DDB: Mātaṅga-sūtra (Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna) 摩登伽經

vi Contents chapter Swami Vivekananda and the Mainstreaming of the Yoga Sutra 116 chapter The Yoga Sutra in the Muslim World 143 chapter The Yoga Sutra Becomes a Classic 159 chapter Ishvara 172 chapter Journeys East, Journeys West: The Yoga Sutra in the Early Twentieth Century 182 chapter The Strange Case of T. M. Krishnamacharya 197 chapter Yoga Sutra 2.0 225 notes 237 suggestions for Further reading 249 index 261 vii Dr a mat is Per sonae Alberuni, also known as Abu al Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al Biruni (973-1048). A renowned Mus lim scientist and court scholar, in 1017 Alberuni was taken by force to India where he authored a learned account of Indian science, culture, and religion titled the Tahqiq-i-Hind ("India"), as well as an Arabic trans lation of a now lost commentary on the Yoga Sutra, known today as the Kitab Patanjal ("Patanjali's Book"). Aranya, Hariharananda (1869-1947). The author of the most highly regarded twentieth century commen tary on the Yoga Sutra, the 1911 Bengali language Bhasvati ("Dawning Sun"), Aranya was also the founder of the Kapil Math monastery in modern day Jharkand state, where at his request he was sealed into a cave in 1926. He remained there until his death in 1947.

The Prajñāpāramitā (‘Perfection of Wisdom’) sūtras are a large corpus of Mahāyāna Buddhist texts composed and redacted within the Indian subcontinent for over a thousand year period. The late Edward Conze, the leading modern authority on the Prajñāpāramitā texts, divides the development of this literature into four phases: 1. the elaboration of a basic text (ca. 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.), which constitutes the original impulse; 2. the expansion of that text (ca. 100 A.D. to 300); 3. the restatement of the doctrine in short texts and versified summaries (ca. 300 A.D. to 500); 4. the period of Tantric influence and the absorption into magic (600 A.D. to 1200). Conze identifies the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Aṣṭasahaśrikā-prajñāpāramitā) and its verse summary (the Ratnaguṇa-saṃcaya-gāthā) as representing the earliest strata. While Conze’s assertion of the Aṣṭa’s antiquity has had lasting impact on studies into the origins of the Mahāyāna, modern scholarship’s obsession with origins has caused most contemporary theorists to overlook or ignore the later phases of the Prajñāpāramitā literature’s development in India. By approaching these texts in a more synoptic fashion, I hope to demonstrate in the following pages important thematic continuities within the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. In order to do this, I treat these texts as literature, which existed within a larger textual and social system (Indian Buddhism). Specifically, I investigate how dialogue is used in the sūtras to establish a particular type of textual authority and how certain commonly occurring characters in the dialogues, such as Śāriputra, Subhuti, and Ānanda, are employed to align the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras more closely to mainstream Buddhist literature. A primary conclusion of this investigation is that the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras to a large extent demonstrate a particular brand of Indian Mahāyāna religious conservatism. Moreover, because this conservatism spans numerous texts within the corpus throughout several centuries, its appearance can not be analyzed solely in terms of a relative chronology vis-à-vis other Mahāyāna sūtras, but must be considered as one particular ideological posture in relation to a spectrum of religious orientations existing (both synchronically and diachronically) within Indian Buddhism.

Word counts-2,521 (excluding foot notes and bibliography) ārya-śālistamba-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra: An Early Mahayana Teachings on pratītyasamutpāda

Bulletin of The School of Oriental and African Studies-university of London, 1991

2017

Birch-bark manuscripts from gandhāra are the oldest material remains of Buddhist texts known so far. in recent years, a growing number of these texts can be ascribed to the Mahāyāna movement. The largest of these Mahāyāna texts is part of the so-called Bajaur Collection. according to its linguistic and paleographic features the text can be dated to the 1st or 2nd century Ce. it is written in the sūtra style and centers around the prediction given to 84,000 devaputras that they will become Buddhas with their own buddhafield. The text has no direct parallel in indic, Chinese or Tibetan languages. The present article gives for the first time an overview of the content and compositional structure of the text based on the ongoing edition carried out by the authors.

