Indo-Iran J (2007) 50: 101–143DOI 10.1007/s10783-007-9052-z

Revisiting the phrase “sa pr�

thivıpradesas caityabhuto

bhavet” and the Mahayana cult of the book

David Drewes

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Since the publication of Gregory Schopen’s article “The Phrase ‘sa pr�

thivıpradesascaityabhuto bhavet’ in the Vajracchedika: Notes on the Cult of the Book inMahayana” in this journal in 1975, it has become widely accepted that a “cult ofthe book” was an important feature of Indian Mahayana.1 Schopen was not the firstto associate the veneration of sutras with the Mahayana. Charles Eliot, for example,wrote already in 1921:

The old practice of reciting the scriptures was not discontinued but no objec-tion was made to preserving and reading them in written copies. . . . But thoughthe Buddhists remained on the whole true to the old view that the importantthing was to understand and disseminate the substance of the Master’s teach-ing and not merely to preserve the text as if it were a sacred formula, still wesee growing up in Mahayanist works ideas about the sanctity and efficacy ofscripture which are foreign to the Pali canon. Many sutras (for instance theDiamond Cutter) extol themselves as all-sufficient for salvation: the Prajña-paramita commences with a salutation addressed not as usual to the Buddhabut to the work itself, as if it were a deity, and Hodgson states that the Bud-dhists of Nepal worship their nine sacred books (2:50).

1This article also appeared as a chapter of Schopen’s master’s thesis (Schopen 1975b, 75-129).

An early version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy ofReligion in Atlanta in 2003. I would like to thank Richard Salomon for reading a draft of the sectiondealing with archaeological evidence and making valuable suggestions. I would also like to thankJonathan Silk for sending some helpful suggestions as this paper was entering the press.

D. Drewes (�)University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V5, Canadae-mail: d_drewes@umanitoba.ca

102 D. Drewes

Several other scholars, including Monier Monier-Williams, Louis de La ValléePoussin, L.A. Waddell, Moriz Winternitz, S. Paranavitana, Nalinaksha Dutt, Ed-ward J. Thomas, W.Y. Evans-Wentz, Edward Conze, Jean Filliozat, Étienne Lamotte,Akira Hirakawa, and André Bareau, had also identified the veneration of books orthe dharma as a Mahayana practice.2 Although the idea that Mahayanists veneratedsutras was well established, however, no one had yet seriously addressed the ques-tion of how they did so or the significance of sutra worship for the Mahayana as awhole. Stepping into this gap, Schopen argued that the veneration of sutras played akey role in the development of early Mahayana and its institutional structure. Takingissue with Akira Hirakawa’s theory that stupa sites served as the primary institu-tional bases of early Mahayana, he argued that early Mahayanists in fact rejected theveneration of stupas and relics and developed new places of worship of their ownwhere they venerated Mahayana sutras. In the first, “oral tradition period” of the cult,these shrines were established by the simple recitation of sutras at particular places(1975a, 170, 179). Later, desiring more permanent places of worship, Mahayanistswrote their sutras down and deposited them at particular sites in order to establish“permanently located source[s] of power” (179-80). It was these new centers—andnot stupa sites—that served as the, or one of the, “institutional bases . . . out of whichearly Mahayana arose” (1975a, 181).3 In the more than thirty years since the initialpublication of Schopen’s paper, little additional work has been done on Mahayanabook veneration, and Schopen’s views have not received in-depth critique.4 With the

2Monier-Williams 1889, 178; de La Vallée Poussin 1898, 227; Waddell 1912-13, 176; Winternitz 1927,2:300-302, 320; Paranavitane/a 1928, 44-45 and 1933, 204-5; Dutt 1930, 108-9; Thomas 1933, 188; Evans-Wentz 1947, 18-19; Conze 1951, 79, cf. 85; Renou and Filliozat 1947-53, 2:607-8; Lamotte 1954, 383-86;Hirakawa 1963, 86-87; Bareau 1966, 199. Schopen himself (1975a, 168n38) cites de La Vallée Poussin(1898), Renou and Filliozat (1947-53), and Lamotte (1954, but pages 393-96). He also cites Mudiyanse(1967, 91-92). Though its publication date is 1976, see also Lamotte (1944-80, 4:1862-63).3Schopen states that there is a “very real possibility of there having been more than one” institutionalbasis of early Mahayana. Although he does not suggest what other basis or bases there may have been, hecomments that “it is reasonable to assume that the early Mahayana texts . . . could not be taught . . . or keptin the usual monastic centers” (1975a, 181). In a more recent publication Schopen allows that “some earlyMahayana groups were marginalized, embattled segments still institutionally embedded in the dominantmainstream monastic orders” and states that others “may have been marginal in yet another way: theymay have been small, isolated groups living in the forest at odds with and not necessarily welcomed bythe mainstream monastic orders.” He points out that taking Mahayanists to have lived in the forest wouldmake it possible to account for the absence of early donative epigraphs associated with the Mahayana “atestablished Buddhist sites—the only kinds of sites known and so far studied—. . . and account too for theattempted redefinition of Buddhist sacred sites found in so many Mahayana Sutras” (2000b, 23). Thesecomments seem to suggest that Schopen envisions Mahayana book shrines as having been situated inforests.4Several scholars have, however, taken issue with some of Schopen’s ideas. Paul Harrison states that inhis view “Schopen over-emphasizes the negative attitude displayed by Mahayana sutras toward stupaworship” and suggests that the aim of Mahayana sutras is “not to promote [stupa worship], nor even toforbid it, but to compare it unfavorably with other religious activities or values, e.g., the realization ofthe prajña-paramita, the memorisation of sutras, or the practice of samadhi” (1995, 62 and n23). Harrisonalso takes issue with Schopen’s basic contention that the Vajracchedika makes reference[s] to book shrines.See note 18. Richard Gombrich comments that “Schopen’s otherwise brilliant article is slightly marred byan occasional failure to distinguish ‘the book’ as a written object from texts in general; and I think hemay lay too much stress on the localization of the cult” (1988, 29). Hisashi Matsumura argues that not allearly Mahayanists rejected the stupa cult (1985, 144, see also 147n31). Tilmann Vetter argues that early

Revisiting the cult of the book 103

recent reprinting of this paper in a collection of Schopen’s articles (2005a, 25-62), itis perhaps an appropriate occasion to revisit and reconsider his ideas.

Schopen’s argument is based primarily on a close reading of a group of rathercryptic passages found in several Mahayana sutras that say that places where peo-ple memorize, recite, or teach sutras, or keep them in written form, will become“caityabhuta.” The Vajracchedika Prajñaparamita, for instance, says at one point,in Conze’s translation, “that spot of earth where one has taken from this discourseon dharma but one stanza of four lines, taught it or illuminated it, that spot of earthwould be like a shrine [sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto bhavet] for the whole world

with its Gods, men and Asuras” (1957, 74). The word caityabhuta is a compoundof the words caitya and bhuta. The word caitya means “shrine,” or “sacred place orobject,” and typically refers to stupas. It can also refer to non-Buddhist shrines; thebodhiman. d. a, where Sakyamuni and other Buddhas are traditionally believed to havesat on the night they attained Buddhahood; other places associated with the life ofSakyamuni and other Buddhas; and certain other sacred places or objects. Previousscholars tended to take the word bhuta in the compound to indicate a comparisonand thus, like Conze, to read passages like the Vajracchedika’s as stating merely thatplaces where people do things with sutras are like caityas. Schopen argues that thisinterpretation makes little sense and that the term caityabhuta in these passages refersto actual caityas which served as early Mahayana cult sites (150-52, 176-77). Alto-gether, Schopen analyses six caityabhuta passages and several other passages thatseem to be modeled on them in light of related material from a range of South AsianBuddhist texts. From this analysis he draws a remarkably specific picture of the na-ture and history of the cult of the book. He writes:

It is clear . . . that the relic cult had a clearly defined organizational center; i.e.,the stupa. It was around the stupa that the activity of the worshipper turned andit was the erection of such a structure which allowed a stable localization ofthe cult. It is equally clear from the [As. t.asahasrika Prajñaparamita] etc. thatthe organizational center of the cult of the book was first of all the book and,

Mahayanists practiced stupa worship and that the cult of the book was a later development. He also arguesthat the Saddharmapun. d. arıka does not show a negative attitude toward the stupa/relic cult (1994, 1266-72). Jan Nattier also suggests that the cult of the book was not part of the earliest forms of Mahayana(2003, 184-86). Although he accepts that the cult of the book was important for the authors of the As. t.a andAks. obhyavyuha, Egil Fronsdal writes that “explicit reference[s] to a cult of the book are absent from mostof the other translations of Lokaks.ema.” He suggests that the “cult of the book was not pervasive withinthe early bodhisattva movement(s)” and that “perhaps Schopen was a bit hasty to claim that the cult of thebook was the institutional base for the origin of the Mahayana” (1998, 192-93 and n24). Schopen himselfcomments in a recent publication that the cult of the book “clearly . . . must be revisited.” Though he seemsto continue to maintain most of his original views, he argues that the cult was not part of Mahayana’sinitial formation, but a somewhat later development. He writes: “It may well be safe to say that the actualcult of the book is probably later than I had originally suggested, though perhaps not by too much, andalthough it probably was an important component of the organizational and cultic developments of theMahayana(s) in India, such development was probably much slower and later than previously thought”(2005c, 153n118). Elsewhere he comments that he “was almost certainly wrong . . . in seeing . . . only anattempt by the ‘new’ movement to substitute one similar cult (the cult of the book) for another similarcult (the cult of relics). That such a substitution occurred—and perhaps rather quickly—is likely, but itnow appears that it is very unlikely that this was the original or fundamental intention” (2003, 497). ForSchopen’s views on the original intention, see mainly 2005c. On Schopen’s current views, see also note 3.

104 D. Drewes

by extension, the pr�

thivıpradesa where the book was recited, set-up or circu-lated. It should be noted, for example, that in all occurrences of our formula[i.e., the phrase sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto bhavet and its variants] it is the

pr�

thivıpradesa in itself and not the book which becomes caityabhuta and is tobe worshipped, etc. . . . Apart, however, from the difference in focal point, thetexts describe the structure of the two cults in exactly the same terms: plac-ing the relics in a stupa; honoring, revering them, etc., with flowers, incense,rows of lamps; writing the dharmaparyaya and making it into a book, settingit up; honoring, revering it with flowers, incense, rows of lamps. It seems ob-vious, then, that the cult of the book was in structure patterned closely on thestructure of the earlier relic cult or, expressed differently, that the former tookover from the latter the prescribed forms of activity while at the same time sub-stituting a distinctly different object toward which they were directed (1975a,170).

We are, perhaps, also able to account for the . . . shift . . . from an orientation em-phasizing the oral tradition to one primarily emphasizing a written tradition. Inthe former case the development and maintenance of new cultic centers woulddepend on the periodic visits of wandering bhan. akas or reciters. This was, atbest, an unstable mechanism. If centers were to be established which wouldhave a more permanent character and which would, by that fact, make possi-ble the development of a cult in a more truly sociological sense of the term, itwas necessary to have a more permanent, more specific object to serve as thefocal point of the cult. The shift to a primarily written tradition is perhaps tobe accounted for by this need. Once the book was in written form, it could bedeposited permanently at the places where the bhan. akas were in the habit ofteaching and reciting and thus, even in the absence of the bhan. akas, it wouldprovide a permanently located source of power (179-80).

[The cult of the book] did not develop in isolation. It had to contend at everystep with the historical priority and the dominance of the stupa/relic cult ofearly Buddhism in the milieu in which it was attempting to establish itself. . . .At [As. t.a] 71.5ff and 94.13ff, the justification of the cult of the book is articu-lated not in terms of its own inherent value, but in terms of its value relativeto the stupa/relic cult . . . . At [Kasyapaparivarta] 158-59, [Vimalakırtinirdesa]XII, 4-6, etc., the merit derived from the cult of the book is always expressedin terms of its comparative superiority to that derived from the stupa/relic cult.These passages and others like them are indicative of a confrontation of the twocults or, at the least, a situation of competition between them; and this situa-tion is not surprising when it is kept in mind that the compilers of the [As. t.a],etc. were attempting to introduce a radical innovation in the face of an estab-lished cult form of central importance which, in addition, had the sanction ofthe dominant sector of the Buddhist community (168-69).

Such pr�

thivıpradesah. may well have formed one of the “institutional bases”(consciously leaving room for the very likely possibility of there having beenmore than one) out of which early Mahayana arose. A corollary to this wouldbe the assumption that, since each text placed itself at the center of its own

Revisiting the cult of the book 105

cult, early Mahayana (from a sociological point of view), rather than being anidentifiable single group, was in the beginning a loose federation of a numberof distinct though related cults, all of the same pattern, but each associated withits specific text (181).

What is perhaps most notable about Schopen’s argument in support of these thesesis that the only evidence that he cites for the existence of Mahayana book shrines is hiscaityabhuta passages and their variants. A key question, then, is whether or not thesepassages actually make reference to shrines. What I will try to suggest is that they donot, and that they are in fact similes or metaphors, as scholars before Schopen tendedto think. Before turning to Schopen’s caityabhuta passages themselves, however, itwill be helpful to make a few observations on a number of passages in South AsianBuddhist texts that unambiguously compare people or things to caityas.

Passages that compare people or things to caityas are fairly common in SouthAsian Buddhist literature and can be found in texts belonging to a variety of timeperiods and genres. A simple example occurs at the end of the Pali Milindapañha.Here we are told that after the arahant Nagasena had answered all of Milinda’s ques-tions, Milinda was so impressed that he built him a vihara and gave him variousgifts. He then left his kingdom to his son, became a monk, and went on to attainarahantship himself. After giving this account, the text closes with three verses ex-tolling the virtues of pañña (Skt. prajña), the last two of which read as follows, inTrenckner’s Pali Text Society edition and I.B. Horner’s translation:

yasmim. khandhe t.hita pañña sati yattha anunaka |pujavisesassa dharo aggo so va anuttaro ||

tasma hi pan. d. ito poso sampassam. attham attano |paññavantabhipujeyya cetiyam. viya pujiyan ti ||

In whom wisdom is firmly set,where mindfulness never fails,He is foremost in deserving honour,he is unexcelled.Therefore let the man who is wise,beholding his own good,Greatly honour those who have wisdomas to be honoured is a shrine (Trenckner 1880, 420; Horner 1963-64, 2:305;cf. Schopen 1975a, 176n54).

The most obvious point of this passage is to give the moral of the story of Milinda’sveneration of Nagasena and his subsequent attainment of arahantship: one bringsbenefits to oneself by venerating people like Nagasena. What is most important herefor our purposes is the phrase “cetiyam. viya pujiyan,” which Horner translates “as tobe honoured is a shrine.” The word cetiya is an exact cognate of Sanskrit caitya andviya unambiguously means “like” or “similar to,” so the passage is clearly drawinga simile. The basic idea is that just as the veneration of caityas produces merit, sotoo does the veneration of people who possess pañña like Nagasena. Although it isnot clear from Horner’s translation, the simile also seems to work on a deeper levelto provide the reason why venerating people like Nagasena provides benefits. In her

106 D. Drewes

translation, Horner glosses over the word khandha (Skt. skandha) in the first verse,rendering it as “whom.” In this context, however, what the word specifically means is“torso,” or perhaps “body.” What the passage actually says, then, is that any torso orbody in which pañña is established is like a caitya that is to be worshipped. The ideaseems to be that people like Nagasena are like caityas because pañña is establishedin their bodies in the same way in which relics are established in caityas. Pañña thusseems to be imaged in this passage as a sort of homologue of the Buddha, or of theBuddha’s relics, that makes whoever possesses or contains it like a human stupa orcaitya. Veneration of such people thus produces benefits in the same manner as theveneration of caityas.

Similar passages can be found in the Samadhiraja and Drumakinnararajaparipr�

c-cha sutras. Discussing the practice of bodily restraint (kayasam. vara) in the “Kayav-anmanah. sam. vara” chapter of the Samadhiraja, the Buddha states that among a num-ber of other benefits, such as acquiring certain characteristics of a Buddha and immu-nity from various forms of danger, a person “trained in bodily restraint will becomea caitya for the whole world [caitiyu sarvaloke]” (Dutt 1941-54, 600). Although thetext does not explicitly say how becoming a caitya is beneficial, the idea seems to bethat those who practice bodily restraint metaphorically become caityas in the sensethat they contain restraint in their bodies. In a rather humorous passage in the Dru-makinnara that illustrates the inferiority of sravakas to advanced bodhisattvas, KingDruma plays a vın. a (pi wang), a traditional Indian musical instrument similar to asitar, in a manner that causes the sravakas and others in the assembly to lose controland start dancing. A bodhisattva then says sarcastically to Mahakasyapa:

Since the venerable Mahakasyapa is old; aged; feeble; with few desires; con-tent; a holder [’dzin pa, Skt. *dhara] of the dhutagun. as like a caitya [mchodrten du gyur pa] for the world with its gods, people, and asuras, how is he notable to control his own body, and [how], being an elder, is he made to appearas if he were dancing like a little boy? (Harrison 1992b, 58, my trans.).

In the midst of this passage Mahakasyapa is compared to a caitya, interestinglyenough by being called “mchod rten du gyur pa,” a Tibetan translation of what inthe original text was probably the word caityabhuta.5 The passage seems to comparehim to a caitya on the basis of the fact that he is a “holder” of the dhutagun. as, a groupof special ascetic practices sanctioned in early Buddhist texts that were optional formonks and nuns.6 Like the Samadhiraja passage, this passage clearly presents be-

5The word mchod rten du gyur pa (or mchod rten du gyur) is used to render caityabhuta in Tibetantranslations of several texts; see, e.g., Schopen (1975a, 148, 155, 160) and Harrison and Hartmann (2000,214-15). On this passage, see also Schopen (2005c, 111). The word mchod rten du gyur pa here can betranslated as “a true shrine,” as Schopen suggests, but the passage clearly constitutes either a simile or ametaphor.6Mahakasyapa is traditionally identified as the foremost of the Buddha’s monks who practiced thedhutagun. as. See, e.g., Morris and Hardy (1885-1900, 1:23 and n4) and n4/Woodward and Hare (1932-36,1:16). For additional references see Silk (2003, 178-79n11). For more on the dhutagun. as see Dantinne(1991).

