Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:57:17.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some reflections on an early Mahāyāna text Hastikakṣyasūtra*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2014

Zhen Liu  and
Huaiyu Chen
Zhen Liu*
Affiliation:
Fudan University, Shanghai
Huaiyu Chen*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University, Tempe
*
anukampaka@gmail.com
Huaiyu.Chen@asu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper attempts both to transliterate and translate a newly published Sanskrit fragment of the Hastikakṣyasūtra and compare it to its corresponding Chinese and Tibetan translations. This fragment is part of the Hoernle Collection housed in the British Library. Through a comparison of all extant titles of this text found in both the Chinese and Tibetan versions and their reconstruction in Sanskrit, this work further deciphers why some titles use the metaphor of the effort or power of an elephant. In analysing the Chinese and Tibetan versions, this paper suggests that the content and structure of this text shed some light on the early development of Mahāyāna sūtras.

Keywords

HastikakṣyasūtraSanskrit fragmentEarly Mahāyāna textDharmarakṣaDharmamitraDhāraṇīBuddhist metaphor
Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 293 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to extend our gratitude to Dr Gudrun Melzer, Professor Ingo Strauch, and Dr Jennifer L. Eichman for their invaluable help. We also want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful corrections and suggestions.

References

Alsdorf, Ludwig. 1957. “Bemerkungen zum Vessantara-Jātaka”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd-und Ostasiens, 1, 1–70 = Kleine Schrifen (Ed. Wezler, Albrecht). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1974, 270–339.Google Scholar
Anālayo, Bhikkhu. 2007. “Comparative notes on the Madhyama-āgama”, Fuyan Buddhist Studies. No. 2. Taiwan: Hsinchu, 33–56.Google Scholar
Boucher, Daniel. 1996. “Buddhist translation procedures in third-century China: a study of Dharmarakṣa and his translation idiom”, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Boucher, Daniel. 1998. “Gāndhārī and the early Chinese Buddhist translations reconsidered: the case of the Saddharma-Puṇḍarīka-Sūtra”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 118/ 4, 471–506.Google Scholar
Boucher, Daniel. 2000a. “On Hu and Fan again: the transmission of ‘Barbarian’ manuscripts to China”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23/ 1, 7–28.Google Scholar
Boucher, Daniel. 2000b. Review of Salomon 1999. (Sino-Platonic Papers 98.), 58–71.Google Scholar
Boucher, Daniel. 2001. “The textual history of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā: notes on its third-century Chinese translation”, Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology for the Academic Year 2000, 4, 93–115.Google Scholar
Boucher, Daniel. 2008. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Brough, John. 1961. The Gāndhārī Dharmapada. (London Oriental Series. Vol. 7.) London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Chandra, Lokesh. 1959–1961. Tibetan–Sanskrit Dictionary. Śatapiṭaka (Indo-Asian Literatures. Vol. 3.) New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.Google Scholar
Chandra, Lokesh. 1992–94. Tibetan–Sanskrit Dictionary. Supplement Volume. Śatapiṭaka (Indo-Asian Literatures. Vols 369, 371, 372, 374, 375, 377 and 378.) New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.Google Scholar
Chen, Huaiyu. 2012. “Newly identified Khotanese fragments in the British Library and their Chinese parallels”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society third series, 22/ 2, 265–79.Google Scholar
Emmerick, Roland E. 1968. The Book of Zambasta, A Khotanese Poem on Buddhism. (London Oriental Series Vol. 21.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glass, Andrew. 2000. “A preliminary study of Kharoṣṭhī manuscript paleography”, MA thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe. 1993. “Buddhist Sanskrit texts from northern Turkestan and their relation to the Chinese Tripiṭaka”, Buddhism Across Boundaries: Chinese Buddhism and the Western Regions. Collection of Essays. Sanchung: Foguang Cultural Enterprise 1999, 107–36.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jens-Uwe. 2000. “Die Verbreitung des indischen Buddhismus nach Afghanistan und Zentralasien”, in Bechert, Heinz et al. (eds), Der Buddhismus I. Der indische Buddhismus und seine Verzweig. (Die Religionen der Menschheit, 24/1.) Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 421–39.Google Scholar
Von Hinüber, Oskar. 1983. “Sanskrit und Gāndhārī in Zentralasien”, in Röhrborn, Klaus and Veenker, Wolfgang (eds), Sprachen des Buddhismus in Zentralasien. (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, 16.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 27–34 = Kleine Schriften (Ed. Harry Falk and Walter Slaje). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 581–8.Google Scholar
Von Hinüber, Oskar. 2001. Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Lalou, Marcelle. 1953. “Contribution à la bibliographie du Kanjur et du Tanjur. Les textes Boudhiques au temps du roi Khri-sroṅ-lde-bcan”, Journal Asiatique, 211, 313–53.Google Scholar
Lévi, Sylvain. 1932. “Maitreya le consolateur”, Études d'orientalisme publiées par le Musée Guimet à la mémoire de Raymonde Linossier. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux, 355–402.Google Scholar
Liu, Zhen. 2005. “Das Maitreyavyākaraṇa. Ein Vergleich der verschiedenen Fassungen mit einer Übersetzung des Sanskrit-Texte”, unpublished thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München.Google Scholar
Nattier, Jan. 2003. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Norman, K.R. 1995. The Group Discourses II. Oxford: Pali Text Society.Google Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas. 2001. A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka, With a Concordance to Pischel's Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies. Vol. 3.) Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pagel, Ulrich. 2007. “The dhāraṇīs of Mahāvyutpatti #748: origin and formation”, Buddhist Studies Review, 24/ 2, 151–91.Google Scholar
Pischel, Richard. 1900. Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, I. Band, 8. Heft.) Strasbourg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard. 1999. Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhāra: The British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard. 2001. “Gāndhārī Hybrid Sanskrit: new sources for the study of the Sanskritization of Buddhist literature”, Indo-Iranian Journal, 44, 242–52.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard. 2002. “Gāndhārī and the other Indo-Aryan languages in light of newly discovered Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts”, in Sims-Williams, Nicholas (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages & Peoples (Sir Harold Bailey Centennial Volume). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 119–34.Google Scholar
Sander, Lore. 1968. Paläographisches zu den Sanskrithandschriften der Berliner Turfansammlung. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Schlingloff, Dieter. 1964. Ein Buddhistisches Yogalehrbuch, Textband. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, Ursula. 2006. “The papers of the Central Asian scholar and Sanskritist Rudolf Hoernle”, in Karashima, Seishi and Wille, Klaus (eds), Buddhist Manuscripts from Central Asia: the British Library Sanskrit Fragments, Vol. 1, 1–26.Google Scholar
Strauch, Ingo. 2008. “The Bajaur Collection of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts – a preliminary survey”, Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 25, 103–36.Google Scholar