, stored at the Niederschsische
140 Kazuo Kano
Xc14/1c
Mahynottaratantrastropadea von Sajjana (p. 33): This print
shows three folios but the text in question consists of only one folio
(plates 7/8, leaf 3[r/v] = plates 13/14, leaf 7[r/v]); the remaining two
folios (plates 7/8, leaves 1-2[r/v] = plates 13/14, leaves 5-6[r/v]) are
wrongly ascribed by Bandurski to the same work. They remain
unidentified.173
Xc14/1d
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): Three folios from an unknown
prama work; see Kano 2004. The first folio discusses sarvaja, the
second quotes verses from the Pramavrttika (Pramasiddhi
chapter, verses 126-130), and the third discusses momentariness
(kaabhaga). Unfortunately the plate which shows the verso sides
of the folios is not preserved at Gttingen.
171
Some original palm leaf manuscripts brought out by Sktyyana are
also preserved at Gttingen and included in the catalogue; see Bandurski 1994:
16-17. A Tibetan work, the biography of Chag Lo-ts-ba, is exceptionally con-
tained in the same collection with the shelf-mark Xc14/71.
172
Note that Bandurski overlooked some reports of identifications; e.g.,
Xc14/1e was identified by Schmithausen (1987: 337, n. 419) and Xc14/84b-g
were edited by Sktyyana in 1937-1940 (see Watanabe 1998b: iv, 30-33).
Supplementary notes concerning bibliographical information, such as Bretfeld
1997, are, by the way, very helpful and most welcome, for they enhance the
value of the catalogue.
173
They are almost illegible because of the bad quality of the photograph.
Takasaki (1975: 55) already pointed out this fact after having studied the
original negatives preserved in Patna.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 141
Xc14/1e
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): The two folios belong to Sthiramatis
Triikbhya; see Schmithausen 1987: 337, n. 419. I have discuss-
ed them in the present paper.
Xc14/3
Text nicht identifiziert (p. 36): Pramavrttikabhya (= Pra-
mavrttiklakra) of Prajkaragupta; see Watanabe 1998a:
iii-vi.174
Xc14/4a
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): Pramavrttikabhya; see Wata-
nabe 1998a: iii-vi.175
Xc14/30a
Bandurski (1994: 67) lists seven works, i.e., the Pacakrama, Vajra-
sattvasdhana, Anuttarasavara, Utpattikramasdhana, Pikra-
ma, Balitattvdhikra and Karmntavibhgamelvaa. The plates
actually contain images of ten works, i.e., Ngrjunas Pikrama,
his Pacakrama, Candrakrtis Vajrasattvasdhana, kyamitras
Anuttarasandhi, Ngabodhis Vyavastholi, rguhyasamjasya S-
dhanopyik, Pikramasagraha, ryadevas Svdhihna[kra-
ma]prabheda, an unidentified work,176 and ryadevas Carymelpa-
kapradpa; see Tomabechi 2004.177
Xc14/30b
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): The plates contain images of three
works, i.e., an anonymous178 work which quotes a number of pas-
174
Ms. E (a palm leaf manuscript of the Pramavrttikabhya in Mgadh
script, consisting of 71 folios, photographed at or in 1934, ca. 111/3 x 2 inches,
incomplete), fol. 214-249 (225 and 235 are missing).
175
Ms. E, fol. 250-272.
176
This work contains two chapters, i.e., the Rakcakratattvdhikra and
Balitattvdhikra.
177
I owe a detailed description of the manuscript photographs in Xc14/30
to Toru Tomabechi (personal communication).
178
The text states that the work is composed by a scholar who stands in the
lineage of disciples two generations after Rhulagupta; see Tomabechi 2004:
45.