Revisiting the cult of the book 107

ing like a caitya as something positive, but does not indicate what precisely is goodabout it.7

Some of the most interesting caitya comparisons are found in some versions of thestory of the Buddha-to-be in his mother’s womb. Tellers of the legend of the Buddhaoften dwell on this story at some length and reveal a deep fascination with the ideaof a virtual Buddha dwelling inside of a human body. The authors of the versions ofthe story contained in the Mahavastu, Nidanakatha, and Lalitavistara each compareMaya during her pregnancy to a caitya. The Mahavastu, for instance, describes Mayaas receiving the veneration of various classes of gods:

Again, when the Bodhisattva has entered his mother’s womb all the Suparn. akings and lords, the Caturmaharajika devas, the Trayastrim. sa devas, the Yamadevas, the Tus.ita devas, the Nirman. arati devas, the Paranirmitavasavartin devas,and the Brahma devas enter her abode and sprinkle her with celestial powderof the sandal-wood and the aloe-wood. They sprinkle her with celestial pow-der of tamala leaves, with celestial showers of blossoms, and laud her withperfect, consummate and absolutely pure praise. Then saluting her thrice fromthe right they go their way. (All this is) through the power of the Bodhisattva[bodhisatvasya eva tejena] (Jones 1949-56, 2:14; Senart 1882-97, 2:16).

Here all the gods of the Buddhist universe come to worship Maya by sprinkling herwith fragrant powders, showering her with celestial flowers, singing her praises, andcircumambulating her. Particularly interesting are the facts that it is Maya herself—and not the bodhisattva—that is said to be worshipped, and that Maya is said to beworshipped because of the power of the bodhisattva. The overall image is one ofMaya being worshipped as a sort of human stupa. Gods come to worship her becauseshe contains a (future) Buddha and the worship they offer is described in the samemanner in which Buddhist texts commonly describe stupa worship.

The equation of Maya and a stupa is made more explicit as the passage continues:

Again, when the Bodhisattva has entered his mother’s womb he does not oc-cupy a position that is either too high or too low. He does not lie on his face,nor on his back, nor on his left side, nor squatting on his heels. But he sits inhis mother’s right side with his legs crossed. . . . He is able to see his mother,while she in her turn can see the Bodhisattva in her womb like a body of puregold and is enraptured at the sight.

Just as though a gem of beryl in a crystal casket were placed in her curvinglap [yatha vaid. uryasya man. i sphat.ikasamudge kat.iutsam. gasmim. ] so does hismother see the Bodhisattva like a body of pure gold illuminating her womb(Jones 1949-56, 2:14-15; Senart 1882-97, 2:16).

Instead of developing slowly as a fetus, the bodhisattva is fully formed and able to situpright as soon as he enters his mother’s womb. Maya’s womb is said to be transpar-ent, enabling him to see outside and be seen inside of it. Reflecting on the bodhisattva

7For two additional passages of this sort see Aryaratnameghanamamahayanasutra (2003, 223/112a,quoted in Nance 2005, 12) and Dutt (1941-54, 481).

108 D. Drewes

living in this transparent womb, the author says that he was like “a gem of beryl ina crystal casket.” The word Jones translates as “crystal casket” is sphat.ikasamudga,which seems to refer more specifically to a crystal reliquary. Buddhist reliquaries areoften made of crystal, and Michael Willis points out that s. amuga, equivalent to San-skrit samudga, is one of a handful of words used to refer to reliquaries in inscriptionsfound on Indian Buddhist reliquaries themselves (17). Inscriptions on two of the reli-quaries Willis discusses refer to smaller crystal reliquaries found inside of them asphaligas. amuga, which is precisely equivalent to Sanskrit sphat.ikasamudga (Bühler1894, 326, 328; Sarma 1988, 41-42).8 The overall simile that the passage suggestsis that just as caityas contain reliquaries that contain the Buddha in the form of hisrelics, Maya contains her womb which contains the Buddha himself.

Along with comparing her to a caitya or stupa, the Mahavastu depicts the presenceof the future Buddha within Maya’s body as providing her with a number of salutary,protective, and other benefits.9 The text states:

Again, when the Bodhisattva has entered his mother’s womb, his mother iscomfortable whether she moves, stands, sits or lies down, because of the powerof the Bodhisattva. No weapon can pierce her body, nor can poison, fire orsword prevail against her, because of the power of the Bodhisattva. . . . Sheobtains celestial perfumes, garlands, cosmetics and incenses, because of thepower of the Bodhisattva. . . . Nothing, not even a bird, passes over her. Shebecomes sound and healthy. . . . She becomes rid of passion and lives an unim-paired, flawless, unspotted, untarnished and absolutely pure and chaste life. Inthe heart of this preeminent woman no passion arises for any man, not evenfor King Suddhodana. She lives in accordance with the five moral precepts,observing them to the full (Jones 1949-56, 2:13; cf. Senart 1882-97, 2:14-15).

While she is pregnant Maya enjoys freedom from all forms of desire, becomes aparagon of virtue, and enjoys optimal health and protection from all possible harm.Because the text explicitly states that these benefits result from the power (teja[s]) ofthe bodhisattva, the picture we get is of a sort of radiant energy that proceeds fromthe bodhisattva and pervades Maya’s body with a purifying, healthful, and protectivepotency.

The idea that beneficial energy proceeds from Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and relicsand provides protective and other benefits to things or places that in some sense con-tain them is common in Buddhist literature and thought. The Mahavastu itself, forexample, tells the story of the Buddha being invited to the city of Vaisalı to dis-pel a plague and states that the non-human beings (amanus. yakas) that were causingit fled the city as soon as the Buddha stepped over its boundary (sıma).10 When

8For additional discussion of the terminology associated with reliquaries see Willis (2000, 17-21) andSkilling (2005, 276). The word samudga is also used to refer to a reliquary in the Gilgit manuscriptof the Pañcavim. satisahasrika Prajñaparamita (Kimura 1986-92, 2-3:58; Schopen 1977, 146). Anotherreference to a crystal reliquary (sphat.ikamaya kumbha) can be found in the Sayanasanavastu of theMulasarvastivada-vinaya (Gnoli 1978, 32/Schopen 2000a, 131, 195n17).9On this topic, cf. Durt (2003).10For a discussion of the plague of Vaisalı in Pali sources, see Malalasekera (1937-38, s.v. “Vesali”).

Revisiting the cult of the book 109

asked how he performed this feat, the Buddha tells a series of jataka stories ofhow he rid other cities of plagues simply by entering them in previous lives (Senart1882-97, 1:253-71, 283-90/Jones 1949-56, 1:208-25, 235-42). The Son. adan. d. a Suttaof the Pali Dıgha Nikaya states that people in any town or village where the Buddhastays are not harmed by non-human beings (amanussa) (Rhys Davids and Carpenter1890-1911, 1:116/Walshe 1987, 127-28). Almost the entire “Purapravesa” chapterof the Samadhiraja is devoted to a description of wonders that occur in the city ofRajagr

�ha the moment that the Buddha crosses its threshold (indrakıla), among them

the dispelling of hunger and thirst and the curing of disease (Dutt 1941-54, 113-48).Similar stories are common.11 In his account of his travels in India, Hsüan-tsangcomments on a large number of stupas and other caityas and describes many of themas emitting such things as light, music, fire, smoke, and perfume and as healing sick-ness and causing miraculous events in their surrounding areas (Beal 1884, e.g., 1:60,66, 67, 94, 101, 103, 121, 138). The perception of stupas as vessels of radiant powerpersists in contemporary Buddhism as well. Describing how stupas are understoodby Thai Buddhists, for example, Denis Byrne writes:

The radiant power . . . flows out though space. . . . The power, which ultimately isthe fiery power of the Buddha, not only moves out from the relic (or the objectssymbolizing it) to the fabric of the containing stupa but flows on outward tothe temple complex which contains the stupa, and even into the town whichcontains the temple. . . .The radiant flow may be further reified in local practice. When the That Phanomshrine, a tower-like stupa located near the Mekong River in north-east Thailand,was restored in 1901, fragments of brick and plaster which had exfoliated fromits surface were taken and used in the construction of a small stupa nearby.Fragments were also taken by local people as objects of veneration, a customwidespread in the north-east (1995, 271).

The Mahavastu’s account of Maya’s pregnancy incorporates these ideas and yieldsan overall picture of Maya as not only being structurally like a stupa, and as receivingthe sort of veneration typically paid to stupas, but as being irradiated by the Buddha’s“fiery power” just like actual stupas and other containers of Buddhas and relics.12

The Nidanakatha’s account of Maya’s pregnancy is significantly shorter than theMahavastu’s but contains most of the same basic ideas. In N.A. Jayawickrama’stranslation it reads:

When the Bodhisatta had . . . taken conception, four deities with swords in handstood guard from the time of conception over the Bodhisatta and his mother toward off any danger. No lustful thoughts towards men arose in the Bodhisatta’s

11For a few additional examples, see Bhattacharya (1939, 106-7); Braarvig (1994, 141-42); Gnoli (1978,26)/Schopen (2000a, 125); Silk (1997, 200-201); and Dutt (1941-54, 498). On passages of this sort seealso Schopen (2000a, 185n10).12The idea that instantiations of the divine radiate power is by no means exclusive to Buddhism. GeorgeMichell argues, for example, that the design of Hindu temples reflects an understanding of a “radiation ofenergy outwards from the centre of the sanctuary in four directions” (1977, 66-67). The idea is perhaps acultural universal.

110 D. Drewes

mother; and she spent the time in great comfort and glory. She was happy andunderwent no physical hardship; and the Bodhisatta who lay in her womb wasclearly visible like a yellow thread passed through a clear crystal. Since thewomb in which a Bodhisatta has lain is like the relic chamber of a shrine [yasmaca bodhisattena vasitakucchi nama cetiyagabbhasadisa], and no other beingcan lie in it or occupy it, the mother of the Bodhisatta dies seven days after theBodhisatta’s birth and is reborn in the City of Tusita (Jayawickrama 1990, 69;Fausbøll 1877-96, 1:51-52).13

Like the Mahavastu, the Nidanakatha describes Maya’s womb as transparent. Ratherthan comparing it to a reliquary, however, it describes it as “cetiyagabbhasadisa.” Inthis compound the word cetiyagabbha is equivalent to Sanskrit caityagarbha (wombof a caitya, or caitya-chamber), and seems to refer, like the more common termdhatugabbha, to a chamber inside of a stupa in which reliquaries are placed. The word“sadisa” is equivalent to Sanskrit sadr

�sa and unambiguously means “like.” Maya is

thus again presented as being structurally similar to a caitya or stupa. Just as stupascontain cetiyagabbhas that contain relics, Maya contains her womb which containsthe future Buddha. Like the Mahavastu, the Nidanakatha also depicts Maya as be-ing safe, healthy, and mentally pure during her pregnancy. Though the text does notexplicitly say so, apart from the protection she receives from her guardians, thesebenefits seem to be understood as resulting from the bodhisattva’s power.

The Lalitavistara’s account of Maya’s pregnancy contains the same basic ideas asthe Nidanakatha and Mahavastu’s but presents them in a considerably more elaborateway (Lefmann 1902-8, 1:54-76). Like the other two texts it depicts Maya as enjoyingease and comfort during her pregnancy, and as being free from sexual desire, butadds that anyone with any sort of illness could be cured by the mere sight of herand states that the entire kingdom enjoyed prosperity and protection from strife. TheLalitavistara also agrees with both the Mahavastu and Nidanakatha in presentingMaya’s womb as transparent, but goes further to depict the bodhisattva as inhabitinga special dwelling in her womb, called a ratnavyuha, with three pavilions (kut.agara)nested inside one another and a couch in the innermost pavilion for the bodhisattvato sit on. After the bodhisattva’s birth, Brahma and his accompanying gods take thisratnavyuha to his heaven and he sets it up in, or as, an actual caitya (pratisthapayatisma caityartham) (Lefmann 1902-8, 1:73, 83).

A different sort of caitya simile occurs as part of the discussion of the prac-tice of buddhanussati (Skt. buddhanusmr

�ti), or mindfulness of the Buddha, in Bud-

dhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga. For Buddhaghosa this practice constitutes one of fortytypes of samatha meditation and involves a series of reflections on ten standardepithets of the Buddha (arahant, fully-enlightened, endowed with knowledge andconduct, etc.) (Warren and Kosambi 1950, 162-76/Ñan. amoli 1975, 191-209). Unlikeother varieties of samatha meditation, which can enable one to develop meditativeabsorption (appanasamadhi) and attain the four jhanas and even higher states, the

13Most of the details of this story, though not the caitya comparison, are taken directly from canonicalsuttas. See, e.g., the Mahapadana Sutta of the Dıgha Nikaya (Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890-1911,2:12-14/Walshe 1987, 203-4) and the Acchariyabbhutadhamma Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (Trencknerand Chalmers 1888-99, 3:120-21/Ñan. amoli and Bodhi 1995, 980-82).

Revisiting the cult of the book 111

highest state it leads to is access concentration (upacarasamadhi), a stage of samathaone level below the first jhana. According to Buddhaghosa, however, it brings a num-ber of other benefits. In Ñan. amoli’s translation:

When a bhikkhu is devoted to this recollection of the Buddha, he is respectfuland deferential towards the Master. He attains fullness of faith, mindfulness,understanding and merit. He has much happiness and gladness. He conquersfear and dread. He is able to endure pain. He comes to feel as if he were liv-ing in the Master’s presence. And his body, when the recollection of the Bud-dha’s special qualities dwells in it, becomes as worthy of veneration as a shrineroom [buddhagun. anussatiya ajjhavutthañ c’assa sarıram pi cetiyagharam ivapujaraham. hoti]. His mind tends toward the plane of the Buddhas. When heencounters an opportunity for transgression, he has awareness of conscienceand shame as vivid as though he were face to face with the Master. And if hepenetrates no higher, he is at least headed for a happy destiny (Ñan. amoli 1975,209; Warren and Kosambi 1950, 175).14

Appearing in the midst of this list of benefits is the claim that a practitioner ofbuddhanussati is like a cetiyaghara (Skt. caityagr

�ha). Although Ñan. amoli translates

this term loosely as “shrine room,” it literally means “caitya-house” and refers specif-ically to a building containing a stupa, most typically one with a barrel-vaulted naveterminating in an apse, a sort best known from the many examples which surviveamidst the rock-cut cave complexes of Western India.15 What Buddhaghosa has inmind by drawing a comparison between a practitioner of buddhanussati and such abuilding is made fairly clear by his statement that a person’s body (sarıra) is likea cetiyaghara specifically “when the recollection of the Buddha’s special qualitiesdwells in it.” Just as cetiyagharas contain stupas, and stupas contain relics, a personengaged in the practice of buddhanussati contains the mindfulness of the Buddha’sspecial qualities.

While this much is clear, what is less so is why Buddhaghosa presents being likea cetiyaghara as a personal benefit that practitioners of buddhanussati should wish toacquire. Why exactly should one want to become like a caitya? This question is es-pecially interesting because we have seen roughly the same idea already in two othertexts, the Samadhiraja, which presents becoming “a caitya for the whole world” as abenefit that can be gained from the practice of kayasam. vara, and the Drumakinnara,which presents being “like a caitya for the world with its gods, people, and asuras”as a positive quality possessed by Mahakasyapa. The passage’s assertion that one be-comes worthy of worship when one’s body becomes like a cetiyaghara suggests that

14This passage is also quoted by Paul Williams (1989, 218), Paul Harrison (1992a, 218), and ReginaldRay (1994, 346), though these scholars do not comment on its caitya comparison. A passage very similarto this one can be found in the very interesting, non-canonical, Pali Akaravattara Sutta. Here anyone whowrites or listens to the sutta is promised that he or she will become “cetiyam. viya pujaniya” (Jaini correctspujaniya to pujaniyo) (Jaini 1992, 207/218-19). As Harrison points out, the idea that buddhanussati canbe used to provide freedom from fear and danger is found already in the Dhajagga Sutta of the Sam. yuttaNikaya (Feer 1884-98, 1:218-20/Bodhi 2000, 319-21).15On caityagr

�has see, e.g., Sarkar (1966, 25-49) and D. Mitra (1971, 41-52). The term cetiyaghara and

close variants are found in several inscriptions associated with caityagr�

has. For references see Tsukamoto(1996-2003, 2:37).

112 D. Drewes

practitioners of buddhanussati might have been able to expect to be venerated. Giventhat Buddhaghosa presents buddhanussati as not enabling the attainment of any ofthe jhanas, much less any form of liberation, and that he states that its practitionersstill need to “penetrate higher,” it seems unlikely that this is the case. Another possi-bility is suggested by the passages that compare Maya to a caitya discussed above. Inthese passages the power of the future Buddha inside of Maya’s body is depicted asradiating outward, through her body (and, in the case of the Lalitavistara, through-out the entire kingdom), and as purifying her mind, providing her with a variety ofprotective and salutary benefits, and causing her to be venerated by gods. AlthoughMaya actually had a Buddha(-to-be) living inside of her body, whereas practitionersof buddhanussati have only mental images of the Buddha’s qualities, it is possiblethat Buddhaghosa imagines that such practitioners will receive similar benefits. Al-though Buddhaghosa does not specifically identify becoming like a caitya as theircause, this is suggested by the fact that the other secondary benefits he mentions—having much happiness and gladness, conquering fear and dread, being able to en-dure pain, avoiding improper behavior, etc.—are the same sort of benefits that Mayais said to receive. Though the Samadhiraja and Drumakinnara present their caityacomparisons with less context, their authors may also have understood becoming likea caitya to involve a similar sanctification or purification and perhaps as entailing theacquisition of protective and salutary benefits as well.

We are now able to turn to Schopen’s caityabhuta passages. The first, from theVajracchedika, occurs as part of a relatively lengthy passage in which the Buddhadescribes tremendous benefits that can be gained from memorizing even a singleverse of the text. Immediately before the portion of the passage that Schopen quoteswe find the following exchange, in Conze’s translation:

The Lord: What do you think, Subhuti, if there were as many Ganges rivers asthere are grains of sand in the large river Ganges, would the grains of sand inthem be many?Subhuti: Those Ganges rivers would indeed be many, much more so the grainsof sand in them.The Lord: This is what I announce to you, Subhuti, this is what I make known toyou,—if some woman or man had filled with the seven treasures as many worldsystems as there would be grains of sand in those Ganges rivers, and wouldgive them as a gift to the Tathagathas, Arhats, Fully Enlightened Ones,—whatdo you think, Subhuti, would that woman or man on the strength of that begeta great heap of merit?Subhuti: Great, O Lord . . . would be the heap of merit . . . .The Lord: . . . if, Subhuti . . . a son or daughter of good family had taken up [i.e.,memorized, udgr

�hya] from this discourse on dharma but one stanza of four

lines, and were to demonstrate and illuminate it for others, then the latter indeedwould on the strength of that beget a greater heap of merit, immeasurable andincalculable.

