This article clarifies the similarity of the calligraphic style of three Dunhuang manuscripts of the Shijingtu gunyi lun 釈浄土群疑論, Stein 2663, 021, and 078, in The Secret Books of Dunhuang 敦煌秘笈.
Examining common characters of the three scriptures, I found that some forms of the characters were completely the same, and others were substantially the same in terms of the interpretation of dots and strokes as well as the method of simplification of characters. There is consequently a high probability that the three documents are connected with the same writer. In addition, if we pay attention to the colophons of Hane 羽 021, we may assume the compact original form of the text which is complete in two volumes.
Furthermore, the three scriptures employ Chinese characters of the Empress Wu (則天文字). Various simplified forms of the character Nian 年 are seen, which indicates that the writer had high flexibility and a good command of writing.
It could be said that the Stein 2663 V, a manuscript of the Sifen jieben shu 四分戒本疏, gives us new clues to the circulation of the Gunyilun 群疑論.
In interpreting the opening sūtra, athāto dharmajijñāsā, Śabara develops several different solutions, some of which are explicitly refuted, and some that move towards higher conclusions while giving the appearance of his own solutions. There are two intermediate and final conclusions in his explanation of the first word atha. The opponent whom Śabara criticizes at the beginning of his commentary by saying that “the wording of the sūtra should not be interpreted in a way that deviates from worldly wording,” is, according to Kumārila, Bhavadāsa. Bhavadāsa seems to have interpreted athātaḥ as a kind of technical term for immediate succession. That is to say, Bhavadāsa took “immediate succession” as the starting point for his interpretation of the sūtra. If we deduce from this fact the overall picture of Bhavadāsa’s own interpretation of the sūtra, it is natural to assume that the intermediate conclusion of Śabara reflects or adopts Bhavadāsa’s own reasoning and conclusion. Śabara himself, in an attempt to go beyond Bhavadāsa, has extended Bhavadāsa’s reasoning and at the same time formulated a new conclusion of his own, bearing in mind the supposedly earlier interpretations. In the concluding part, however, Śabara seems to have refrained from putting forward his own novel interpretation and repeated the safe conclusion of Bhavadāsa, whose authority had already been established.
In the tenth chapter of the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā, which consists of 14 verses, Bhāviveka, rejecting the Jain view that some episodes of the Buddha’s life tell us of his ignorance, tries to prove the Buddha’s omniscience （sarvajñatā）. Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā 10.12-14 deals with the following two episodes: that the Buddha allowed Devadatta, who subsequently tried to kill the Buddha and cause a schism in the saṃgha, to be ordained as a monk; and that the Buddha allowed Sunakṣatra, who subsequently returned to the lay life and abused the Buddha, to be ordained as a monk and had him as an attendant. The Jain opponent argues that the Buddha is not omniscient because he could not foresee their future behavior when he allowed them to be ordained as monks. Bhāviveka answers this objection by showing how the Buddha foresaw their future behavior, based on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 大般涅槃経, not the Upāyakauśalyasūtra 善巧方便経, which Kawasaki 1992 regarded as the source. According to Bhāviveka, the Buddha could foresee that （1） if Devadatta were not to become a monk, he would become a king and destroy the Buddha’s teachings; but （2） if he were to become a monk, he could not do anything to the Buddha. He also foresaw that Sunakṣatra could accumulate merits （puṇya） while he served as an attendant of the Buddha.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the meaning of two terms: sāpekṣa and nirapekṣa (anapekṣa) in the Vaiśeṣikasūtra (VS) 10.7. The clarification is based on the interpretations of the terms in the Vaiśeṣikasūtravṛtti, a commentary on the VS, and by the commentaries on the Padārthadharmasaṃgraha (PDhS) acknowledging its use of the VS 10.7 as the basis of its own view: “conjunction (saṃyoga) is without any requirement, when producing a substance (dravya).”
The terms sāpekṣa and nirapekṣa in the VS 10.7 have been translated by scholars into “those [threads] requiring [conjunction],” and “those [threads] not requiring [conjunction],” respectively. This paper shows that sāpekṣa means those [threads] requiring [action], i.e., a thread requires action as cooperative cause for producing a conjunction with the other threads. Following the conjunction, a product (cloth) is produced. On the other hand, nirapekṣa means those [threads] not requiring cooperative cause except conjunction, i.e., since conjunction has already occurred between the threads, they produce a product (cloth) without any requirement. The interpretation of nirapekṣa presented in this paper becomes suitable as the basis of the view of the PDhS.
Among the verses in the hymn that found a place as X 102 in the latest layer of the Rigveda, there is a narrative of a person named Mudgala who, along with a woman named Mudgalānī, wins a horse chariot race with a bull cart. The image depicted is that of the bull, towing a cart. This hymn contains materials for later literary references of the chariot driven by Mudgala.
There are several cases in which the actor or the subject of the action is not specifically shown in the constituent verses of this hymn; therefore, there are variations in the interpretation, which have not been highlighted in translations and articles until recently. The common point of these studies is the premise that the cart is two-headed (a bull on one side and a club on one side), from which an allegorical interpretation is advanced.
However, the one-bull cart remains well-known at that time, namely, the cart of Mudgala, who is regarded as a sort of a saint in the context of Atharvaveda XI 3,9. On the other hand, the name also means a kind of bean, namely, the mudgá (Vigna mungo) combined with the suffix -la.