142 Kazuo Kano
Xc14/30c
Text nicht identifiziert (p. 68): The plates show photographs of
Devaguptas commentary on the Cakrasavara; see Tomabechi 2004:
49, n. 7.179
Xc14/34a
Viikvivtti, Autor unbekannt (p. 72): The plates contain im-
ages of forty-seven folios consisting of six commentarial works by
Vairocanarakita, i.e., the Viikkvivti (1v1-2r1, a commen-
tary on Vintadevas Viikk or Viatikk), the Triik-
kvivti (2r1-3r6, a commentary on Vintadevas Triikk), the
Madhyntavibhgakatipayapadavivti (3r6-9v2, a commentary on
Sthiramatis MAV), the Mahynottaratantraippa (9v2-17r5, a
commentary on the RGV), Strlakra (sic, 17r5-47r2, a commen-
tary on Vasubandhus Strlakrabhya; note that Sthiramatis
and *Asvabhvas commentaries are used in this work), and the Dhar-
madharmatvibh[gak] (47r2-47v7, a commentary on Vasuban-
dhus Dharmadharmatvibhgavtti). Gokhale (1978) studied the
same plates and presented the titles of the works. As for the Mah-
ynottaratantraippa, Nakamura (1985) edited fol. 9v2-14v7 and
Jagdishwar Pandey transcribed the full text (fol. 9v2-17r5).180 Math-
es (1996: 37, 115-135) used glosses of the Dharmadharmatvibhga-
k. Tucci most likely photographed the same manuscript.181
Xc14/34b
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): Pramavrttikabhya; see Wata-
nabe 1998a: iii-vi.182
179
This text corresponds to the rcakrasavarasdhanasarval-nma-
k (De [1407]; P [49] [2123]). The Sanskrit manuscript itself suggests the title
*rherukbhidhnapajik Sdhananidhi; see 8r4: rherukbhidhne sdhana-
nidhau pajiky prathama (sic for prathama-) paalavykhy.
180
Jagdishwars transcription is preserved with shelf-mark Xc14/90 at Gt-
tingen (see Bandurski 1994: 116). Unfortunately, Nakamuras and Jagdishwars
texts contain a number of errors.
181
See Sferra 2000: 411: Uttara-tantra-ippa, Vairocanarakita.
182
Xc14/34b, plate 6/5(= 4), leaves 19-32(r/v): Ms. E, fol. 200-213.
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 143
Xc14/39
Hevajrasdhana (p. 76): The plates contain images of 272 folios,
which consist of forty-two works, mainly of Hevajrasdhanas. Isa-
acson183 corrects Bandurski and gives an improved and more detailed
description of the contents of the manuscripts.
Xc14/40c
Text nicht identifiziert (p. 77): The plates contain photographs of
twenty-six folios, which are part of the *Suvaravarvadna (fol.
1v-16v and 19r-29v). See Kano 2004: 50-51, n. 4. Sktyyana pho-
tographed the same leaves once more; the photographs are contained
in the plates shelf-marked Xc14/48a.184
Xc14/57
Fragmente des Mahynastrlakra und zwei Fragmente von
Sthiramatis Triikvijptibhya (p. 93): The plates show eleven
folios, consisting of text fragments of three works, i.e., the Triik-
bhya (two folios), the Mahynastrlakra (eight folios), and
kyabuddhis Pramavrttikak (one folio); see Gokhale 1968
and Kano 2004. Gokhale studied the two folios of the Triikbhya
in detail. He also identified the remaining eight folios as the Ma-
hynastrlakra, without, however, referring to details.185 We can,
for instance, recover a part lacking in Lvis edition with the help of
these folios.186 Gokhale did not identify a folio of the Prama-
vrttikak, which was hidden among these leaves.187
183
See his forthcoming A Collection of Hevajrasdhanas and Related Works in
Sanskrit.
184
See Roy 1971: 218-233 and Bandurski 1994: 84.
185
For the details, see Kano 2004. Xc14/57 retains fol. 23, 27, 32, 41, 47, 54,
and 58 (plate 1, leaves 3-4[r], 6-9[r]; plate 2, leaves 2[v], 4-9[v]; plates 3/4, [r/v]).
They correspond to Lvi 1907: 52.8-54.22; 58.24-61.15; 72.22-74.17; 93.20-98.1;
106.24-109.5; 123.20-126.6; 133.18-136.10.
186
Lvi 1907: 74.1-3 = Xc14/57, fol. 32v2-3 (plate 2, leaf 4[v]): sarvalok-
bhyudgattmabhvabhogapratilbhena (sic for lbhe) sati vipkanirapekat
apakapta sattveu mhtmyasya ca darana (sic for daranam) // pratikre
paraguais traystir nirantare // (XI.69) apakaptamanasikra | dndibhi
sarvasa(32v3)ttvasamatpravty(sic for pravtty)abhisaskarat | mhtmya-
sandaranamanasikra sattvopakritvasandarant pramitabhi (sic for pra-
mitbhi) |. See Kano 2004: 45-46.