The portion of the passage quoted by Schopen (1975a, 148-49) then immediatelyfollows:

Then again, Subhuti, that spot of earth where one has taken [i.e., memorized,udgr

�hya] from this discourse on dharma but one stanza of four lines, taught it

Revisiting the cult of the book 113

or illuminated it, that spot of earth would be like a shrine [sa pr�

thivıpradesascaityabhuto bhavet] for the whole world with its Gods, men and Asuras. Whatthen should we say [kah. punar vadah. ] of those who will bear in mind [i.e., re-tain in memory, dharayis. yanti] this discourse on dharma in its entirety, who willrecite, study, and illuminate it in full detail for others? Most wonderfully blest,Subhuti, will they be [paramen. a te . . . ascaryen. a samanvagata bhavis. yanti, lit.“they will be endowed with the highest miracle”]. And on that spot of earth,Subhuti, either the Teacher dwells, or a sage representing him [tasmim. s casubhute pr

�thivıpradese sasta viharaty anyataranyataro va vijñagurusthanıyah. ]

(Conze 1957, 73-74/36-37).16

Schopen sees in this passage a reference to the semi-permanent public caityas of his“oral tradition period” that were made sacred by the recitation of sutras (1975a, 170,155-56, 158-59, 179-80). He argues that the formula “sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto

bhavet” was inserted into texts like the Vajracchedika, and that once this was done“the recitation, etc., of that text at a particular spot . . . would have, in effect, the effectof authoritatively legitimating that spot as a cultic center” (1975a, 179).

Although the passage is terse and not entirely clear, this interpretation is problem-atic. The portion of the passage that Schopen quotes continues in the same vein as thematerial that precedes it and promises two different personal benefits to people whodo two different things with the sutra. A person who memorizes or teaches a singlegatha will receive the benefit of having the place where he or she does so becomecaityabhuta. A person who memorizes and teaches the whole sutra will be “endowedwith the highest miracle” and will become like the Buddha him or herself. An impor-tant key to understanding the passage is the rhetorical question “What then should wesay [kah. punar vadah. ] of those who will [retain in memory] this discourse on dharmain its entirety . . . and illuminate it in full detail for others?” In Mahayana sutra litera-ture, rhetorical questions of this sort introduced by the phrase “kah. punar vadah. ” (lit.what talk is there?) are found commonly in what we might call “benefit passages”like this one that encourage particular practices, usually ones involving sutras, bypromising fantastic benefits to those who perform them. Benefit passages incorporat-ing such questions typically begin by promising lavish benefits to those who performa very minor sutra-oriented activity (such as merely listening to a sutra, not reject-ing it, or memorizing a single one of its verses) and then ask “what then should wesay?” about someone who performs one or more of the main sutra-oriented activitiesthat the text is trying to encourage: memorization of the complete text, preaching itto others, etc. The implication of the rhetorical question is invariably that the bene-fits to be gained by the latter person would be dramatically greater. Sometimes suchpassages end with the rhetorical question; sometimes they go on to state the actual

16The meanings of the verbs ud√

grah and the causative of√

dhr�

are commonly misunderstood (e.g.,Lalou 1956; Schopen 1977). For a discussion of these words and the closely related verb pari ava

√

ap, seeDrewes 2003. Though the way he translates the term does not make it clear, Conze himself understood atleast ud

√

grah to refer to the act of memorization (1957, 101). For manuscript variants for this passage andthe second passage Schopen quotes from the Vajracchedika discussed below, see Schopen (1975a, 148n2,149n4) and the updated lists in the reprinted version of the article (2005a, 53n2, 54n4). It is not clear ifSchopen regards any of these variants as relevant to his interpretation.

114 D. Drewes

benefits that such a person will receive. Another passage from the Vajracchedika thatwe will look at below, for instance, states that a person who merely does not reject(prati

√

ks. ip) the sutra will produce more merit than one who would renounce all thathe or she has for millions of kalpas and then asks “what then should we say?” (kah.punar vadah. ) about someone who would write, memorize, and recite it, the implica-tion being that the benefits he or she would receive would be unimaginably vast.17

The idea in the passage under discussion, then, is that even a person who performsthe relatively insignificant action of memorizing or teaching a single stanza of thetext will receive the benefit of making the place where he or she does so caityabhuta,whereas someone who memorizes, etc., the entire text, which is what the passage isprimarily trying to encourage, will receive “the highest miracle” and become a proxyfor the Buddha.

What we have here, then, is a passage that looks very similar to the passages fromthe Samadhiraja, Drumakinnara, and Visuddhimagga discussed above. All four textspresent being or becoming like a caitya/caityabhuta either as a benefit that a personcan receive from performing a particular activity or as a positive quality that a personcan possess. The only significant difference in this case is that rather than stating thatsomeone is or will become like a caitya him or herself, the Vajracchedika passagepromises that this will happen to the place where someone memorizes or teaches averse of the text. Much like the other passages, it does not make it clear how it wouldbe in someone’s interest to have the place where he or she is become caityabhuta. Ina recent publication, Paul Harrison suggests that the Vajracchedika’s claim may be“of the same order as English expressions like ‘He worships the ground on which shewalks’ ” (2006, 148n57).18 In any case, Schopen’s idea that this passage makes ref-erence to actual shrines, and his idea that the phrase “sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto

bhavet” was inserted into the text in order to make it possible to use the text to estab-lish such shrines, seem doubtful. If the text’s authors intended this passage to be usedfor the creation of new shrines, it is difficult to understand why they would presenta place’s being made caityabhuta as a specifically personal benefit, and even moredifficult to understand why they would promise this benefit as the reward for memo-rizing or teaching a single verse of the sutra, in deliberate contrast to a greater rewardthat would result from memorizing and teaching the entire text.

The second caityabhuta passage that Schopen discusses is also from the Va-jracchedika and is quite similar to the first. Before the portion of the passage quotedby Schopen, the text reads:

Furthermore, Subhuti, those sons and daughters of good family, who will takeup [i.e., memorize, udgrahıs. yanti] this discourse on dharma, will bear it in

17I have not made an attempt to collect examples from other sutras, but the As. t.a contains several similarkah. punar vadah. passages. See, e.g., Wogihara (1932-35, 244, 251, 459, 468-70, 804-5, 858, 890). Seealso Edgerton (1953, vol. 2, s.v. “Vada”). The phrase “prag eva” is used in a similar manner.18Harrison continues to suggest that this passage thus provides “about as much evidence for the cult ofthe book as a physical object, or of the particular places in which it is kept, recited, and so on, as theaforementioned English locution furnishes proof of ground-worship” (2006, 148n57). Though the passagemay have a sense that is slightly different from what he suggests, as far as I am aware Harrison is the onlyother scholar who has yet argued that this passage does not refer to shrines.

Revisiting the cult of the book 115

mind, will recite it, study it, and illuminate it in full detail for others, theyhave been known . . . by the Tathagata with his Buddha-cognition . . . . All thesebeings, Subhuti, will beget . . . an immeasurable . . . heap of merit.And if again, Subhuti, a woman or man should renounce in the morning allthey have and all they are as many times as there are grains of sand in the riverGanges, and if at noon they should [do so again], and if in the evening [theyshould do so again], and if in this way they should renounce all that they haveand all that they are for many hundreds of thousands of millions of milliards ofaeons—and if someone else, on hearing this discourse on dharma, would notreject it,—then the latter would on the strength of that beget a greater heap ofmerit, immeasurable and incalculable. What then should we say of him who,after writing it, would learn it, bear it in mind, recite it, study it, and illuminateit in full detail for others? . . . Those who will take up this discourse on dharma,bear it in mind, recite it, study it, and illuminate it in full detail for others, theyhave been known, Subhuti, by the Tathagata with his Buddha-cognition . . . . Allthese beings, Subhuti, will be blest with an immeasurable heap of merit . . . . Allthese beings, Subhuti, will carry along an equal share of enlightenment. Andwhy? Because it is not possible, Subhuti, that this discourse on dharma couldbe heard by beings of inferior resolve, nor by such as have a self in view, abeing, a soul, or a person. Nor can beings who have not taken the pledge of aBodhi-being either hear this discourse on dharma or take it up, bear it in mind,recite or study it. That cannot be.

The portion of the passage quoted by Schopen (1975a, 149) then immediately fol-lows:

And again, Subhuti, the spot of earth where this Sutra will be revealed[prakasayis. yate], that spot of earth will be worthy of worship by the wholeworld with its Gods, men and Asuras, that spot of earth will be worthy of beingsaluted respectfully, worthy of being honoured by circumambulation,—like ashrine will be that spot of earth [caityabhutah. sa pr

�thivıpradeso bhavisyati].

After this the passage continues:

And yet, Subhuti, those sons and daughters of good family, who will take upthese very Sutras, who will bear them in mind, recite them, study them, andwisely attend to them, and who will illuminate them in full detail for others,they will be humbled, and they will be well humbled. And why? The impuredeeds which these beings have done in their former lives . . . in this very life theywill, by means of that humiliation, annul those impure deeds (Conze 1957, 79-80/42-45).

Much like the first passage, this passage states that a place where the sutra will berevealed will be caityabhuta. Like the first passage, it also presents having a placebecome caityabhuta specifically as a personal benefit, which is made clear by thefact that it occurs in the midst of a longer passage that promises other personal ben-efits. This passage thus presents the same problem as the first: if it is about actualshrines why does it present a place’s being made caityabhuta specifically as a per-sonal benefit?

116 D. Drewes

One thing different in this passage is the assertion that a place where the sutrais revealed “will be worthy of worship by the whole world with its Gods, men andAsuras . . . worthy of being saluted respectfully, worthy of being honoured by circum-ambulation,” which might appear to constitute a description of actual practice of asort that might take place at a cult site. While this may seem significant, it is im-portant to note that similar ideas or assertions are associated with all of the caityacomparisons we have looked at. The Milindapañha refers to Nagasena as being “likea caitya that is to be worshipped”; the Samadhiraja states that one who practiceskayasam. vara will become “a caitya for the whole world”; the Drumakinnara saysthat Mahakasyapa is “caityabhuta for the world with its gods, people, and asuras”;and the Visuddhimagga states that one who practices buddhanussati “becomes likea cetiyaghara [that is] worthy of worship.” Since it seems fairly clear that none ofthese other passages are referring to actual shrines, there is no clear reason to takethe passage currently under discussion as doing so. The idea that caityas are to beworshipped, or that they are “for” certain beings, seems simply to be a stock elementof passages of this sort.19 Apart from this, the passage does not seem to contain anyother clues that might enable us to make sense of it. The next caityabhuta passagethat Schopen cites is significantly more helpful.

The third and main caityabhuta passage that Schopen discusses is found in thethird chapter of the As. t.asahasrika Prajñaparamita (As. t.a), which deals primarily withprotective benefits that the Prajñaparamita can provide. After some brief introduc-tory material, the chapter presents a series of benefit passages which describe mun-dane benefits that can be gained from various Prajñaparamita-oriented activities.After an intermediary section of peripherally related material, the chapter closes withanother series of benefit passages of the same type. All of the benefit passages takea standard general format. In each, the Buddha presents a particular activity or groupof activities involving the Prajñaparamita (e.g., memorization, recitation, preaching,keeping a written copy of the text) and correlates this activity or these activities witha particular benefit or benefits. In most cases the Buddha also gives an explanationof what causes the promised benefits to come about. Except for two passages in thechapter’s introductory and concluding sections, and a few passages in its interme-diary section, the Buddha concludes each benefit passage by stating that the personwho performs the prescribed actions “will get this immediate benefit [dr

�s. t.adharmika

gun. a] as well.” Altogether, the chapter contains about twenty individual benefit pas-sages, thirteen of which end with the statement that one who performs the practice

19Phrasing of this sort is found in other caitya comparisons as well. In the As. t.a, for instance, the Buddha’sbody is said to be “caityabhuta, to be paid homage to, revered, attended to, honored, worshipped, adored,and venerated” (Wogihara 1932-35, 211). In the Aks. ayamatinirdesa Sutra the Buddha gives his robe tothe bodhisattva Aks.ayamati and Aks.ayamati responds by calling it “a caitya for the world with its gods,people, and asuras” (Braarvig 1993, 1:154, my trans.; cf. 2:578-79). In the Ugraparipr

�ccha Sutra, the

Buddha lists ten benefits of monks’ robes, one of which is that they are said to be “a caitya for the worldwith its gods, humans, and asuras” (Nattier 2003, 285-86). The Ratnarasi Sutra states that anything givento a stupa is a “caitya for the world with its gods” (Silk 1994, 447/332). The Gan. d. avyuha Sutra saysthat bodhicitta is like a “caitya for the world with its gods, people, and asuras” (Suzuki and Idzumi1934-36, 494-96). Passages in the Samadhiraja refer to Buddhas or bodhisattvas as caityas “for the world”or “for the whole world” (Dutt 1941-54, 414, 447, 463, 464). A number of passages in the Mahavastuand Lalitavistara refer to the Buddha as a caitya “for the whole world,” “for the world,” or “for people”(Schopen 1975a, 176).

Revisiting the cult of the book 117

or practices the passage recommends will get a certain “immediate benefit.” A goodexample is the following:

Wherever, Kausika, a son or daughter of good family, having copied thisPrajñaparamita, having made it into a book, will set up the prerequisites ofworship and worship it, there Kausika . . . . as many gods as there are in thespheres of desire and subtle matter in the billion-fold world system who haveset out for unsurpassed, complete enlightenment will decide to come there.Having arrived there, they will see this Prajñaparamita in book form, payhomage to it, venerate it, memorize it, retain it in memory, recite it, learnit, set it forth, preach it, explain it, expound it, and repeat it. Having seen it,paid homage to it, venerated it, memorized it, retained it in memory, recited it,learned it, set it forth, preached it, explained it, expounded it, and repeated it,they will decide to set out again. Moreover, Kausika, the house, monastic cell,or palace [gr

�ham. va layanam. va prasado va] of that son or daughter of good

family will be well protected and there will be no one to harm him or her, withthe exception of the ripening of previous karma. That son or daughter of goodfamily, Kausika, will get this immediate benefit [dr

�s. t.adharmika gun. a] as well

(Wogihara 1932-35, 254-58, my trans.; cf. Conze 1973, 113).20

Here the Buddha explains how the As. t.a can be used to protect one’s “house, monasticcell, or palace.” He explains exactly what one needs to do and exactly how doing thiswill provide the desired protection: One must copy the As. t.a, make it into a book, andset it up for worship in one’s home. When one does this, a vast number of gods willcome to venerate the text, memorize it, etc., and while they are there they will protectthe area from beings that might harm the owner of the text. At the end of the passage,the Buddha concludes by saying “That son or daughter of good family, Kausika, willget this immediate benefit as well.” Other benefit passages from the same chapterspecifically enjoin activities associated with the memorization of the text. One pas-sage, for example, states that anyone who memorizes, recites, and teaches the As. t.acan never be hurt by anyone, even in the midst of a battle, essentially because mem-orizing the text will have such a positive effect on that person’s character that no onewill want to harm him or her (Wogihara 1932-35, 201-4/Conze 1973, 104).

20In Sanskrit this passage begins: “yatra khalu punah. kausika kulaputro va kuladuhita va imam.prajñaparamitam. likhitva pustakagatam. kr

�tva pujapurvangamam. sthapayis. yati pujayis. yati tatra

kausika . . . .” The phrase “pujapurvangamam. sthapayis. yati” has caused some confusion. Conze simplyomits the word “pujapurvangama” from his translation and reads the object of sthapayis. yati as the book.He translates this opening portion of the passage “Moreover, Kausika . . . the place where someone has putup a copy of the perfection of wisdom, and worships it . . . ” (1973, 113). Schopen, discussing the phrase“pujapurvangamam. sthapayitva,” which occurs in a similar passage earlier in the chapter, argues that itmeans “apart from previous worship” (see the following note). This also seems incorrect. In the passagecurrently under discussion (and in a similar passage on Wogihara 1932-35, 263) establishing (or settingaside) pujapurvangama occurs after making the Prajñaparamita into a book and before worship (

√

puj) ina list of actions that one is to perform. If pujapurvangama means “previous worship” then these passageswould be advising us nonsensically to make the Prajñaparamita into a book, establish (or set aside) previ-ous worship of it, and then worship it. Since establishing pujapurvanagama is clearly something that is tobe done prior to worshipping the text, it must mean something closer to “what comes before worship,” oras I translate it, “prerequisites of worship.” Establishing pujapurvangama may refer to setting up the textfor veneration, perhaps together with certain ritual implements.

118 D. Drewes

Although the caityabhuta passage Schopen quotes (1975a, 154-55) from the As. t.ais long, I give it here in its entirety. I follow Schopen in quoting Conze’s abridgedtranslation:

[The Buddha:] Further, where this perfection of wisdom has been written downin a book, and has been put up and worshipped, where it has been taken up, etc.,there men and ghosts can do no harm, except as a punishment for past deeds.This is another advantage even here and now [dr

�s. t.adharmika gun. a].

Just, Kausika, as those men and ghosts who have gone to the terrace of en-lightenment, or to its circumference, or its interior, or to the foot of the tree ofenlightenment, cannot be hurt by men or ghosts, or be injured by them, or takenpossession of, even with the help of evil animal beings, except as a punishmentfor former deeds. Because in it the past, future and present Tathagatas win theirenlightenment, they who promote in all beings and who reveal to them fear-lessness, lack of hostility, lack of fright. Just so, Kausika, the place in whichone takes up, etc., this perfection of wisdom, in it beings cannot be hurt by menor ghosts. Because this perfection of wisdom makes the spot of earth where itis into a true shrine for beings [pr

�thivıpradesah. sattvanam. caityabhutah. kr

�tah.

. . . bhavis. yati],—worthy of being worshipped and adored,—into a shelter forbeings who come to it, a refuge, a place of rest and final relief. This is anotheradvantage even here and now [dr

�s. t.adharmika gun. a].

Sakra: Suppose that there are two persons. One of the two, a son or daughter ofgood family, has written down this perfection of wisdom, made a copy of it; hewould then put it up, and would honour, revere, worship, and adore it with heav-enly flowers, incense, perfumes, wreaths, unguents, aromatic powders, stripsof cloth, parasols, banners, bells, flags, with rows of lamps all round, and withmanifold kinds of worship. The other would deposit in Stupas the relics of theTathagata who has gone to Parinirvana; he would take hold of them and pre-serve them; he would honour, worship and adore them with heavenly flowers,incense, etc., as before. Which one of the two, O Lord, would beget the greatermerit?The Lord: I will question you on this point, and you my answer to the best ofyour abilities. The Tathagata, when he had acquired and known full enlight-enment or all-knowledge, in which practices did he train the all-knowledge-personality which he had brought forth?Sakra: By the Lord training himself just in this perfection of wisdom has theTathagata acquired and known full enlightenment or all-knowledge.The Lord: Therefore the Tathagata does not derive his name from the fact thathe has acquired this physical personality, but from the fact that he has acquiredall-knowledge. And this all-knowledge of the Tathagata has come forth fromthe perfection of wisdom. The physical personality of the Tathagata, on theother hand, is the result of the skill in means of the perfection of wisdom.And that becomes a sure foundation for the (acquisition of the) cognition of theall-knowing (by others). Supported by this foundation the revelation of the cog-nition of the all-knowing takes place, the revelation of the Buddha-body, of theDharma-body, of the Samgha-body. The acquisition of the physical personalityis thus the cause of the cognition of the all-knowing. As the sure foundation

Revisiting the cult of the book 119

of that cognition it has, for all beings, become a true shrine, worthy of be-ing saluted respectfully, of being honoured, revered and adored. After I havegone to Parinirvana, my relics also will be worshipped. It is for this reasonthat the person who would copy and worship the perfection of wisdom wouldbeget the greater merit. For, in doing so, he would worship the cognition of theall-knowing (Conze 1958, 24-25; Wogihara 1932-35, 205-11; cf. Conze 1973,104-6).