In this paper, I assume that the cart on which Mudgala mounted was a one-bull cart and that the priest outside the hymn prays for a two-horse chariot in front of him. Based on this working hypothesis, I present a translation of the hymn with a focus on the structure of cattle carts and horse chariots.
Not all the verses of the hymn constitute one story or allegory such as the verses that hint at the restoration of reproductive ability. This hymn proves to be a form of prayer that includes vulgar and complex symbolisms (e.g., Mudgala is a symbol of two testicles [two wheels], whereas Mudgalānī symbolizes the scrotum, etc.) and is chanted by the priest, who is the narrator, for the client’s victory in the current chariot race.
The Newar Buddhist manuscript, Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna, no. 106 of the Kyoto University Library, was copied by a scribe named Ṣaḍānanda in A.D. 1923. Another ms., Śiṣyalekhadharmakāvya, no. 389 of the Tokyo University Library, was copied in 1912. The scribe, Ṣaḍānanda, introduced himself as “an inhabitant at Mahābauddha temple in Patan and awarded the title of Vajrācārya (by the Non-Newar Government)”. These two mss. are written in the Devanāgarī script.
Another two mss, Sapādalakṣā Mahāpratyaṅgirā and Kālacakratantra, no. 111 and no. 18 of the Kyoto University Library, were copied in 1901 and 1907 respectively in the Newari script by Ṣaḍabhijñānanda from Mahābauddha.
During the first half of his life, Ṣaḍabhijñānanda copied some mss. in the Newari script. But after gaining possession of the Vajrācārya title, he copied mss. in the Devanāgarī script under the name of Ṣaḍānanda. These changes have been linked to the Non-Newar Government’s policy of rejecting the Newar culture. Unlike many Newar scribes, he acted in line with that policy.
Eikan (永観, 1033–1111) has been studied as a Jōdo thinker. However, he was also active as a debater. In his time, debate was connected with royal power and was very vibrant. Eikan participated in many debates, but refused to participate three times. So we need to consider what he thought of debate.
According to his main work, Ōjō Jūin (往生拾因), he devalued language. He also emphasized continuing nenbutsu practice. This seems to have led to his unwillingness to participate in debate, and he focus instead on long-term nenbutsu recitation.
The Shi moheyanlun 釋摩訶衍論 (abbreviated as Shilun), a commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith 大乘起信論, has the special characteristic of making new words to express its interpretations. This creativity is apparent in the mental deliberation 心量 and consciousness 識 of the second volume, which mentions four consciousness: the 9th “consciousness of many in a single mind 多一識心,” the 10th “consciousness of each and every mind 一一識心,” the 9th “amalavijñāna 唵摩羅識,” and the 10th “all things are nothing but consciousness 一切一心識.”
However, the Shilun does not give a detailed account of the four kinds of consciousness. Therefore, I examined the connection between mental deliberation and the two approaches 二門, the relationship between “consciousness of many in a single mind” and “all things are nothing but consciousness,” and the position of amalavijñāna by analyzing the interpretations presented in the Shilun commentaries. This analysis showed that the 10 forms of consciousness are limited from the 1st to the 9th mental deliberation, so the 9th amalavijñāna is included in the 9th ālayavijñāna, and the 10th “all things are nothing but consciousness” corresponds to the 9th “consciousness of many in a single mind.”
The present paper aims to clarify work-titles of writings of Sajjana and his son Mahājana, 11th and 12th century lay Buddhists of Kashmir. In particular, Sajjana is sometimes regarded as a crucial individual for the Yogācāra exegetical tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Although, until recently, their writings had not been known save for works available in the Tibetan canon, further works that are not included in the Tibetan canon have gradually been found in a Sanskrit manuscript, which we call here the Sajjana-Mahājana codex.
As for Sajjana, in addition to his Putralekha, that is, an epistile addressed to his son Mahājana (only in Tib.), two further works, i.e., Mahāyānottaratantraśāstropadeśa and Sūtrālaṃkārapiṇḍārtha, have been available (both only in Skt.).
With regard to Mahājana, (1) Sūtrālaṃkārādhikārasaṅgati (only in Skt.: identified by Shaoyong Ye) has become newly available as found in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex, in addition to (2) his Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya commentary (only in Tib.). In (2), Mahājana refers to two of his own writings, i.e., (3) ’Brel pa grub pa chung ngu’i yongs su shes pa and (4) rNam par nges pa’i yongs su shes pa. We can identify (3) as the Pratibandhasiddhiparicaya which is available only as a Sanskrit fragment in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex. On the basis of this identification, we can assume the Sanskrit title of (4) to be *Viniścayaparicaya (yet to be found). Accordingly, the Sanskrit title of (1) can be known as Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayaparicaya, as attested in the Peking Tanjur (Derge’s reading-arthaparijñāna does not seem to reflect the original). Furthermore, there are two other works with the element paricaya in their titles, i.e., Sūtrālaṃkāraparicaya and *Mahāyānottaratantraparicaya, included in the Sajjana-Mahājana codex. Although their colophons that refer to the author’s name are yet to be found, these two are most probably Mahājana’s compositions, as this particular title paricaya and this particular situation (being included in the same codex) suggest.