The oldest extant form of a Mahayana sutra, Tao-hsing pan-jo ching, is the translation of the Astasabasrika-prajnapdramita-sutra (hereafter abbr. Astaj done by Lokaksema in the second century a.d. This translation, when compared with the Sanskrit manuscripts and the later Chinese and Tibetan translations, gives an indication of the major changes which occurred not only in the text itself, but in the whole of the Mahayana tradition. The Atta in its early ver sion is preserved in two other translations besides the one by Lokaksema: the Ta ming-tu ding and the Mo-ho pan-jo-ctfao ding. The Asta, now recognized as the first member of what later grew to be a whole family of sutras called prajnaparamita,' had a central place in the initial development of Mahayana in India and later played an important and pioneer role in China. Since it was the first full treatise on Mahayana to be made available to the Chinese, it served as an introduction for the literate to the major doctrines of this school of Buddhism.1 2 Feeling that its teachings were compatible with those of the ancient sages of China, the material was eagerly studied and became of key importance to the spread of Buddhism. 1 See E. Conze, The Prajndpdramitd Literature (Indo-Iranian Monographs No. VI), 's Gravenhage: Mouton, i960, pp. 51 ff. for a full bibliography of the Tibetan, Mon golian, English, German and French translations. 2 K. Ch'en, Buddhism in China

Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 1992

A study focusing on eight verses summarizing the four Buddhist siddhāntas that appear in Kalkin Puṇḍarīka's Vimalaprabhā. These verses are drawn from the Jñānasārasamuccaya of Āryadeva, and they also appear in the Svadarśanamatoddeśa of Kalkin Yaśas and at the core of Jitāri's Sugatamatavibhaṅgakārikā. N.b.: In this study replace "Pradarśanānumatoddeśaparīkṣānāma"—a Tibetan construction of the title—with Svadarśanamatoddeśa, the title as it is cited in Nāropāda's Sekoddeśaṭīkā [Sferra ed. p. 176.21.] This text is wrongly ascribed to "Narendrakīrti" based on the erroneous back-translation of the Tibetan mi'i dbang po grags pa to narendrakīrti. In this case, mi'i dbang po is an epithet, and grags pa translates yaśas, the proper name of the first Kalkin of Sambhala. As far as I can tell, it is mere coincidence that 1) mi'i dbang po grags pa is given as the title and name of the author of this text, and 2) Narendrayaśas (517–589 CE) was a translator who translated a recension of the Samādhirāja-sūtra into Chinese (T 639) in 557 CE. Nevertheless, this is indeed odd!

This is the Ph.D. dissertation done in 1968 at the University of Wisconsin. It represents work done nearly 50 years ago without the aid of a computer or even an electric typewriter. The work attempts to show the changes in a Buddhist sutra over the centuries from the Sanskrit and Chinese witnesses.

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79, no.3 (2011): 759-762

Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet, 2020

This paper examines the role of the classical Mahāyāna Samādhirājasūtra in the Mahāmudrā discourse of Maitrīpā (11th cent.), an important Indian patriarch of the Tibetan Kagyu Mahāmudrā lineage. Maitrīpā taught a kind of "proto-Sūtra Mahāmudrā," a precursor to the more explicitly formulated Kagyu doctrine of the same name. Included are Sanskrit and Tibetan critical editions and an English translation of the relevant section of the Samādhirājasūtra, ch. 32 vv. 1–118.

In the context of global enthusiasm towards various practices claiming to follow the Indian tradition of Yoga, the Yoga Sutras of Patañjali are becoming an increasingly popular and important text worldwide, both for the understanding of ancient Indian culture and to inform our outlook on a modern popular spiritual movement at the center of a multi-billion dollars’ industry. Coming from a distant land, from a bygone era, the language of the Yoga Sutras requires careful analysis. Its content is not as easily accessible as many have assumed. Invited Professor V. N. Jha, Former Director of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune, and his wife Ujwala Jha, herself a renown Mimāṃsakā, will be leading the lectures on the text, assisted by Laura von Ostrowski, invited PhD candidate from FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, conducting her doctoral studies on the modern reception of the Yoga Sutras, and by Karl-Stéphan Bouthillette, PhD candidate and lecturer in Indian philosophy at LMU.