On Schopen’s reading, this passage, like the two passages from the Vajracchedika,serves as evidence that shrines dedicated to particular sutras served as earlyMahayana cult centers. The main difference between this and the other two pas-sages, for Schopen, is that the references to written copies of the Prajñaparamitain this passage indicate that the cult of the book has moved into its second, writtenphase (1975a, 155-56, 168, 179-80).

The first thing to be noticed here is that the passage’s first two paragraphs eachconstitutes a complete, distinct benefit passage. This can be seen clearly from the factthat each paragraph ends with the Buddha asserting that its benefit is another “ad-vantage even here and now” (dr

�s. t.adharmika gun. a), the same assertion that is used to

punctuate benefit passages throughout the chapter. The benefit passage that comprisesthe first paragraph is the shortest one in the chapter and makes a claim that is essen-tially the same as that of the home protection passage quoted above, namely, that anyplace where one keeps the Prajñaparamita in written form will be safe from humansand non-humans.21 The benefit passage in the second paragraph—which contains theassertion that the Prajñaparamita makes the place where it is caityabhuta—containsa list of activities of its own. In Conze’s translation this list is abridged to “takes up,etc.,” but in the actual text the activities listed are memorizing (ud

√

grah), retaining inmemory (causative of

√

dhr�

), reciting (causative of√

vac), learning (pari ava√

ap),setting forth (pra

√

vr�

t), preaching (causative of√

dis), explaining (upa√

dis), ex-pounding (ud

√

dis), and repeating (svadhyayati). Interestingly, writing and writtencopies of the sutra are not mentioned in this passage, just as they are not in the pas-sages from the Vajracchedika. Because of this, even if it were possible to interpretthis passage as a reference to an institutional sutra cult, it should not be taken asbelonging to a new, written phase of this cult.22

21In Sanskrit, this first benefit passage reads: “punar aparam. kausika yatra iyam. prajñaparamita an-taso likhitva pustakagatam. kr

�tva pujapurvangamam. sthapayitva na satkaris. yate na udgrahıs. yate na

dharayis. yate na vacayis. yate . . . .” Schopen rightly criticizes Conze’s translation for ignoring “the antasasand the string of negatives,” but suggests that the passage should be translated “Again, Kausika, wherethis Prajñaparamita is, [one] so much as having only written it down, having made it into a book [and],apart from previous worship, one will not honor it, will not take it up, will not bear it in mind, will not re-cite it . . . ” (1975a, 155, Schopen’s brackets). In accordance with the comments made in the previous note,however, a better translation would be “Again, Kausika, where, having merely copied this Prajñaparamita,made it into a book, and set up the prerequisites of worship, one will not honor it, not memorize it, notretain it in memory, not recite it . . . .” The idea is that all that is necessary to obtain the promised benefitsis to have a physical copy of the text, presumably in one’s home. One does not need to actually worshipthe sutra or do anything else with it.22Of course writing is mentioned frequently in the As. t.a, but it is also mentioned in close proximity totheir caityabhuta passages in the Vajracchedika and Kasyapaparivarta, the two texts Schopen presents asrepresentative of an oral phase of the cult.

120 D. Drewes

The second thing that must be noticed is that because the second paragraph of thispassage ends with the assertion that the benefits it describes are an immediate benefitthat users of the Prajñaparamita can receive, and thus constitutes a complete benefitpassage of its own, its contents are also separate from the subsequent material in thepassage. The benefit passage contained in the second paragraph is in fact the last ofthe chapter’s first series of benefit passages, and the four paragraphs that follow be-gin the lengthy intermediary section of assorted, peripherally related material that isinterposed between the chapter’s first and second series of benefit passages. Becauseof this, we cannot automatically presuppose that the material contained in the lastfour paragraphs of Schopen’s quotation concerns the same topic as the material in thesecond.

Having separated the core of Schopen’s quotation from the material that surroundsit, we can now try to make sense of it. A more precise translation than Conze’s willmake the passage clearer:

punar aparam. kausika tadyatha ’pi nama ye bodhiman. d. agata va bodhiman. d. a-parisamantagata va . . . manus. ya va amanus. ya va tiryagyonigatan apy upadayayavan na te sakya manus. yair va amanus. yair va vihet.hayitum. va vyapadayitum.va avesayitum. va sthapayitva purvakarmavipakam. || tat kasya hetoh. | tatra hyatıtanagatapratyutpannas tathagata . . . abhisam. bhotsyante abhisam. budhyanteca ye sarvasattvanam abhayam avairam anuttrasam. prabhavayanti prakasa-yanti | evam eva kausika yatra kulaputro va kuladuhita va imam. prajñaparami-tam udgrahıs. yati dharayis. yati vacayis. yati paryavapsyati pravartayis. yati desa-yis. yaty upadeks. yaty uddeks. yati svadhyasyati tatra hi kausika sattva na sakyamanus. yair va amanus. yair va vihet.hayitum. va vyapadayitum. va avesayitum.va sthapayitva purvakarmavipakam. || tat kasya hetoh. | anaya eva hi kausikaprajñaparamitaya pr

�thivıpradesah. sattvanam. caityabhutah. kr

�to vandanıyo

mananıyah. pujanıyo ’rcanıyo ’pacayanıyah. . . . bhavis. yati . . . | imam api sakausika kulaputro va kuladuhita va dr

�s. t.adharmikam. gun. am. parigr

�hn. ati ||

Moreover, Kausika, it is just like those humans and non-humans, even includinganimals, who, at the bodhiman. d. a or in the area of the bodhiman. d. a . . . cannotbe hurt, injured, or possessed by humans or non-humans, with the exception ofthe ripening of previous karma. Why? Because it is there that past, present, andfuture Tathagatas . . . who increase and reveal safety, lack of hostility, and free-dom from fear for all beings, become enlightened and will become enlightened.In just this way, Kausika, where a son or daughter of good family will mem-orize this Prajñaparamita, retain it in memory, recite it, learn it, set it forth,preach it, explain it, expound it, and repeat it, there, Kausika, beings cannot behurt, injured, or possessed by humans or non-humans, with the exception ofthe ripening of previous karma. Why? Because by this very Prajñaparamita,Kausika, a place will be made caityabhuta for beings, to be paid homage to,honored, worshipped, adored, venerated, [etc.]. That son or daughter of goodfamily, Kausika, gets this immediate benefit as well (Wogihara 1932-35, 205-7,my trans.).

Like most of the other benefit passages in the As. t.a’s third chapter, such as the homeprotection passage discussed above, this passage does two main things: it associates

Revisiting the cult of the book 121

a specific benefit with specific, Prajñaparamita-oriented activities and explains howthis benefit comes about. The specific benefit is protection from being harmed orpossessed by humans and non-humans. The activities, as we have seen, are all mne-mic/oral in nature: memorization, mnemic retention, recitation, preaching, etc. Keyfor our purposes is that, rather than being the point of the passage, the assertionthat the Prajñaparamita will make the place where one performs these activitiescaityabhuta figures only as the explanation of how the As. t.a can provide this bene-fit. Wherever one memorizes, recites, and/or teaches the Prajñaparamita will be safefrom harm because the Prajñaparamita will make that place caityabhuta. If we wereto take the word caityabhuta here as a reference to actual shrines the passage wouldmake little sense. It would say, in essence, that one can make a place safe by mem-orizing or reciting the Prajñaparamita there because doing so will make that placeinto a public shrine. If someone wished to establish a Mahayana shrine in a partic-ular place it is difficult to imagine that his or her motivation for doing so would beto make that place safe from danger. If we presume that the passage is describing away to use the text for personal or home protection, which seems more likely giventhat all of the other benefit passages in the As. t.a’s third chapter deal with personal orhome protection, it is hard to imagine anyone being so concerned to protect the placewhere he or she is as to want to turn it into a public cult site. What seems more likelyto be going on in this passage is a sophisticated deployment of almost the entire rangeof ideas we saw associated with the caitya comparisons discussed above. First, theplace where one memorizes or recites the Prajñaparamita is like a caitya because itcontains, or is pervaded by, the Prajñaparamita, which is repeatedly likened to a Bud-dha in Prajñaparamita literature, just as a caitya contains relics, Nagasena containspañña, Mahamaya contains the bodhisattva, a practitioner of buddhanussati containsbuddhanussati, etc.23 That this sort of container logic is at work here is strongly sug-gested by the fact that almost immediately after this passage, in the only other passagein the text that uses the word caityabhuta, the Buddha’s body is said to be caityabhutaon the grounds that it is a basis or container (asraya) of omniscient cognition (sarva-jñajñana) (Wogihara 1932-35, 211).24 Second, being like a caitya protects the place

23On the equation of the Prajñaparamita and the Buddha, see Schopen (1975a, 175) and Boucher (1991,2, 17n9).24This assertion occurs within Schopen’s long quotation from the As. t.a quoted above. It is interestingto note that in every case that has come to light in which the word caityabhuta is used outside of the“sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto bhavet” formula and its variants it is used as a simile or metaphor. This

includes the As. t.a’s passage on the Buddha’s body being caityabhuta mentioned here, variants of this pas-sage in longer versions of the Prajñaparamita (e.g., Kimura 1986-92, 2-3:57), the passage from the Dru-makinnara discussed above, the passage from the Gan. d. avyuha cited in note 19, and a passage from theRatnakaran. d. a Sutra recently cited by Schopen in which the place where Mañjusrı stands is called mchodrten du gyur (2005a, 61n54). On the Gan. d. avyuha passage, cf. Schopen (1975a, 175-76n54). Another pas-sage, which Schopen quotes from the Lalitavistara, refers to the Buddha as “cetibhu,” which, as Schopensuggests, seems to have a “direct relationship” to the compound caityabhuta (Lefmann 1902-8, 1:368;Schopen 1975a, 175-76). There is also a very interesting passage from the Ajatasatrukaukr

�tyavinodana

Sutra that uses the word caityabhuta, apparently twice, although the Sanskrit is only extant for one ofits occurrences, within variants of the “sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto bhavet” phrase (Harrison and Hart-

mann 2000, 214-16). Though I will not discuss this passage here, in neither case does the word caityabhutarefer to an actual shrine.

122 D. Drewes

where the Prajñaparamita is memorized or recited because the Prajñaparamita, be-ing equivalent to a Buddha, makes things which contain it safe, just as the Buddhamakes cities safe when he enters them, buddhanussati makes those who practice itsafe when it “dwells in” their bodies, the bodhisattva makes Maya safe while he isin her womb, and so forth.25 What this passage thus seems to be saying is that onecan protect one’s home, or any place one happens to be, by having someone reciteor preach the Prajñaparamita there, or by memorizing or reciting it there oneself,because the Prajñaparamita makes any place where it is like a caitya, and things thatare like caityas are safe.26

25On the basis of the fact that this passage compares places where people do things with thePrajñaparamita to the bodhiman. d. a, Schopen suggests that the people who established the cult of thebook, having rejected the stupa cult, tried to give their new cult legitimacy by linking it to the cult ofthe bodhiman. d. a (1975a, 172-74, 179; 2000b, 23-24n49). It should be noted, however, that stupas werebuilt around the bodhiman. d. a and several reliefs associated with the great stupas of Sañcı, Bharhut, andAmaravatı depict the veneration of the bodhiman. d. a. Since the two cults seem clearly to have been practicedby the same groups, it seems unlikely that the As. t.a’s authors would reject the one and embrace the other.What seems more likely is that places where one memorizes, recites, and teaches the Prajñaparamita arecompared to the bodhiman. d. a because in traditional Buddhist lore the bodhiman. d. a is held to be the moststeadfast and safe place in the universe, immune to earthquakes, the attacks of Mara, etc. (on this see,e.g., De Silva 1991, 146-47 and Lamotte 1976, 94-96n105). This interpretation is supported by the factthat the point of the passage as a whole is that one can make a place safe by reciting the Prajñaparamitathere and the fact that the only similarity that the passage claims to exist between the bodhiman. d. a and aplace where the Prajñaparamita is recited is that both places are safe from danger. Schopen also attachessignificance to the fact that the Mahavastu and the Sanskrit version of the Mahaparinirvan. a Sutra refer tothe bodhiman. d. a as a pr

�thivıpradesa, the same term that Mahayana sutras use to refer to places they call

caityabhuta (1975a, 173-74, 179). It should be noted, though, that “pr�

thivıpradesa” is a common generalword in Buddhist Sanskrit for any particular place. In the As. t.a, for example, reference is made to a gemthat makes any pr

�thivıpradesa where it is placed cool when it is hot and warm when it is cold (Wogihara

1932-35, 274), and in the Saddharmapun. d. arıka we are told that there is not a single pr�

thivıpradesa assmall as a mustard seed in the entire universe where Sakyamuni did not sacrifice his body for the benefit ofbeings in former lives (Wogihara and Tsuchida 1935, 226). For a few more similar examples, see Wogihara(1932-35, 435, 676) and Wogihara and Tsuchida (1935, 97, 99, 202, 207, 241).26The version of this passage contained in Lokaks.ema’s second century translation of the As. t.a providesadditional support for this reading. Although it is focused on a written rather than a mnemic/oral version ofthe text and does not make a caitya comparison, it says roughly the same thing as I argue that the Sanskritversion does: “Furthermore, Kausika, even though one cannot study or recite it, if one just maintains/holdsthe scriptural roll of the prajñaparamita then one will not be harmed either by people or by ghosts. [How-ever] one cannot expect to overcome [retribution] for one’s sins. As if one has entered the place where[Sakyamuni] first became a Buddha, one will not be harmed by ghosts or beasts. Ghosts and beasts willbe unable to accomplish any wish they might have to weaken or harm [such a person]. Why? Becausethe place where the Buddha attained the Way is protected by the Buddha’s spiritual power. The Buddhasof the past, present and future all seek to become Buddhas so that others will search for and attain theBuddha-Way. As a person who enters that place will have no fear, fright or dread, so it is [for those whohold] the prajñaparamita. This prajñaparamita is a spiritual refuge because all the gods, humans, asuras,ghosts and nagas shall worship, venerate and protect the place where the prajñaparamita is established”(Fronsdal 1998, 186, Fronsdal’s brackets; Fronsdal cites T 224, 431c22-432a5). The fact that the Chineseversion of the passage links protection to the worship of gods suggests the possibility that a place’s beingmade “caityabhuta for beings, to be paid homage to, honored, worshipped, adored, [and] venerated” “bythis very Prajñaparamita” is to be understood as providing protection partly via the action of gods. Thisis also suggested by the version of this passage contained in the Pañcavim. satisahasrika Prajñaparamita,which states that humans and non-humans will not be able to cause harm in the place where the sutra iscopied, memorized, etc., because gods will come there to copy the text, etc., and provide protection to

Revisiting the cult of the book 123

In addition to the passages from the Vajracchedika and As. t.a, Schopen quotescaityabhuta passages from two other sutras as evidence for his theory of institutionalsutra shrines; along with one passage from another sutra not preserved in Sanskritthat uses the word mchod rten du ’gyur, which probably renders caityabhuta; andfive additional passages, four of which are found in the Saddharmapun. d. arıka Sutra,that do not use the word caityabhuta, but which seem to be patterned on passagesthat do.27 With the exception of the Saddharmapun. d. arıka passages, which we willlook at presently, these passages are all very similar to the passages from the Va-jracchedika discussed above. Each states that places where the sutra is used willbecome caityabhuta or a near equivalent (mchod rten du ’gyur or caityasammata).They each also present a place’s becoming caityabhuta, etc., specifically as a per-sonal benefit and occur in the context of longer passages promising other personalbenefits.28 They thus seem equally unlikely to be referring to actual shrines.

The four passages that Schopen cites from the Saddharmapun. d. arıka all state thatstupas or caityas should be built in places where writing, recitation, and other activ-ities associated with the sutra are performed. One passage states that a caitya shouldbe built wherever a person who retains the sutra in memory “might stand, or sit, orwalk up and down” (tis. t.hed va nis. ıded va cankramed va). The same passage refersto such a caitya as a “Tathagata-stupa” (Schopen 1975a, 165/Wogihara and Tsuchida1935, 288; cf. Kern 1884, 324). Another passage, the corresponding verse version ofthe first, states that one should build a stupa wherever a person who has memorizedthe sutra might walk up and down, sit, lie down, or recite one of its gathas (Schopen1975a, 165/Wogihara and Tsuchida 1935, 290-91; cf. Kern 1884, 327). A third pas-sage states that a caitya should be made wherever the sutra might be recited, illumi-nated, preached, written, considered, spoken, repeated, or set up as a book, whether“in/at a park, monastery, house, grove, city, the foot of a tree, palace, monastic cell,or cave (arame va vihare va gr

�he va vane va nagare va vr

�ks. amule va prasade va

layane va guhayam. va) (Schopen 1975a, 166/Wogihara and Tsuchida 1935, 330-31;cf. Kern 1884, 367). Schopen presents these passages as clear evidence for the exis-tence of book shrines and suggests that the fact that the “specific kind of caitya whichis to be built is consciously equated with the stupa” suggests that there was an “at-tempted amalgamation of two distinct cults, the stupa cult and the book cult” (1975a,167).

As with the other passages, there are some difficulties with this interpretation.First, the first and second of these passages occur as part of long passages in which

those who memorize the sutra, because the text makes the spot where it is caityabhuta (Kimura 1986-92,2-3:55-56/Conze 1975, 230).27Schopen also cites, but does not quote or discuss, similar caityabhuta passages in the Tibetan translationsof the larger Prajñaparamita sutras. These passages are all very similar to the passage in the Sanskritversion of the Pañcavim. satisahasrika mentioned in the previous note. See the original passages cited bySchopen (1975a, 156n20).28See the original texts cited by Schopen (1975a, 157-62). Two of these passages identify writing or writtentexts as things that make places caityabhuta, specifically a passage from the Aparimitayuh. Sutra, whichstates that any place where “they write or cause [others] to write” the sutra will become caityabhuta (160),and a passage from the Kasyapaparivarta, which states that any place where the text is spoken, preached,copied, or set up as a book will become caityabhuta (157-58). For reasons that seem counterintuitive,Schopen links the Kasyapaparivarta passage to the oral phase of the book cult (158-59).