187
See Kano 2004: 39-40. The text (plate 1, leaf 5[r]; plate 2, leaf 3[v]) cor-
responds to part of the Pramasiddhi chapter: De (4220), e, 115v7-117v3;
P [131] (5718), e, 141v4-143v6.
144 Kazuo Kano
Xc14/89b
Text nicht identifiziert (p. 111): A Kroapattra. The text is in-
cluded in Sktyyanas edition of the PVV (p. 526-529). See Wa-
tanabe 1998b: iv, Appendix 2, and cf. Xc14/89h.
Xc14/89d
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): Vibhticandras notes. The text is
included in Sktyyanas edition of the PVV (p. 513). See Wa-
tanabe 1998b: iv, Appendix 1.
Xc14/89e
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): Vibhticandras notes. The text is
included in Sktyyanas edition of the PVV (p. 290-291). See
Watanabe 1998b: iv, Appendix 1.
Xc14/89f
Text nicht identifiziert (p. 112): Verses by Vibhticandra.
Sktyyana (1937: 11-13) presents a transcription. See Watanabe
1998b: iv, Appendix 4.
Xc14/89g
Text nicht identifiziert (ibid.): Vykhyntara. The text is included
in Sktyyanas edition of the PVV (p. 472-475). See Watanabe
1998b: iv, Appendix 3.
188
The folio corresponds to the Tibetan translation in De (1198), cha, 32v7-
34v4; P [55] (2328), dza, 36v3-38v3. I owe this information to Toru Tomabechi
(personal communication).
Two Folios from Sthiramatis Triikbhya in Sanskrit 145
Abbreviations and Bibliog r aphy
A A palm leaf manuscript of the Triikkrik preserved
at the National Archives, Kathmandu. Ms. No. 5-6462.
NGMPP Reel No. B23/18. Mimaki et al. 1989: 1-8 (fac-
simile edition).
AKBh Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakoabhya, ed. P. Pradhan.
Patna 1967.
ASBh Abhidharmasamuccayabhya, ed. N. Tatia. Patna
1976.
Bandurski 1994 F. Bandurski, bersicht ber die Gttinger Sammlun-
gen der von RHULA SKTYYANA in Tibet aufgefun-
denen buddhistischen Sanskrit-Texte (Funde buddhi-
stischer Sanskrit-Handschriften, III). In: Untersuchun-
gen zur buddhistischen Literatur. [Sanskrit-Wrterbuch
der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Bei-
heft 5]. Gttingen 1994, p. 9-126.
Bretfeld 1997 S. Bretfeld, Nachtrge zur bersicht ber die Gttin-
ger Sammlungen der von Rhula Sktyyana in Ti-
bet aufgefundenen buddhistischen Sanskrit-Texte von
Frank Bandurski. In: Untersuchungen zur buddhisti-
schen Literatur II. [Sanskrit-Wrterbuch der buddhisti-
schen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 8]. Gttin-
gen 1997, p. 41-46.
C A palm leaf manuscript of the Triikbhya pre-
served at the National Archives, Kathmandu. Ms. No.
5-136 vi. NGMPP Reel No. B22/21. Mimaki et al. 1989:
16-29 (facsimile edition).
Cheng wei shi lun . Taish, vol. 31, no. 1585.
D A palm leaf manuscript of the Triikbhya pre-
served at the National Archives, Kathmandu. Ms. No.
1-1697 iv. NGMPP Reel No. B23/22. Mimaki et al.
1989: 30-49 (facsimile edition).
De Derge Tanjur.
dGe dun chos phel rGyal khams rig pas bskor bai gtam rgyud gser gyi tha
1939-1940 ma, Thog mar lha sa nas phebs thon mdzad pai tshul.
Ed. Zam gdo pa Blo bza bstan dzin. Varanasi 1986;
ed. Hor kha bSod nams dpal bar. Lhasa 1994. Vol. 1,
p. 3-40.
fol. A Plate 5 (= 6) leaf 7(r) in Xc14/1.
fol. B Plate 5 (= 6) leaf 8(r) in Xc14/1.
Funahashi 1986 N. Funahashi, Nepal shahon taish niyoru Yuishiki-
sanjju no gentenk narabini Yuishikinijju daiichi-
ge dainige no genpon ni tsuite Lvi hon no genten wo
146 Kazuo Kano