Buddhist Studies Review (35.1-2), 2018

Indo-Iranian Journal, 1999

It has been long demonstrated that a number of Mahāyāna s ūtra are preserved in two or more recensions. Chinese translations of Mahāyāna s ūtra in some cases record a succession of recensions of an individual text. The diversity of the Prajñāp āramit ā corpus is especially well known through the work of Conze on the whole body, that of Lancaster on the As . t . as āhasrik āprajñ āp āramit ā, and Lethcoe on the Pañcavim . śatis āhasrik ā-prajñ āp āramit ā. 1 We need only look to the work of Bechert, Regamey, and von Hinüber, concerning the Saddharmapun . d . arīkas ūtra, the Kāran . d . avy ūhas ūtra and the Sa ṅgh āt . as ūtra respectively, for discussions of distinct recensions of individual titles that are witnessed directly in the Sanskrit language. 2 Especially in the last of these three cases, the manuscripts from the Gilgit collection have played a crucial part in uncovering this textual diversity -the eight mss. that we possess of the Sa ṅgh āt . as ūtra, recording distinct recensions, were all recovered from Gilgit. The Sam ādhir ājas ūtra, as it is commonly called in modern scholarship (hereafter SRS 4 ), is a large Mahāyāna Buddhist scripture. It is a miscellaneous and probably composite work that bears certain affinities with the Prajñ āp āramit ā literature and other early Mahāyāna scriptures. It is known to modern scholarship through the pioneering edition of the complete text by Dutt, 5 and the re-edition, based on Dutt's, by Vaidya. These two editions present us with a work that consists of some 40 chapters, although the text is found in manuscript sources in 40 chapters in an important group of Nepalese mss., 7 42 chapters in another important group of Nepalese mss. and a very different arrangement of at least 42 chapters in the Gilgit ms., 39 chapters in the Tibetan translation, and with no chapter divisions at all in the Chinese translation of Narendrayaśas. While Dutt's edition purports to present the text of the Gilgit ms., he also records for us passages which only occur in the Nepalese mss. and Tibetan translation. To confuse matters more, this text goes under at least four names: the colophons of the Nepalese manuscripts give us sam ādhir ājam . n āma mah āy ānas ūtram, but in various medieval Indian treatises it is referred to as the Candrapradīpa, the Candrapradīpasam ādhi and also as the Mah ākarun . āvat āra.

2005

Applied to codifications of Vedic ritual perhaps as early as the 8 C. BCE and to scriptures chanted in the monasteries of Mediaeval Japan, the sutra (sūtra) is one of the world's most widespread genre terms. Yet a systematic examination of the genre itself in the late Vedic Brahmanical literature where it first appears has never been undertaken, despite universal notice of its importance and of the uniqueness of its style. A lack of firm chronologies, historical contextualization and an overweening interest in portraying Vedic literature as the product of caste rigidity and mystical speculation has left ancient India without an account as to the origins of its intellectual culture and of its first non-scriptural prose. Concentrating on the earliest Sūtras, this work uses a variety of sources and methods to determine the principles of this technical literature and the intellectual context at is nexus. Two basic features of Sūtras are analyzed in order to understand the genre's basis and to ascertain how these principles developed across several disciples. The first is the extraordinary manner in which many Sūtras are organized as a development of the taxonomy of earlier ritual texts. The second is formation of individual aphorisms ('sūtras') that move from temporal units in ritual to discrete extensional domains. One must then account for the scientific imperative behind such principles, even with this paucity of literary history. Analysis of India's debate culture and even comparisons with the Jewish legal tradition, where similar communities of study and exchange produced similar texts, suggest the nature of the 'speech genre' of the sūtra. It is concluded that the sūtra genre's form and aim emerged from a vibrant and endowed culture of tutelage and contest where the most perfect account of a subject was rewarded and preserved within a lineage and among a circle of experts. Such an environment is the best account of how a culture that left behind almost no physical monuments developed the Ancient World's most sophisticated models of linguistic and ritual investigation