124 D. Drewes

the Buddha describes wonderful qualities that people who memorize the sutra willhave and great benefits that they will receive. Deserving to have stupas built whereverthey go is clearly presented as one of the qualities such people will possess and, byextension, that the sutra’s listeners can acquire by memorizing the text. The thirdpassage occurs within a longer passage in which the Buddha extolls the greatnessof the Saddharmapun. d. arıka and can be interpreted simply as an attempt to magnifythe sutra’s glory. What is perhaps most salient about these three passages, however,is the places where they say that caityas/stupas should be built. The first and secondpassages state that stupas should be built wherever a person who has memorizedthe sutra might go. The third passage states that a caitya should be built literallywherever anyone does anything at all with the sutra and explicitly identifies the rangeof such places as including houses, forests, caves, palaces, feet of trees, monasticcells, etc. Since many of these places would not be suitable for the construction ofpublic shrines, it is difficult to read these passages as serious injunctions to buildthem. What seems more likely is that they are simply hyperbolical assertions of thesacrality of the sutra and those who memorize it.

The remaining passage from the Saddharmapun. d. arıka is slightly more difficult tointerpret. It reads, in Schopen’s translation:

Then again, Bhais.ajyaraja, on which spot of earth this discourse on dharmawould be declared or explained or written or is written in the form of a book,or would be recited or recited in chorus, on that spot of earth, Bhais.ajyaraja,a Tathagata-caitya is to be made—great, consisting of jewels, high, lofty—andrelics of the Tathagata are not necessarily to be placed in it. What is the reasonfor that? Just in it the entire Tathagata-relic is deposited. On which spot of earththis discourse on dharma would be declared or explained or read or recited inchorus or written or where written in the form of a book it would stand, onthat stupa [tasmin . . . stupe] veneration, honor by respect, worship and praiseis to be made with all flowers and incense and perfumes and garlands . . . withall songs and instrumental music and dancing . . . worship is to be done. Andagain, Bhais.ajyaraja, those beings who would get the opportunity to praise, toworship, or to see this Tathagata-caitya, they all, Bhais.ajyaraja, are to be knownas having come near to excellent, complete and perfect enlightenment (Schopen1975a, 164; Wogihara and Tsuchida 1935, 201; cf. Kern 1884, 220).

Perhaps more than any of the other passages Schopen cites, this passage seems clearlyto enjoin the construction of sutra shrines. Even here, however, there are problemswith reading the text in this way. First, much like the other three passages, this pas-sage occurs in the midst of a lengthy passage that sings the praises of the sutra anddescribes benefits that will accrue to those who use it. It thus seems quite likely thatit has a sense very similar to the others: the Saddharmapun. d. arıka is so sacred thata stupa should be built everywhere it is preached, etc. This reading is supported bythe fact that, like the others, this passage does not present anything like a realisticprescription for the construction of an actual stupa. Rather than saying, e.g., that weshould build stupas and put manuscripts in them, it says that we should build a stupawherever people use the sutra in ordinary ways: reciting it, preaching it, reading it,etc.

Revisiting the cult of the book 125

This reading is also supported by the passage’s use of the term “Tathagata-caitya”for the stupas it tells us to build. Commenting on this term, Schopen writes: “It isperhaps noteworthy that ‘caitya’ in the [Saddharmapun. d. arıka] passages is almostinvariably qualified as not just a caitya, but as a ‘tathagata-caitya.’ In other words,the [Saddharmapun. d. arıka] has a specific kind of caitya in mind” (1975a, 166).29

The context in which this passage occurs, however, suggests a somewhat differentreading of this term. Immediately before the passage, the Buddha states that afterhis parinirvan. a, devotees of the Saddharmapun. d. arıka should be known as wearingthe “Tathagata-robe” (tathagatacıvara) and that they will be those who live togetherin “Tathagata-monasteries” (tathagatavihara) (Wogihara and Tsuchida 1935, 201;cf. Kern 1884, 219-20). Two pages after the passage (in Wogihara and Tsuchida’sedition), the Buddha states that a bodhisattva should teach the Saddharmapun. d. arıkaafter having entered the “monastic cell of the Tathagata” (tathagatalayana), put onthe “Tathagata-robe” (tathagatacıvara), and seated him or herself on the “Tathagata’sthrone” (tathagatasya asana). He then continues:

And what, Bhais.ajyaraja, is the monastic cell of the Tathagata? The monasticcell of the Tathagata is, indeed, dwelling in friendliness for all beings [sar-vasattvamaitrıvihara]. That son of good family should enter that. And what,Bhais.ajyaraja, is the Tathagata-robe? The Tathagata-robe is, indeed, delightin great patience [mahaks. antisauratya]. That son or daughter of good fam-ily should put that on. And what, Bhais.ajyaraja, is the dharma-throne of theTathagata? The dharma-throne of the Tathagata is the entrance into the empti-ness of all dharmas [sarvadharmasunyatapravesa]. That son of good familyshould sit on that, and, once seated, should illuminate this dharma-discoursefor the four assemblies (Wogihara and Tsuchida 1935, 203, my trans.; cf. Kern1884, 222).

The Buddha never says what a Tathagata-caitya is, but the fact that he uses theterms tathagatalayana, tathagatacıvara, and tathagatasya asana to refer not to ac-tual dwellings, robes, or thrones, but to abstract, semi-doctrinal concepts, suggeststhat we should be wary of taking the term, at least as it is used in this chapter, as areference to actual shrines.

Apart from the various caityabhuta passages and their variants just discussed,Schopen does not cite any evidence that suggests the existence of Mahayana bookshrines. Commenting on the lack of textual evidence, he writes:

In approaching the problem of localization in the cult of the book, we are ham-pered, if by nothing else, by the scarcity of information bearing on the subject.Practically the only clear reference to the matter is to be found in our formula[i.e., the phrase sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto bhavet] and in the immediate

contexts in which our formula is found. A possible explanation for this scarcityis that our formula represents an early standardization of a solution to the prob-lem which, being formalized, rendered unnecessary any further or prolonged

29Though one uses the similar term tathagatastupa, of the four passages from the Saddharmapun. d. arıkathat Schopen quotes, only the one currently under discussion uses the term tathagatacaitya.

126 D. Drewes

discussion of the matter. This explanation gains, perhaps, some plausibilitywhen one understands the incredible richness of meaning which is compactedinto our formula and its immediate contexts. However this may be, if we wantto know anything about the way in which the places where the cult took placewere conceived of, we must look primarily to our formula (1975a, 171-72).

Although Schopen’s comment that “practically the only clear reference” to localizedbook shrines is to be found in his caityabhuta passages suggests that there are someother references to them, he does not cite any, and I am aware of none.30

On the question of archaeological or epigraphical evidence, Schopen commentsin a recent publication that “nonliterary evidence for the use of sutras as sacred ob-jects or for copying and the religious use of books is, moreover, generally late, andeven very late” (2005c, 153n118). As the reference for this assertion he cites one ofhis own earlier articles in which he makes reference to an apparently eleventh cen-tury inscription from Sarnath which records a laywoman’s donation of a copy of theAs. t.a; another apparently eleventh century inscription from Nalanda that states that acertain monk “made what appears to have been a revolving bookcase ‘by means ofwhich the Mother of the Buddhas revolved continually in the great temple of the holyKhasarppan. a (Avalokitesvara)’ ”;31 the fact that several Pala period manuscripts areidentified in their colophons as religious gifts (deyadharma), the copying of whichwas done as an act of merit; and the fact that the covers or first leaves of manyof these manuscripts are “heavily stained and encrusted from continuous daubingwith unguents and aromatic powders” (2000b, 4-5). Commenting on this, Schopenwrites: “All of this, in short, testifies to the kind of book-cult which, for example,the As. t.asahasrika itself describes, and which one might therefore have expected nearthe time of its composition at, perhaps, the beginning of the Common Era. But thisevidence is almost a thousand years later than it should be, and, apart from other

30Schopen cites seven passages from the As. t.a as providing “some additional evidence” in support of hisviews, specifically passages that occur on pages 56, 57, 77, 85, 88, 89, and 506 of Rajendralala Mitra’s edi-tion of the text (1975a, 171n47; R. Mitra 1887). The material on pages 56 and 57 is included in Schopen’slong quotation from the As. t.a, and the material on pages 85 and 88 is included in the home protection pas-sage discussed above. The passages on 77 and 89 do not have clear relevance. The passage on 506 occurswithin the Sadaprarudita story at the end of the text and makes reference to a pavilion (kut.agara) made bythe dharmabhan. aka Dharmodgata in which he keeps his own personal copy of the Prajñaparamita. Thepassage describes the pavilion as being venerated by gods and also by Sadaprarudita and his companions.While this may seem to be a depiction of an institutional book shrine, the fact that both the pavilion andthe copy of the Prajñaparamita kept within it are clearly presented as Dharmodgata’s property, and theadditional fact that worship of the sutra is explicitly said to be done for the sake of revering Dharmodgatahimself, make this seem unlikely. For this passage see Wogihara (1932-35, 954-56)/Conze (1973, 288-89).If this passage reveals anything about the way Mahayanists venerated books, it seems more likely to bethat veneration of copies of sutras owned by dharmabhan. akas sometimes formed part of preaching rituals.Yael Bentor cites a passage from the Pratyutpanna Sutra as evidence for the veneration of sutras at shrines(1995, 251). What the passage she cites actually states, however, is that after the Buddha’s death peoplewill place the Pratyutpanna in “a stupa,/ In the earth, under rocks, and in the mountains,/ And into thehands of devas and likewise nagas” in order to be able to return to this world to recover and preach itroughly five hundred years after the Buddha’s death (Harrison 1990/1978, §13K). As Schopen comments,the stupa is not here depicted as an object of veneration, but “merely as a hiding place” (2005c, 110).31For more on this inscription see Schopen (2005b).

Revisiting the cult of the book 127

texts, there is no actual evidence for what it describes before this” (2000b, 5).32

Along with being late, however, none of this material suggests the existence of in-stitutional Mahayana sutra shrines. For this no evidence has come to light from anyperiod.

There are of course many cases in which Buddhist textual material was in-terred in stupas. Most of the earliest known cases are brief texts associated with thepratıtyasamutpada formula inscribed, stamped, or written on metal or brick.33 Theoldest of these forms part of the Kharos.t.hı inscription on the Kurram Casket, fromthe Kurram Valley in modern Pakistan, which contains a date of year twenty, quitecertainly of the Kanis.ka era, or probably roughly 148 CE.34 Along with identify-ing the donor, the inscription states that the reliquary contains a relic of the Buddha,identifies the stupa in which the reliquary was enshrined as one associated with theSarvastivada lineage, and lists the twelve nidanas of the pratıtyasamutpada formula(Konow 1929, 55, 57). Although it is fairly clear that in this case an actual reliccontained in the reliquary was the stupa’s primary object of veneration, the formulamust also have been seen as sacred and may have been seen as consecrating thedeposit. Similar inscriptions in late Brahmı have been found in other stupas. A reli-quary dating to the late fourth or early fifth century inscribed with a short sutra thatlists the twelve nidanas was found in a stupa at Devnimori in Northeastern Gujarat(Mehta and Chowdhary 1966, 121-22; von Hinüber 1985). As Oskar von Hinüberpoints out, though the wording is somewhat different, this sutra is essentially thesame as the sutta that begins the Nidanasam. yutta of the Pali Sam. yutta Nikaya (1985,190). The Kasia Copper-plate, which seems to date to the fifth century, was foundcovering the top of a reliquary enshrined in the Parinirvan. a Caitya in Kushinagarin modern Uttar Pradesh and is inscribed with a similar non-Mahayana sutra (Par-giter 1910-11).35 Other similar, non-Mahayana, pratıtyasamutpada sutras inscribedon clay tablets, or “bricks,” that seem to date to approximately the early sixth century,were found within another stupa in the same region and also in small, “votive” stupasat Nalanda in modern Bihar (Smith and Hoey 1896; Smith 1904; Johnston 1938;Chakravarti 1931-32; Ghosh 1937-38).36 A very interesting recent discovery is an in-

32There is additional evidence for book worship, though all of it that I am familiar with is roughly as lateas the material Schopen mentions. Most interesting are several sculptural reliefs from Eastern India, datingfrom roughly the eighth through twelfth centuries, that seem to represent people venerating sutras set upon pedestals and stands. For a discussion, see Kinnard (1999, 169-75; 2002, 102-6). For some additionalexamples not mentioned by Kinnard, see Bautze-Picron (1998, nos. 186-89, 191, 193, 195, 197). I wouldlike to thank Peter Skilling for this reference. For more on Mahayana sutras’ manuscript covers smearedwith unguents, etc., see, e.g., Losty (1982, 30-33) and Lerner (1984, 87).33On the finds discussed in this paragraph, see also Boucher (1991, 4, 19n15-20) and Melzer (2006,254-56).34For the date of the Kanis.ka era, see Allon et al. (2006, 286-88) and the sources cited there. The KurramCasket inscription can be dated to the Kanis.ka era on the same grounds as the inscription on the Seniormanuscripts’ pot (see the references in note 41 below).35See also Sastrı (1910-11, 63-66). The stupa is referred to as the “[parini]rvan. acaitya” in the inscriptionon the Kasia Copper-plate itself.36Another remarkable find is the “Golden Pali Text” found in a large reliquary in a stupa in Srı Ks.etra inBurma. It is composed of twenty inscribed gold leaves containing “eight excerpts from the [Pali] Canon,most being from early core texts based on the Vinaya” in “pure canonical Pali” that Lore Sander dates

128 D. Drewes

scription in late Brahmı on a copper scroll that seems to date to the late fifth or earlysixth century (Melzer 2006). The inscription records the establishment by severaldonors of a stupa containing relics and contains a quotation of the pratıtyasamutpadaformula from the Srımatıbrahman. ıparipr

�ccha, a little-known Mahayana sutra, to-

gether with the two opening verses of Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarikah. . Whilethe scroll’s provenance and ritual significance are uncertain, Gudrun Melzer suggeststhat it may come from Northern Afghanistan and that it “appears to have been madefor depositing in a stupa, as a foundation deed as well as a consecrating inscription”(2006, 254).37

As Daniel Boucher points out (1991, 5), the practice of enshrining in stupas thefull pratıtyasamutpada formula and complete sutras containing it seems largely tohave lapsed by the end of the sixth century. In its stead there developed the practiceof enshrining tablets, usually made of clay, stamped with slightly different versionsof the verse commonly referred to as the “Buddhist creed,” or miniature clay stupaseither stamped with this same verse or containing tablets stamped with it. In theMahavastu’s Sanskrit version this verse reads “ye dharma hetuprabhava hetun tes. am.tathagato aha/tes. am. ca yo nirodha evam. vadı mahasraman. ah. ” (The Tathagata statesthe cause of those dharmas which arise from a cause and their cessation; the greatrenunciant is the one who says this) (Senart 1882-97, 3:62).38 Beginning in the latesixth or seventh century and for several centuries thereafter a vast number of suchtablets and miniature stupas were enshrined in stupas throughout much of South Asia,with often large numbers being enshrined in individual stupas.39 Boucher cites textsthat identify this verse as equivalent to the body of the Buddha, and which make itclear that it at least sometimes served as an object of veneration (1991, 7-14). PeterSkilling points out that the ye dharmah. verse has long been used in ceremonies forthe consecration of stupas, statues, paintings, and books and suggests that in at leastsome cases inscribed ye dharmah. verses may be seen as “physical relics of cetiyaconsecration rituals” (2002, 173).

In some cases dharan. ıs stamped, inscribed, or written on clay, stone, copper, orbark have been found in stupas. Such amulets are typically found along with yedharmah. tablets in small, subsidiary stupas associated with particular ritual centers.What may be the oldest are several birch bark strips with versions of the Vimalos.n. ıs.aDharan. ı found, along with other things, including miniature stupas containing claytablets inscribed with the ye dharmah. verse, in two seventh century stupas from Gilgit(Shastri 1939, 3-4, 8-9; von Hinüber 1981, 166-67; 2004, 14-16). Schopen has iden-tified two late Mahayana sutras that mention this dharan. ı, one of which he quotes asstating that memorizing it, retaining it in memory, writing it, reading it, or hearingits name will rid one of the five deadly sins (*pañcanantarya) and as referring to

to sometime between the mid-fifth and mid-sixth centuries (Stargardt 2000, 24-25). On this text, see alsoStargardt (1995). For a transcription of the plates see Falk (1997). For gold plates inscribed with non-Mahayana Buddhist textual material that were found in stupas elsewhere in Southeast Asia, see Skilling(2002, 164, 166).37I would like to thank Richard Salomon for this reference.38For an interesting early publication on this verse and some of its variants, see Sykes (1856).39For references to these finds see, e.g., Taddei (1970, 78-79) and Boucher (1991, 20-22n27-43).

Revisiting the cult of the book 129

the performance of these actions as a “caitya empowering ritual” (1985, 144). Thedharan. ı itself is an injunction to all Buddhas to protect one’s life and purify one’s sinsand it seems that enshrining it was most likely done for personal protection and pu-rification. The Gilgit specimens incorporate the name of the king Navasurendradityainto the text of the dharan. ı, a fact which leads von Hinüber and Gérard Fussman tosuggest that they were enshrined as part of a ritual intended to prolong his life or curehim of an illness (von Hinüber 2004, 90; Fussman 2004, 115-16). Three terracottatablets with images of the Buddha in meditation, apparently dating to about the tenthor eleventh century, one of which contained two small clay tablets stamped with thissame dharan. ı, were found in one of more than a hundred small stupas surrounding atemple in Paharpur in Northern Bengal. The stupa also contained “several thousands”of miniature stupas containing tablets inscribed with the ye dharmah. verse, and aboutfifty other terracotta tablets with an image of an eight-armed goddess or bodhisattva(Chandra and Dikshit 1936, 125 and plate LIX, f; Dikshit 1938, 82-84 and plate LIX,d and e; D. Mitra 1971, 243). Similar dharan. ı amulets have been found in otherstupas.40 Though the dharan. ıs must have been believed to be powerful, they seemunlikely to have been objects of communal worship.

There are only a few known cases in which actual books in Indic languages seem tohave been interred in stupas, and only two cases in which the contents of these booksare known. The oldest case is that of the recently discovered Senior manuscripts, acollection of twenty-four scrolls or scroll fragments containing a sizable number ofnon-Mahayana sutras in Gandharı in Kharos.t.hı script. The manuscripts were foundin a clay pot, the original provenance of which is uncertain. An inscription on the lidof the pot identifies it as having been placed in a stupa (thu[ba]m[i]) by one Rohan. aMas

¯umatraputra in year twelve of what seems certainly to have been the Kanis.ka era.

Accepting a date of roughly 127-28 for the beginning of Kanis.ka’s reign, RichardSalomon estimates the date of the pot and the sutras’ deposit at 140 CE, a date whichfalls into the range of dates established by radiocarbon dating for the harvesting of themanuscripts’ bark (Salomon 2003, 76-77; Allon et al. 2006, 286-88). Though the sec-tarian affiliation of the collection is not known, it is composed primarily of sutras ofa sort typically found in the Sam. yutta/yukta Nikaya/Agama. The collection includestwo index scrolls and part of the last line of the second scroll reads “in all fifty-five, 55, sutras” (Salomon 2003, 83). On the basis of this fact, Salomon concludes

40As noted by Schopen (1985, 141), Dikshit points out that the Vimalos.n. ıs.a Dharan. ı was also found atBodhgaya and Nalanda (1938, 84). Several tablets with a different dharan. ı or dharan. ıs, apparently datingto sometime between the sixth and ninth centuries, were found along with ye dharmah. tablets in a stupaat Nalanda (Ghosh 1941). Schopen has identified two Mahayana dharan. ı sutras that refer to the dharan. ıfound on at least two of these tablets as the Bodhigarbhalan. karalaks.a Dharan. ı and that advocate, amongother things, putting it into caityas and worshipping them (1985, 119-41). As Schopen points out in theaddenda to this article in its recent republication, this same dharan. ı was also found on tablets in two stupasat Ratnagiri (2005a, 338-39; cf. D. Mitra 1981, 41-44, 98-100). Both stupas also contained tablets withthe ye dharmah. verse. Schopen also states that eight granite tablets inscribed with dharan. ıs, six of whichhe identifies as containing parts of a dharan. ı that a Mahayana sutra advocates placing in a stupa, were“somehow connected with a stupa in 9th-century Ceylon,” but the only apparent connection is that theywere “buried at a spot to the south east” of one (1982, 106, 100; cf. Mudiyanse 1967, 99-105). For a fewother finds of dharan. ıs in stupas, see Mudiyanse (1967, 92-95), O’Connor (1966, 57-58), D. Mitra (1971,89, 228, 246; 1981, 68-69).

130 D. Drewes

that the sutras represent a “unified, organized collection” (80) and suggests that theymight constitute “an anthology of important or representative Buddhist texts” (83).This interpretation is also suggested by the fact that the entire collection seems likelyto have been copied by a single scribe (86). Some of the scrolls were discovered ingood condition, and Salomon suggests that the collection may have been copied forthe specific purpose of being enshrined in the stupa (77-78).

The birch bark Bower Manuscript, in late Brahmı, was discovered in 1890 nearKucha in Chinese Turkestan, in a building that A.F.R. Hoernle identifies as a stupa onthe basis of information provided by Hamilton Bower (Hoernle 1893-1912, iv-xiii).Bower purchased the manuscript from a local resident who led him to the building inwhich he claimed to have found it, and Bower describes this building and others likeit as “solid, and built of sun-dried bricks and wooden beams now crumbling away,”and as resembling “a gigantic cottage loaf, about 50 feet high.” He comments addi-tionally that the outside of this structure “had a slight coating of a baked clayey nature. . . and the documents [i.e., the Bower Manuscript] had been buried right in the cen-tre of it” (Hoernle 1893-1912, v). Though Bower’s reference to wooden beams maybe cause for some doubt, Hoernle’s identification of the building as a stupa seemslikely to be correct. The manuscript contains an early recension of the Mahamayurı,a non-Mahayana dharan. ı sutra that claims to make those who recite it immune tosnakebite and various forms of illness, along with three non-Buddhist medical texts,and two texts on divination with dice.41 The manuscript was written in two differ-ent styles of handwriting apparently during the first half of the sixth century (Sander1987, 321). In two places it is identified as belonging to a certain Yasomitra. Ho-ernle suggests that the stupa in which the manuscript was found was dedicated to thissame Yasomitra and that the manuscript was placed in the stupa as a sort of gravegood (1893-1912, xxx, xxxvii). An alternate possibility is that it was ritually buriedas a “dead” manuscript, as Salomon suggests was the case for the British LibraryKharos.t.hı fragments (1999, 81-84). In any case, the manuscript’s composite, wellused, and largely non-Buddhist nature strongly suggest that it was not created as aritual item and that, if the building in which it was found was indeed a stupa, it wasnot put there for worship. In all other cases in which manuscripts have reportedlybeen found in stupas in South or Central Asia, either this identification seems to beincorrect or the contents of the manuscripts are unknown.42 There is no known case

41Because it contains dharan. ıs, the Mahamayurı is often considered to be a Mahayana sutra. Peter Skillinghas drawn attention to the fact that many late non-Mahayana texts also contain dharan. ıs and argues thatthe Mahamayurı has no other characteristics to suggest that it is a Mahayana text (1992, 143).42G.M. Bongard-Levin reports that the apparently mostly fifth or sixth century Bairam Ali Manuscript,a collection of notes and synopses of a number of non-Mahayana jatakas, avadanas, sutras, and theSarvastivada vinaya, was found in a stupa (1975-76, 78). Other scholars have repeated this identifica-tion. M.I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya states, however, that the manuscript was found along with a shatteredclay pitcher, which presumably contained it, “among the lumps of earth” when a small hill was removedby a bulldozer during the leveling of a field (1999, 27; cf. 1979, 127-28), making this seem incorrect. Anapparently fifth or pre-fifth century Buddhist manuscript “practically destroyed by termites” was foundin a painted vase reportedly found in a stupa in Gyaur Kala in Merv in modern Turkmenistan (Frumkin1970, 147-48; Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya 1979, 127; 1983, 64-65). Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya commentsthat the manuscript “is not restored and is not described” but that it is, or was, kept “in the restorationdepartment of the Ministry of Culture of RSFSR,” now the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation,

Revisiting the cult of the book 131

in which an ancient Mahayana sutra manuscript has been found in a stupa in SouthAsia.

A number of scholars have suggested that the Gilgit manuscripts, which werereported to have been discovered in a ruined stupa near the village of Naupur inGilgit in modern Pakistan, constitute evidence for the veneration of Mahayana sutrasat a stupa.43 In 1951 Conze suggested that the main Gilgit “stupa” was a “caitya”that Buddhists worshipped because it contained “portions of the Dharma-body ofthe Buddha, in other words, of the Scriptures” (79). Similar suggestions have beenmade more recently by von Hinüber (1983a, 55) and Yael Bentor (1995, 251 andn18). The nature of the Gilgit find has, however, always been problematic. Alreadyin 1932 Sylvain Lévi suggested that the Gilgit manuscripts constituted a monastery’slibrary (26). Though he himself does not say so, if true, this would make it unlikelythat they were enshrined for ritual purposes. In 1981, in the most careful study of thematter published to that date, Karl Jettmar asked why “a whole library including thetexts used for practical regulations [i.e., vinaya texts] was withdrawn from utilizationby burying it in a stupa” and suggested as the most likely answer that the manuscriptswere concealed in the stupa as a protective measure in response to “warlike events”or “political and/or religious change” in the area (3-4, 14). A similar possibility wasalso suggested by von Hinüber (1983a, 50-51, 65). In 1988, and again in 2004, vonHinüber also suggested, without discussion, that the building in which the Gilgit man-uscripts were discovered may not have been a stupa at all (1988, 40; 2004, 2). Jettmarlater changed his position and argued that the manuscripts were unlikely to have beenhidden “quickly before the impending attack of an enemy” because “the constructionof such a stupa-shaped container needed time and a considerable labour force” (1990,307). Instead, he suggested that the manuscripts may have been enshrined after theconquest, by the invaders themselves, “as seeds of prosperity and blessing” (1990,312). Jettmar later also suggested that the manuscripts were “buried as one of theConcealed Treasures according to a concept strongly influencing the rise of esotericBuddhism” (1993, 94). The mystery, however, now seems finally to have been solved

in Moscow (1979, 127). I have not been able to find out anything more about it. I would like to thankOleksandr Kondrashov for helping me with Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya’s publications in Russian and fortranslating the passages cited here. Charles Masson reported finding “twists” of “tuz-leaves” in the reli-quaries of several stupas. Salomon suggests that these were likely manuscripts in scroll form, but none ofthese “twists” have survived in good enough condition to be read (1999, 59-61). Salomon also points outthat a similar text was found in a stupa by John Martin Honigberger, but this manuscript was not read andis no longer extant (61-62). J. Barthoux seems to have found texts in stupas at Had.d. a, but they are nowlost and their contents are unknown (Salomon 1999, 63-65). A “small booklet” was also found inside of atstatue at Had.d. a, but the text was not read by its discoverers and it seems now to be lost (Salomon 1999, 65).Hoernle argues that manuscripts in the Weber, Macartney, Petrovski, and perhaps also Godfrey collectionswere found in a stupa as well, but this seems unlikely because the oldest accounts of the discovery of thesemanuscripts state that they were found either in a “versunkenes und vershüttetes Haus” or in a “tower,” andthat they were found along with “the bodies of some cows,” or “a cow and two foxes standing,” that turnedto dust when they were touched (Hoernle 1893-1912, vi-viii). Though stupas are often found to containunexpected things, that one might contain such animals, and contain them “standing,” does not seem pos-sible. Hoernle comments on a set of manuscript fragments, some of which he edits, that he suggests werefound in a stupa, but the fragments were originally reported as having been found in a “house” (1916, 1).43For the initial reports, see Stein (1931) and Lévi (1932). See also Shastri (1939).

132 D. Drewes

by Fussman, who has reconsidered the available evidence and recently argued thatthe building in which the Gilgit manuscripts were discovered was actually a sort ofhouse where a Buddhist acarya or lineage of acaryas lived and performed rituals forpeople in the surrounding area. Though I will not attempt to reproduce his argumenthere, he expresses his main conclusions as follows:

L’examen des données architecturales relatives au bâtiment C et celui des livresqui y furent trouvées laissent la même impression. Le bâtiment n’était pas unstupa élevé au-dessus des restes d’une bibliothèque précieuse qu’il fallait pro-téger du pillage. Il est plus simple de restituer une tour isolée, avec une armaturede bois qui a des parallèles nombreux dans les constructions de cette région.Cette tour était à la fois le logis et la chapelle d’une lignée d’acarya dont cer-tains exécutèrent des rites de protection demandés par des notables de Gilgit,pour leur souverain ou pour eux-mêmes et leur famille. Les manuscrits de Gilgitsont les ouvrages dont se servaient les acarya dans leur pratique monastique or-dinaire, auxquels s’ajoutent des livres copiés en don pieux et cérémoniellementremis au monastère, et des dharan. ı copiées et récitées lors de rituels de pro-tection. Lorsque pour une raison indéterminée, la lignée d’acarya s’éteignit, lebâtiment fut abandonné, le toit cessa d’être déblayé après les chutes de neige etfinit par s’écrouler, donnant à l’ensemble l’apparence d’un stupa (2004, 134).

In a similar case, John Holt suggests that seven gold plates inscribed with por-tions of the Pañcavim. satisahasrika Prajñaparamita found during the excavation ofthe Jetavanarama in Sri Lanka were enshrined in the Jetavanarama Stupa for wor-ship (1991, 67). Although Holt states that these plates were found “in the southwestquadrant of the Jetavanarama Dagäba (stupa),” however, the pamphlet he cites statesnot that they were found in the southwest quadrant of the stupa, but that they werefound in the southwest quadrant of the Jetavanarama itself (Ratnayaka et al. 1983,no page numbers). As M.H.F. Jayasuriya makes clear, the plates were in fact found“deposited in an earthen vessel” that was simply “buried in the ground of the Viharacomplex” (1988, 4).44 Holt also cites the fact that a group of copper plates inscribedwith extracts from the Pañcavim. satisahasrika and Kasyapaparivarta Sutra, whichParanavitana dates to the eighth or ninth century, were found “at the Indikat.usäyaDagäba” at Mihintale (1991, 67). While these plates were found “at” the stupa, how-ever, they were not found inside of it. According to Paranavitana, when the plateswere discovered the stupa had already been “opened by treasure-seekers” and theplates were found along with a range of other objects, including Dutch coins, “scat-tered among the loose bricks.” Paranavitana suggests on the basis of late South Indiancoins found in an “earthen casket” at the same time that even before being plunderedthe stupa had been “restored at a recent date, possibly during the Kandyan period,”i.e., in the late sixteenth century or after (1933, 200).

Although a more careful study of the archaeological evidence of ritual uses ofBuddhist texts in South Asia is certainly a desideratum, this brief survey suggestsa fairly clear general picture. First, actual “books” were deposited in stupas onlyvery rarely. When texts were put in stupas they were usually very short sutras or

44On these plates see also von Hinüber (1983b).

Revisiting the cult of the book 133

quotations from sutras pressed into or inscribed on clay or metal. Second, and moreimportant in the present context, the oldest enshrined texts, and the majority in allperiods, were non-Mahayana in nature. With the possible exception of the quotationon the fifth or sixth century Brahmı copper scroll “foundation deed” discussed above,the Mahayana texts that were put into stupas seem invariably to have been dharan. ıs,rather than sutras, and they seem typically to have been interred with specific personalobjectives, such as purification or the attainment of long life, rather than for worship.

One final point remains to be addressed, and this is Schopen’s assertion that therewas a “confrontation” or “competition” between Mahayana book worship and thepre-existing cult of relics and stupas. The main evidence that Schopen presents insupport of this idea is a group of passages in Mahayana sutras that state that vastlymore merit can be made from sutra-oriented practices than from the worship of stupasand relics. We have already seen one such passage in Schopen’s long quotation fromthe As. t.a discussed above. Within this quotation, immediately after the passage thatstates that the Prajñaparamita makes the place where it is memorized and recitedcaityabhuta, Sakra asks the Buddha:

Suppose that there are two persons. One of the two, a son or daughter of goodfamily, has written down this perfection of wisdom, made a copy of it; he wouldthen put it up, and would honour, revere, worship, and adore it with heav-enly flowers, incense, perfumes, wreaths, unguents, aromatic powders, stripsof cloth, parasols, banners, bells, flags, with rows of lamps all round, and withmanifold kinds of worship. The other would deposit in Stupas the relics of theTathagata who has gone to Parinirvana; he would take hold of them and pre-serve them; he would honour, worship and adore them with heavenly flowers,incense, etc., as before. Which one of the two, O Lord, would beget the greatermerit?

After a brief discussion the Buddha replies that “the person who would copy andworship the perfection of wisdom would beget the greater merit.”45

45Schopen reads this particular passage not only as evidence of competition between the cult of the bookand the stupa/relic cult, but also as supplying us with information on how the worship of books waspracticed (1975a, 168). He writes: “Apart . . . from the difference in focal point, the texts describe thestructure of the two cults in exactly the same terms: placing the relics in a stupa; honoring, revering them,etc., with flowers, incense, rows of lamps; writing the dharmaparyaya and making it into a book, settingit up; honoring, revering it with flowers, incense, rows of lamps. It seems obvious, then, that the cultof the book . . . took over from the [relic cult] the prescribed forms of activity while at the same timesubstituting a distinctly different object toward which they were directed” (170). Key to note, however, isthat the list of activities used to describe the worship of books and stupas in this passage is a more-or-lessformulaic list used freely in the As. t.a and other texts to describe worship paid to anything and anyone. In theAs. t.a’s sixth chapter, for instance, an almost identical list of activities is used to describe worship that godspay to the Buddha (Wogihara 1932-35, 366/Conze 1973, 132) and in chapter thirty, another almost identicallist is used to describe worship paid to the dharmabhan. aka Dharmodgata (Wogihara 1932-35, 956; thispassage is all but completely elided in Conze’s translation, see 1973, 289). Because of this, we cannot takethis passage as evidence that sutra and stupa worship were performed in the same manner. If we were todo so, we would have to conclude, e.g., that dharmabhan. akas were worshipped in the same way, beingdecorated with flags and parasols, hung with bells, etc. On this issue, see also Matsumura (1985, 144).As we saw above, however, several late manuscript covers have been found smeared with ointments andpowders. Mahayana sutras, especially those that seem likely to be early, generally provide little information

134 D. Drewes

As Schopen reads them, passages like these constitute clear evidence of competi-tion between the cult of the book and the cult of relics and stupas (1975a, 168-70).While this reading has a definite prima facie plausibility, it ignores the important factthat the point of saying that something is better (or able to produce more merit, etc.)than something else is not always that it is good and the other is bad. If one wereto say, for instance, that a certain airplane can fly faster than sound, one would notbe trying to make a point about sound at all, and certainly not the point that soundis slow. Sound would be used in the comparison precisely because it is known to beextremely fast.

Comparisons of this sort are common in South Asian Buddhist literature. In onesutta in the Pali Sam. yutta Nikaya, for example, the Buddha asks monks to considerhow long it would take for a blind turtle that surfaces only once every hundred yearsto place its head, by sheer chance, into a wooden yoke floating in the ocean. He thentells them that it would take longer for a person born in one of the lower realmsof rebirth to obtain rebirth as a human (Feer 1884-98, 5:455-56/Bodhi 2000, 1871).In another sutta from the same collection, the Buddha asks monks what is greater,the amount of tears that they have shed in sam. sara or the amount of water in the fourgreat oceans. He then approves when they say that the amount of tears is greater (Feer1884-98, 2:179-80/Bodhi 2000, 652-53). In the first of these passages there is no ideathat the amount of time that it would take for the turtle to put its head into the yokeis short. Exactly the opposite: the image of the turtle and the yoke is carefully craftedto convey an idea of as vast an expanse of time as possible. The second passage issimilar. The point is not to say anything at all about the volume of water in the fouroceans, much less that it is not great. The only point is that the volume of tears that themonks have cried in sam. sara is great. The volume of tears is compared to the volumeof water in the four oceans precisely because this latter volume is more-or-less thegreatest imaginable.

Although comparisons of this sort are common in the nikayas/agamas, they occurwith significantly greater frequency in Mahayana sutras and are used in significantlymore dramatic ways. They are very frequently used to illustrate the amount of meritproduced by certain Mahayana practices, primarily memorization, recitation, teach-ing, copying, worship, and/or training in the teachings of Mahayana sutras. Worshipis rarely the main sutra-oriented practice encouraged in such comparisons and in mostcases it is not mentioned at all. Although Schopen writes that “the merit derived fromthe cult of the book is always expressed in terms of its comparative superiority to thatderived from the stupa/ relic cult,” the merit to be gained from sutra-oriented activitiesis only relatively rarely compared to the merit gained from stupa/relic veneration. In

on how books were actually worshipped. Earlier sutras seem, however, to be aware of two basic forms:worship in the home and worship in the context of preaching rituals. The As. t.a’s home protection passagequoted above, for example, makes explicit reference to home book worship and the passage from the As. t.a’sSadaprarudita story discussed in note 30 depicts Sadaprarudita and his companions venerating a copy ofthe Prajñaparamita owned by the dharmabhan. aka Dharmodgata before he preaches it. For two otherpassages that may constitute references to such rituals see Wogihara (1932-35, 468)/Conze (1973, 155)and Braarvig (1993, 120/463). Later texts sometimes contain more detailed descriptions of book-orientedrituals. See, e.g., Kurumiya (1978, 40-41) and de La Vallée Poussin (1898, 186, 227). A more careful studyof this matter is a desideratum.

Revisiting the cult of the book 135

the As. t.a this is done in only two of its many merit comparison passages.46 Other pas-sages state that more merit can be gained from sutra-related activities than the meritthat would be produced by all the beings in Jambudvıpa if they were all endowed withthe ten positive courses of action (karmapatha) (Wogihara 1932-35, 803-4/Conze1973, 242); the merit that would be produced by establishing all the beings in as manybillionfold world systems as there are grains of sand in the Ganges in the ten positivecourses of action (Wogihara 1932-35, 288-91/Conze 1973, 120-21); the merit thatwould be produced by establishing all the beings in as many billionfold world systemsas there are grains of sand in the Ganges in the four dhyanas, the four brahmaviharas,the four arupyasamapattis, and the five abhijñas (Wogihara 1932-35, 291-97/Conze1973, 121); the merit that would be produced by establishing all the beings in asmany billionfold world systems as there are grains of sand in the Ganges in stream-enterership, once-returnership, non-returnership, arhatship, or pratyekabuddhahood,or causing them to give rise to bodhicitta (Wogihara 1932-35, 300-18/Conze 1973,122); the merit that would be produced by giving gifts to stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas for as many kalpasas there are grains of sand in the Ganges (Wogihara 1932-35, 702-3/Conze 1973,210); and the merit that would be produced if all the beings in Jambudvıpa would be-come humans, give rise to bodhicitta, worship all Buddhas for their entire lives, givegifts to all beings, and dedicate those gifts to the attainment of unsurpassed, completeenlightenment (Wogihara 1932-35, 792-93/Conze 1973, 238). Similar comparisonscan be found throughout Mahayana sutra literature. It seems highly doubtful that anyof these passages represent attempts to compete with or discourage any of the prac-tices they mention. Rather, following the same basic pattern as the passages fromthe Sam. yutta Nikaya discussed above, these passages advocate sutra-oriented activi-ties in a dramatic manner by comparing them to fantastically described practices thatwould be understood by all to be vastly meritorious. When considered in light of thesepassages it is difficult to read Schopen’s passages as evidence of “confrontation” or“competition” with stupa worship. Rather, like giving rise to bodhicitta, causing oth-ers to do so, giving gifts to Buddhas and other beings, etc., stupa and relic worshipfigure in these passages merely as part of the background, as standard Buddhist orMahayana practices the legitimacy of which is accepted without question.47 Most

46These include the passage cited just above (Wogihara 1932-35, 208-12/Conze 1973, 105-6) and a pas-sage on Wogihara 1932-35, 217-31/Conze 1973, 107-8. The latter compares the merit to be gained frombuilding and honoring vast numbers of stupas to the merit to be gained from a variety of Prajñaparamita-oriented activities beside worship: hearing, memorizing, reciting, etc.47There are only two occurrences of the word stupa in the Sanskrit text of the As. t.a outsideof the two passages in which stupa worship is compared to book veneration. One is in the ti-tle of the third chapter, “Reverence to the stupa of the paramitas holding immeasurable virtues”(aprameyagun. adharan. aparamitastupasatkara). The other occurs in a passage which states that anyonewho keeps a written copy of the Prajñaparamita in his or her home will sleep pleasantly and not havenightmares. It then goes on to list a number of things that the person will dream about, including Tathagatasbecoming enlightened and setting forth the dharma, arhats, bodhisattvas, bodhi-trees, the paramitas, andstupas (Wogihara 1932-35, 261-62/Conze 1973, 114). The inclusion of stupas in this list of things that agood Buddhist should want to dream about, without any particular emphasis or comment, again indicatesfairly clearly that the As. t.a’s authors accepted the legitimacy of stupa worship without question. Schopenalso cites two other merit comparison passages, one from the Vimalakırtinirdesa and the other from the

136 D. Drewes

Mahayana sutras have little to say about stupa/relic worship, but when they do men-tion it they almost always either advocate it or depict it in a positive light. I am notaware of any that attempt to disparage it.48

Overall, it seems that the veneration of books played a less significant role in In-dian Mahayana than has been thought. Because it does not seem possible to takeSchopen’s caityabhuta passages and their variants as evidence for the existence ofbook shrines, and because there does not seem to be any other evidence for their ex-istence, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that such shrines simply never existed.Given that the material Schopen cites as evidence of competition between the vener-ation of books and the cult of relics and stupas seems not to reflect such competition,this competition also seems unlikely to have existed. In a recent article, Schopencomments on Akira Hirakawa’s theory of the origin of Mahayana:

There is surely so little in early Mahayana sutra literature that concerns stupasthat one must wonder how Hirakawa’s “theory” connecting the emergence of

Kasyapaparivarta, as evidence for competition between the cult of the book and the stupa/relic cult (1975a,169). Although these comparisons advocate other sutra-oriented activities, neither mentions worship. Inaddition, both passages, along with the merit to be gained from erecting stupas, simultaneously comparethe merit to be gained from sutra-oriented activities to the merit to be gained from other activities thatare clearly to be understood as meritorious: serving Buddhas, building monasteries, etc. See the originalpassages cited by Schopen and now also Vimalakırtinirdesa 2004, 470-74. As additional evidence for com-petition with the stupa/relic cult Schopen cites four passages from the As. t.a that attempt to “establish ondoctrinal grounds that the cult of relics was in fact an inferior form of the cult of the book” (1975a, 169).These passages assert that the Prajñaparamita is more valuable as an object of veneration than relics, butnevertheless assert that relics are worthy of veneration because they originate from or are pervaded by thePrajñaparamita. In what seems an obvious effort to avoid giving the impression of trying to discouragerelic worship, the author of the text has the god Sakra, the Buddha’s interlocutor, repeat four times inthe midst of these passages “I do not, however, Bhagavan, have a lack of reverence for the relics of theTathagata. I have only reverence [gauravam eva me/mama], Bhagavan, for the relics of the Tathagata”(Wogihara 1932-35, 270, 273, 278, my trans.; cf. Conze 1973, 116-18).48Several other scholars have made similar observations. Paul Harrison comments that the Mahayanasutras translated by Lokaks.ema provide evidence for the practice of relic worship (1993, 175). As we havealready seen, he elsewhere comments that in his view “Schopen over-emphasizes the negative attitudedisplayed by Mahayana sutras toward stupa worship” (note 4). Peter Skilling comments that Mahayanatexts envision the veneration of stupas and relics, along with the veneration of living Buddhas, as “an in-tegral part of the Bodhisattva path” (2005, 286). David Snellgrove argues that “no traditional Buddhist ofany School appears to have discounted the importance of relics” and states that even in Prajñaparamitasutras “relics may even be regarded as the most prized things after the Perfection of Wisdom itself” (Snell-grove 1987, 38). For some references to positive depictions of stupas in Mahayana sutras, see Skilling(2005, 286-87) and Schopen (2005c, 110-13). To add just two more of a very large number of passagesthat could be cited, in the Karun. apun. d. arıka Sutra the Buddha states that anyone who worships his relicsafter his parinirvan. a will become an irreversible bodhisattva (Yamada 1968, 262) and in the Vinayavinis-cayopaliparipr

�ccha Sutra the Buddha includes transgression of a stupa (stupapatti) in a list of activities for

which a bodhisattva should perform repentance (Python 1973, 31-32/97-98). A sutra in which the Buddhacriticizes monastics/bodhisattvas for excessive devotion to stupas and relics, but also explicitly states thatstupa and relic worship produces good roots (*kusalamula) and can lead to heavenly rebirth, is discussed inSchopen (1999). To the best of my knowledge, this is as close as any Mahayana sutra comes to expressinga negative attitude toward stupas. A similar case is the Bhadrakalpika Sutra, in which the Buddha in onepassage criticizes monks who attach excessive value to acts of worship and says that the dharma is moreworthy of worship than the Buddha’s body (The fortunate aeon 1986, 1:70/71). Later in the text, however,he goes on to directly advocate stupa and relic worship (1:344/45, 1:476/77) and to give an account of thestupas and relics associated with each of the 1,004 Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa (vols. 2-4).

Revisiting the cult of the book 137

the Mahayana with the stupa cult could have arisen at all. It could not, it seems,have arisen on the basis of what is actually found in early Mahayana sutra lit-erature alone. Nor, it seems, could it have arisen from a consideration of theearlier or even the contemporary archaeological or epigraphical records. Themost likely source for this description of the early Mahayana would thereforeappear to have been its author’s preconceived ideal or vision of the early Bud-dhist monk and his religious behavior. Unless Hirakawa was already thoroughlyconvinced that—in spite of the evidence—the early Buddhist monk did not pro-mote and participate in the stupa cult, how could he have made so much of whatlittle he found in Mahayana sutra literature (2005c, 112-13)?

These comments, along with others that Schopen makes in the same article, are aninsightful response to Hirakawa’s theory. Ironically, however, given that the amountof material on book shrines and the competition between the book and stupa cults issurely far less than the amount of material on stupas—finally there seems to be noneat all—these remarks, mutatis mutandis, apply doubly to Schopen himself.

Putting book shrines and the cult of stupas and relics aside, it is in fact not clear thatsutra worship was especially important for the Mahayana at all. Although Mahayanasutras commonly advocate the veneration of written sutras, they typically depictit as less significant than other sutra-oriented practices. In a passage in the largerSukhavatıvyuha Sutra, for instance, the Buddha advocates memorizing Mahayanasutras, retaining them in memory, reciting them, etc., and then says that even if peo-ple “merely copy and worship them” (antasas likhitva pujayis. yanti) they will makemuch merit (Ashikaga 1965, 63-64; cf. Gómez 1996, 108-9). Similar passages arecommon.49 In addition, the archaeological evidence discussed above makes it clearthat non-Mahayana textual material was venerated from at least the first half of thesecond century, roughly four decades prior to what is currently the oldest securelydatable textual evidence we have for the Mahayana, Lokaks.ema’s Chinese transla-tions of the As. t.a and Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhavasthitasamadhi Sutra of 179CE, and roughly fourteen years prior to the oldest datable evidence we have for theMahayana of any sort, the Govindnagar Amitabha image pedestal, inscribed with adate of Kanis.ka era 26.50 The practice of venerating written texts was thus certainlynot peculiar to the Mahayana and it seems quite doubtful that it was even originalto it.

49See, e.g., Wogihara (1932-35, 250-51, 263-65, 468-69)/Conze (1973, 112, 114-15, 155); Wogihara(1932-35, 220, 221, 223, 224-26, 227, 229, 230; these passages are elided from Conze’s translation);Wogihara and Tsuchida (1935, 290)/Kern (1884, 326); Fronsdal (1998, 192).50On this pedestal see, e.g., Schopen (1987). It is possible that this pedestal and/or Lokaks.ema’s textsmay be eclipsed. The Bajaur Collection of mostly Gandharı manuscripts, recently discovered in a cell in amonastery in the Bajaur Agency in Pakistan, seems to date from the second, or perhaps even first, centuryand contains a Mahayana sutra related to the Aks. obhyavyuha. Forthcoming radiocarbon dating may makeit possible to date this collection more precisely (Strauch 2007). I am grateful to Richard Salomon for thisreference.

138 D. Drewes

References

Allon, M., Salomon, R., Jacobsen, G., & Zoppi, U. (2006). Radiocarbon dating of Kharos.t.hı fragmentsfrom the Schøyen and Senior manuscript collections. In Braarvig 2000-2006, 3:279-291.

Aryaratnameghanamamahayanasutra. (2003). In bKa’ ’gyur sDe dge par ma, 103 vols. in PDF and TIFFfiles on hard drive (pp. 949:2-224/mDo sde, wa:1b-112b). New York: Tibetan Buddhist ResourceCenter.

Ashikaga, A. (Ed.). (1965). Sukhavatıvyuha. Kyoto: Librairie Hozokan.Bareau, A. (1966). Le Bouddhisme indien. In Les religions de l’Inde III: Bouddhisme, Jaïnisme, religions

archaïques (pp. 1–246). Paris: Payot.Bautze-Picron, C. (1998). The art of Eastern India in the collection of the Museum für Indische Kunst,

Berlin: Stone and terracotta sculptures. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Beal, S. (trans.). (1884). Si-yu-ki: Buddhist records of the western world. 2 vols. Repr., Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass, 1994.Bentor, Y. (1995). On the Indian origins of the Tibetan practice of depositing relics and dhâran. îs in stûpas

and images. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115(2), 248–261.Bhattacharya, D. M. (Ed.). (1939). Ajitasenavyakaran. am. In Dutt 1939-59, 1:101–136.Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans.). (2000). The connected discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Sam. yutta

nikaya. Boston: Wisdom.Bongard-Levin, G. M. (Ed.). (1975-76). New Sanskrit and Prakrit texts from Central Asia. Indologica

Taurinensia, 3/4, 73–80.Boucher, D. (1991). The pratıtyasamutpadagatha and its role in the medieval cult of the relics. Journal of

the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 14(1), 1–27.Braarvig, J. (Ed. and trans.). (1993). Aks. ayamatinirdesasutra: The tradition of imperishability in Buddhist

thought. 2 vols. Oslo: Solum.Braarvig, J. (Ed. and trans.). (1994). The practice of the bodhisattvas: Negative dialectics and provoca-

tive arguments; Edition of the Tibetan text of the Bodhisattvacaryanirdesa with a translation andintroduction. Acta Orientalia, 55, 113–160.

Braarvig, J. (Ed.). (2000-2006). Buddhist manuscripts. 3 vols. Oslo: Hermes.Bühler, G. (Ed.). (1894). The Bhattiprolu inscriptions. Epigraphia Indica, 2, 323–329.Byrne, D. (1995). Buddhist stupa and Thai social practice. World Archaeology, 27(2), 266–281.Chakravarti, N. P. (Ed.). (1931-32). Two brick inscriptions from Nalanda. Epigraphia Indica, 21, 193–199.Chandra, G. C., & Dikshit, K. N. (1936). Excavations at Paharpur. Annual Reports of the Archaeological

Survey of India, 113–128.Conze, E. (1951). Buddhism: Its essence and development. New York: Philosophical Library.Conze, E. (Ed. and trans.). (1957). Vajracchedika Prajñaparamita. 2nd ed., with corrections and additions,

Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1974.Conze, E. (trans.). (1958). As. t.asahasrika Prajñaparamita. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.Conze, E. (trans.). (1973). The perfection of wisdom in eight thousand lines and its verse summary. Repr.,

San Francisco: Four Seasons Foundation, 1990.Conze, E. (trans.). (1975). The large sutra on perfect wisdom with the divisions of the Abhisamayalankara.

Repr., Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984.Dantinne, J. (1991). Les qualités de l’ascete (dhutagun. a): Étude sémantique et doctrinale. Brussels:

Thanh-Long.de La Vallée Poussin, L. (1898). Bouddhisme: Études et matériaux. London.De Silva, L. (1991). The paritta ceremony of Sri Lanka. In D. Kalupahana (Ed.), Buddhist thought and

ritual (pp. 139–150). New York: Paragon House.Dikshit, K. N. (1938). Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India

55. Delhi: Manager of Publications.Drewes, D. (2003). Oral texts in Indian Mahayana. Paper presented at the 32nd annual conference on South

Asia, Madison, Wisconsin, October 24–26.Durt, H. (2003). The pregnancy of Maya: II. Maya as healer. Journal of the International College for

Advanced Buddhist Studies, 6, 43–62.Dutt, N. (1930). Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its relation to Hınayana. London: Luzac.Dutt, N. (Ed.). (1939-59). Gilgit manuscripts. 4 vols. Repr., Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1984.Dutt, N. (Ed.). (1941-54). Samadhiraja-sutra. Vol. 2 of Dutt 1939-59.Edgerton, F. (1953). Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary. 2 vols. Repr., Delhi: Motilal Ba-

narsidass, 1993.

Revisiting the cult of the book 139

Eliot, C. (1921). Hinduism and Buddhism: An historical sketch. 3 vols. London: Edward Arnold.Evans-Wentz, W. Y. (1947). Foreword to The diamond sutra; or, The jewel of transcendental wisdom, trans.

A. F. Price (pp. 11–20). 2nd ed., London: The Buddhist Society, 1955.Falk, H. (Ed.). (1997). Die Goldblätter aus Srı Ks.etra. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 41,

53–92.Fausbøll, V. (Ed.). (1877-96). The Jataka together with its commentary, being tales of the anterior births

of Gotama Buddha. 6 vols. Repr., London: Luzac, 1962-64.Feer, L. (Ed.). (1884-98). The Sam. yutta-nikâya of the Sutta-pit.aka. 5 vols. Repr., London: Pali Text Society,

1970-76.The fortunate aeon: How the thousand Buddhas become enlightened. (1986). Ed. and trans. Dharma Pub-

lishing Staff. 4 vols. Berkeley: Dharma Publishing.Fronsdal, E. (1998). The dawn of the bodhisattva path: Studies in a religious ideal of ancient Indian Bud-

dhists with particular emphasis on the earliest extant Perfection of Wisdom sutra. PhD diss., StanfordUniv.

Frumkin, G. (1970). Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Fussman, G. (2004). Dans quel type de bâtiment furent trouvés les manuscrits de Gilgit? Journal Asiatique,

292(1/2), 101–150.Ghosh, A. (Ed.). (1937-38). An inscribed brick from Nalanda of the year 197. Epigraphia Indica, 24,

20–22.Ghosh, A. (Ed.). (1941). A Buddhist tract in a stone inscription in the Cuttack museum. Epigraphia Indica,

26, 171–174.Gnoli, R. (Ed.). (1978). The Gilgit manuscript of the Sayanasanavastu and the Adhikaran. avastu: Being the

15th and 16th sections of the Vinaya of the Mulasarvastivadin. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medioed Estremo Oriente.

Gombrich, R. (1988). How the Mahayana began. Repr. in T. Skorupski (Ed.), The Buddhist forum (vol. 1,pp. 21–30). London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990.

Gómez, L. O. (trans.). (1996). The land of bliss: The paradise of the Buddha of measureless light; Sanskritand Chinese versions of the Sukhavatıvyuha sutras. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press.

Harrison, P. (Ed.). (1978). Pratyutpannna-buddha-sam. mukhavasthita-samadhi-sutra. Tokyo: TheReiyukai Library.

Harrison, P. (trans.). (1990). The samadhi of direct encounter with the Buddhas of the present: An an-notated English translation of the Tibetan version of the Pratyutpanna-buddha-sam. mukhavasthita-samadhi-sutra. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

Harrison, P. (1992a). Commemoration and identification in buddhanusmr�

ti. In J. Gyatso (Ed.), In the mir-ror of memory: Reflections on mindfulness and remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism (pp.215–238). Albany: SUNY.

Harrison, P. (Ed.). (1992b). Druma-kinnara-raja-paripr�

ccha-sutra: A critical edition of the Tibetan text(Recension A) based on eight editions of the Kanjur and the Dunhuang manuscript fragment. Tokyo:International Institute for Buddhist Studies.

Harrison, P. (1993). The earliest Chinese translations of Mahayana Buddhist sutras: Some notes on theworks of Lokaks.ema. Buddhist Studies Review, 10(2), 135–178.

Harrison, P. (1995). Searching for the origins of Mahayana: What are we looking for? Eastern Buddhist,28(1), 48–69.

Harrison, P. (trans.). (2006). Vajracchedika Prajñaparamita: A new English translation of the Sanskrit textbased on two manuscripts from Greater Gandhara. In Braavig 2000-2006, 3:133–159.

Harrison, P., & Hartmann, J.-U. (Eds.). (2000). Ajatasatrukaukr�

tyavinodanasutra. In Braavig 2000-2006,2:167–216.

Hirakawa, A. (1963). The rise of Mahayana Buddhism and its relationship to the worship of stupas. Mem-oirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 22, 57–106.

Hoernle, A. F. R. (Ed. and trans.). (1893-1912). The Bower manuscript: Facsimile leaves, Nagari tran-script, romanised transliteration and English translation with notes. 3 vols. Repr., New Delhi:Sharada Rani, 1983.

Hoernle, A. F. R. (Ed.). (1916). Manuscript remains of Buddhist literature found in East Turkestan. Repr.,Delhi: Sri Satguru, 1988.

Holt, J. C. (1991). Buddha in the crown: Avalokitesvara in the Buddhist traditions of Sri Lanka. New York:Oxford Univ. Press.

Horner, I. B. (trans.). (1963-64). Milinda’s questions. 2 vols. Repr., Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1996-99.Jaini, P.S. (Ed. and trans.). (1992). Akaravattarasutta: An “apocryphal” sutta from Thailand. Indo-Iranian

Journal, 35(2/3), 193–223.

140 D. Drewes

Jayasuriya, M. H. F. (Ed. and trans.). (1988). The Jetavanarama gold plates: Being a fragmentary SriLankan recension of the Pañcavim. satisahasrika Prajñaparamita sutra. [Kelaniya?]: Univ. of Ke-laniya.

Jayawickrama, N. A. (trans.). (1990). The story of Gotama Buddha: The Nidana-katha of theJatakat.t.hakatha. Repr., Oxford: Pali Text Society, 2002.

Jettmar, K. (1981). The Gilgit manuscripts: Discovery by installments. Journal of Central Asia, 4(2), 1–18.Jettmar, K. (1990). The Gilgit manuscripts and the political history of Gilgit. Pakistan Archaeology, 25,

305–314.Jettmar, K. (1993). The Pat.olas, their governors and their successors. In Antiquities of Northern Pakistan

(vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Johnston, E. H. (Ed.). (1938). The Gopalpur bricks. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain

and Ireland, 547–553.Jones, J. J. (trans.). (1949-56). The Mahavastu. 3 vols. Repr., London: Pali Text Society, 1976-87.Kern, H. (trans.). (1884). The Saddharma-pun. d. arıka; or, The lotus of the true law. Repr., Delhi: Sri Sat-

guru, 2002.Kimura, T. (Ed.). (1986-92). Pañcavim. satisahasrika Prajñaparamita. 3 vols. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin.Kinnard, J. N. (1999). Imaging wisdom: Seeing and knowing in the art of Indian Buddhism. Curzon:

Richmond.Kinnard, J. N. (2002). On Buddhist “bibliolaters”: Representing and worshipping the book in medieval

Indian Buddhism. Eastern Buddhist, 34(2), 94–116.Konow, S. (1929). Remarks on a Kharos.t.hı inscription from the Kurram Valley. In Indian studies in honor

of Charles Rockwell Lanman (pp. 53–67). Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Kurumiya, Y. (Ed.). (1978). Ratnaketuparivarta: Sanskrit text. Kyoto: Heirakuji-Shoten.Lalou, M. (1956). Hold or retain? East and West, 7(1), 328–329.Lamotte, É. (1944-80). Le Traité de la grande vertu de sagesse. 5 vols. Louvain: Université de Louvain,

Institut orientaliste.Lamotte, É. (1954). Sur la formation du Mahayana. In J. Schubert & U. Schneider (Eds.), Asiatica:

Festschrift Friedrich Weller (pp. 377–396). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Lamotte, É. (trans.). (1976). The teaching of Vimalakırti (Vimalakırtinirdesa) (trans. S. Boin). Repr., Ox-

ford: Pali Text Society, 1994.Lefmann, S. (Ed.). (1902-8). Lalita Vistara: Leben und Lehre des Çâkya-Buddha. 2 vols. Halle, Saxony-

Anhalt: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Lerner, M. (1984). The flame and the lotus: Indian and Southeast Asian art from the Kronos collections.

New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.Lévi, S. (1932). Note sur des manuscrits sanscrits provenant de Bamiyan (Afghanistan), et de Gilgit (Ca-

chemire). Journal Asiatique, 220, 1–45.Losty, J. P. (1982). The art of the book in India. London: British Library.Malalasekera, G. P. (1937-38). Dictionary of Pali proper names. 2 vols. Repr., Delhi: Munshiram Manohar-

lal, 2002.Matsumura, H. (1985). The stupa worship in ancient Gilgit. Journal of Central Asia, 8(2), 133–151.Mehta, R. N., & Chowdhary, S. N. (1966). Excavation at Devnimori: A report of the excavation conducted

from 1960 to 1963. Baroda: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Faculty of Arts, M.S.Univ. of Baroda.

Melzer, G. (2006). A copper scroll inscription from the time of the Alchon Huns. In Braarvig 2000-2006,3:251-278.

Michell, G. (1977). The Hindu temple: An introduction to its meaning and forms. New York: Harper andRow.

Mitra, D. (1971). Buddhist monuments. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 80. Repr., Calcutta:Sahitya Samsad, 1980.

Mitra, D. (1981). Ratnagiri (1958-61), vol. 1. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.Mitra, R. (Ed.). (1887). Asht.asáhasriká Prajn

¯ápáramitá: A collection of discourses on the metaphysics of

the Maháyána school of the Buddhists. Calcutta.Monier-Williams, M. (Ed.). (1889). Buddhism: In its connexion with Brahmanism and Hinduism and in its

contrast with Christianity. London.Morris, R., & Hardy, E. (Eds.). (1885-1900). The Anguttara-nikâya. 5 vols. Repr., vol. 1 revised, London:

Pali Text Society, 1955-61.Mudiyanse, N. (1967). Mahayana monuments in Ceylon. Colombo: M.D. Gunasena.Ñan. amoli, Bhikkhu (trans.). (1975). The path of purification (Visuddhimagga). By Buddhaghosa. Repr.,

Seattle: BPS Pariyatti Editions, 1999.

Revisiting the cult of the book 141

Ñan. amoli, Bhikkhu, & Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans.). (1995). The middle length discourses of the Buddha: Anew translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom.

Nance, R. (2005). The dharmabhan. aka inside and outside the sutras. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Academy of Religion, Philadelphia, November 19–22.

Nattier, J. (2003). A few good men: The bodhisattva path according to the inquiry of Ugra(Ugraparipr

�ccha). Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press.

O’Connor, S. J. (1966). Ritual deposit boxes in Southeast Asian sanctuaries. Artibus Asiae, 28(1), 53–60.Paranavitana, S. (Ed.). (1933). Indikat.usäya copper plaques. In Epigraphia zeylanica: Being lithic and

other inscriptions of Ceylon (vol. 3, pp. 199–212). London: Humphrey Milford.Paranavitane, S. (1928). Mahayanism in Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science, Section G, Archaeology, Eth-

nology, etc., 2(1), 35–71 and plates.Pargiter, F. E. (Ed.). (1910-11). The Kasia copper-plate. Archaeological Survey of India Annual Report,

73–77.Python, P. (Ed. and trans.). (1973). Vinaya-viniscaya-upali-paripr

�ccha: Enquête d’Upali pour une exégèse

de la discipline. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Ratnayaka, H., Sirisoma, M. H., & Heenpella, S. (1983). Jetavanarama gold plates. [Colombo?]: Central

Cultural Fund, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Sri Lanka.Ray, R. A. (1994). Buddhist saints in India: A study in Buddhist values and orientations. New York: Oxford

Univ. Press.Renou, L., & Filliozat, J. (1947-53). L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes. 2 vols. Paris: Payot

(Vol. 1), Imprimerie nationale (Vol. 2).Rhys Davids, T. W., & Carpenter, J. E. (Eds.). (1890-1911). The Digha nikaya. 3 vols. Repr., with correc-

tions to vol. 3, London: Luzac, 1995-2006.Salomon, R. (1999). Ancient Buddhist scrolls from Gandhara: The British Library Kharos. t.hı fragments.

Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press.Salomon, R. (2003). The Senior manuscripts: Another collection of Gandharan Buddhist scrolls. Journal

of the American Oriental Society, 123(1), 73–92.Sander, L. (1987). Origin and date of the Bower manuscript, a new approach. In M. Yaldiz & W. Lobo

(Eds.), Investigating Indian art (pp. 313–323). Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst.Sarkar, H. (1966). Studies in early Buddhist architecture of India, 2nd ed., New Delhi: Munshiram

Manoharlal, 1993.Sarma, I. K. (1988). Studies in early Buddhist monuments and Brahmı inscriptions of Andhradesa. Nagpur:

Dattsons.Sastrı, H. (1910-11). Excavations at Kasia. Archaeological Survey of India annual report, 63–72.Schopen, G. (1975a). The phrase “sa pr

�thivıpradesas caityabhuto bhavet” in the Vajracchedika: Notes on

the cult of the book in Mahayana. Indo-Iranian Journal, 17(3/4), 147–181.Schopen, G. (1975b). Three studies in non-tantric Buddhist cult forms. Master’s Thesis, McMaster Univ.Schopen, G. (1977). Review of The large sutra on perfect wisdom with the divisions of the Ab-

hisamayalankara, trans. E. Conze. Indo-Iranian Journal, 19(1/2), 135–153.Schopen, G. (1982). The text on the “dharan. ı stones from Abhayagiriya”: A minor contribution to the

study of Mahayana literature in Ceylon. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies,5(1), 100–108.

Schopen, G. (1985). The Bodhigarbhalankaralaks.a and Vimalos.n. ıs.a dharan. ıs in Indian inscriptions: Twosources for the practice of Buddhism in medieval India. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens,29, 119–149.

Schopen, G. (1987). The inscription on the Kus.an image of Amitabha and the character of early Mahayanain India. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 10(2), 99–134 and plates.

Schopen, G. (1999). The bones of a Buddha and the business of a monk: Conservative monastic values inan early Mahayana polemical tract. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 27, 279–324.

Schopen, G. (trans.) (2000a). Hierarchy and housing in a Buddhist monastic code: A translation of theSanskrit text of the Sayanasanavastu of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya—Part one. Buddhist Literature,2, 92–196.

Schopen, G. (2000b). The Mahayana and the middle period in Indian Buddhism: Through a Chineselooking-glass. Eastern Buddhist, 32(2), 1–25.

Schopen, G. (2003). Mahayana. In R. Buswell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2 vols., s.v. New York:Macmillan.

Schopen, G. (2005a). Figments and fragments of Mahayana Buddhism in India: More collected papers.Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press.

142 D. Drewes

Schopen, G. (2005b). A note on the “technology of prayer” and a reference to a “revolving bookcase” inan eleventh-century Indian inscription. In Schopen 2005a, pp. 345–349.

Schopen, G. (2005c). On sending the monks back to their books: Cult and conservatism in early MahayanaBuddhism. In Schopen 2005a, pp. 108–153.

Senart, É. (Ed.). (1882-97). Le Mahavastu. 3 vols. Repr., Tokyo: Meicho Fukyukai, 1977.Shastri, M. S. K. (1939). Report on the Gilgit excavation in 1938. Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society,

30(1), 1–12 and plates.Silk, J. A. (1994). The origins and early history of the Maharatnakut.a tradition of Mahayana Buddhism

with a study of the Ratnarasisutra and related materials. 2 vols. PhD diss., Univ. of Michigan.Silk, J. A. (1997). The composition of the Guan wuliangshoufo-jing: Some Buddhist and Jaina parallels to

its narrative frame. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 25(2), 181–256.Silk, J. A. (2003). Dressed for success: The monk Kasyapa and strategies of legitimation in earlier

Mahayana Buddhist scriptures. Journal Asiatique, 291(1/2), 173–219.Skilling, P. (1992). The raks.a literature of the Sravakayana. Journal of the Pali Text Society, 16, 109–182.Skilling, P. (2002). Some citation inscriptions from South-east Asia. Journal of the Pali Text Society, 27,

159–175.Skilling, P. (2005). Cutting across categories: The ideology of relics in Buddhism. Annual Report of the

International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, 8, 269–322.Smith, V. A. (1904). Deposit of sutras in stupas. Indian Antiquary, 33, 175–176.Smith, V. A., & Hoey, W. (1896). Buddhist sutras inscribed on bricks found at Gopalpur in the Gorakhpur

district. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 99–103.Snellgrove, D. (1987). Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and their Tibetan successors. Repr.,

Boston: Shambhala, 2002.Stargardt, J. (1995). The oldest known Pali texts, 5th-6th century; Results of the Cambridge symposium

on the Pyu golden Pali text from Srı Ks.etra, 18–19 April 1995. Journal of the Pali Text Society, 21,199–213.

Stargardt, J. (2000). Tracing thought through things: The oldest Pali texts and the early Buddhist archae-ology of India and Burma. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Stein, A. (1931). Archaeological discoveries in the Hindukush. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society ofGreat Britain and Ireland, 863–865.

Strauch, I. (2007). The Bajaur Collection: A new collection of Kharos.t.hı manuscripts; a preliminarycatalogue and survey. Bajaur Collection website, Freie Universität Berlin. http://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/indologie/bajaur/publication/strauch_2007_1_0.pdf (accessed November 10, 2007).

Suzuki, D. T., & Idzumi, H. (Eds.). (1934-36). The Gan. d. avyuha sutra. Rev. ed., Tokyo: Society for thePublication of Sacred Books of the World, 1949.

Sykes, W. H. (1856). On the miniature chaityas and inscriptions of the Buddhist religious dogma, found inthe ruins of the temple of Sárnáth, near Benares. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britainand Ireland, 16, 37–53.

Taddei, M. (1970). Inscribed clay tablets and miniature stupas from Gaznı. East and West, 20(1/2), 70–86.Thomas, E. J. (1933). The history of Buddhist thought. Repr., New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1997.Trenckner, V. (Ed.). (1880). The Milindapañho. Repr., Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1997.Trenckner, V., & Chalmers, R. (Eds.). (1888-99). The Majjhima-nikaya. 3 vols. Repr., with corrections to

vol. 2, London: Luzac, 1994-2004.Tsukamoto, K. (Ed.). (1996-2003). A comprehensive study of the Indian Buddhist inscriptions. 3 vols.

Kyoto: Heirakuji-Shoten.Vetter, T. (1994). On the origin of Mahayana Buddhism and the subsequent introduction of

Prajñaparamita. Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques, 48(4), 1241–1281.Vimalakırtinirdesa: Transliterated Sanskrit text collated with Tibetan and Chinese translations. (2004). Ed.

Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, The Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism,Taisho University. Tokyo: Taisho University Press.

von Hinüber, O. (1981). Namen in Schutzzaubern aus Gilgit. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, 7, 163–171.

von Hinüber, O. (1983a). Die Bedeutung des Handschriftenfundes bei Gilgit. In F. Steppat (Ed.), XXI.Deutscher Orientalistentag: vom 24. bis 29. März 1980 in Berlin; Vorträge (pp. 47–66). Wiesbaden:Franz Steiner.

von Hinüber, O. (Ed.). (1983b). Sieben Goldblätter einer Pañcavim. satisahasrika Prajñaparamita ausAnuradhapura. Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. I. Philologisch-historische Klasse, 7, 189–207.

Revisiting the cult of the book 143

von Hinüber, O. (1985). Epigraphical varieties of continental Pali from Devnimori and Ratnagiri. In Bud-dhism and its relation to other religions: Essays in honour of Dr. Shozen Kumoi on his seventiethbirthday (pp. 185–200). Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten.

von Hinüber, O. (1988). Buddhism in Gilgit between India and Central Asia. In P. Gaeffke & D. A. Utz(Eds.), The countries of South Asia: Boundaries, extensions, and interrelations (pp. 40–48). Philadel-phia: Department of South Asia Regional Studies, Univ. of Pennsylvania.

von Hinüber, O. (2004). Die Palola S. ahis: Ihre Steininschriften, Inschriften auf Bronzen, Hand-schriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber; Materialien zur Geschichte von Gilgit und Chilas. Vol. 5 ofAntiquities of Northern Pakistan. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.

Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M. I. (1979). Nakhodki sanskritskikh rukopisey pis’mom brakhmi na terri-torii sovetskiy Sredney Azii. In G. Bongard-Levin, P. Grintser, T. Elizarenkova, G. Zograph, I. Sere-bryakov, E. Tyomkin, & E. Tshelyshev (Eds.), Sanscrit i drevneindiyskaya kul’tura (pp. 123–133).Moscow: Nauka.

Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M. I. (1983). Pamyatniki pis’mom kkharoshtkhi i brakhmi iz sovetskoy Sred-ney Azii. In G. M. Bongard-Levin, B. G. Gafurov, S. G. Klyashtornyy, E. I. Kychanov, V. G. Lukonin,& A. P. Okladnikov (Eds.), Istoriya i kul’tura Tsentral’noy Azii (pp. 22–96). Moscow: Nauka.

Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M. I. (Ed. and trans.). (1999). A Sanskrit manuscript on birch-bark fromBairam-Ali: I. The Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins, part 1. Manuscripta Orientalia, 5(2), 27–36.

Waddell, L. A. (1912-13). The “dharan. ı” cult in Buddhism, its origin, deified literature and images. Os-tasiatische Zeitschrift, 1, 155–195.

Walshe, M. (trans.). (1987). Thus have I heard: The long discourses of the Buddha. London: Wisdom.Warren, H. C., & Kosambi, D. (Eds.). (1950). Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosacariya. Cambridge: Harvard

Univ. Press.Williams, P. (1989). Mahayana Buddhism: The doctrinal foundations. Repr., London: Routledge, 2005.Willis, M. (2000). Buddhist reliquaries from ancient India. London: British Museum Press.Winternitz, M. (1927). A history of Indian literature (trans. S. Ketkar & H. Kohn), 2 vols. Repr., New

Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp., 1977.Wogihara, U. (Ed.). (1932-35). Abhisamayalam. kar’aloka Prajñaparamitavyakhya (commentary on

As. t.asahasrika-Prajñaparamita): The work of Haribhadra together with the text commented on.Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko.

Wogihara, U., & Tsuchida, C. (Eds.). (1935). Saddharmapun. d. arıka-sutram: Romanized and revised text ofthe Bibliotheca Buddhica publication by consulting a Skt. ms. and Tibetan and Chinese translations.Repr., Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1958.

Woodward, F. L., & Hare, E. M. (trans.). (1932-36). The book of the gradual sayings (Anguttara-nikaya);or, more-numbered suttas. 5 vols. Repr., Oxford: Pali Text Society, 2000-2003.

Yamada, I. (Ed.). (1968). Karun. apun. d. arıka. 2 vols. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.