Early Mahayana (Buddhism)

Introduction
In recent decades the study of early Mahayana has witnessed significant upheaval. Western scholars have abandoned the old theories that the Mahayana originated from a lay reaction to the arhat ideal or from the Mahāsāṃghika nikāka and advanced a range of new ideas. Gregory Schopen suggested in 1975 that the Mahayana developed with the creation of special shrines dedicated to the worship of Mahayana sutras. Following Schopen, other scholars have argued that the shift from oral to written textuality enabled or influenced the development of the Mahayana in various ways. In place of the lay origin theory, most scholars now believe the exact opposite, that forest-dwelling or ascetic monks were the Mahayana’s primary agents. Several scholars in recent years have shifted attention away from Sanskrit versions of Mahayana sutras to early Chinese translations, which often preserve more primitive forms of these texts. A 1st-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript and a 1st- or 2nd-century manuscript of a previously unknown Mahayana sutra have recently been discovered that promise to shed new light on early Mahayana, the former manuscript now being the oldest datable evidence for Mahayana that we possess.

General Overviews
General overviews of early Mahayana can be found in nearly every world religions textbook and introductory text on Buddhism, but most have no merit, typically being based on scholarship that is more than fifty years old. Schopen 2003 presents the perspective of one of the most influential scholars in the field, though most of his views have been contested in recent years. Williams 2008 is a revised version of the most commonly used textbook on Mahayana. Its section on early Mahayana is good in many ways, but falls heavily under the sway of the theory that forest ascetics played a central role in early Mahayana (see Forest/Ascetic Monks). Drewes 2010 surveys the main issues in current scholarship and provides a general overview of the movement. All three publications are suitable for graduate and advanced undergraduate students.

Drewes, David. “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism.” 2 parts. Religion Compass 4.2 (2010): 55–65, 66–74.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Surveys and evaluates recent Western scholarship on early Mahayana and presents a broad new overview of the movement.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “Mahāyāna.” In Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Edited by Robert E. Buswell Jr., 492–499. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan, 2003.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Interesting presentation of the views of an influential scholar in the field.

Find this resource:


Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. 2d ed. London: Routledge, 2008.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Revised version of the standard textbook on Mahayana originally published in 1989.

Find this resource:


Bibliographies
Though each of the following publications is out of date, Pfandt 1986 contains ample references to Mahayana sutras translated into Western languages. Conze and Lancaster 1982 has a section with bibliography on Mahayana sutras in Asian and Western languages. Nakamura 1996 provides a good bibliography on early Mahayana, editions of Mahayana texts, and translations up to about 1980.

Conze, Edward, and Lewis R. Lancaster. Buddhist Scriptures: A Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1982.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contains a good bibliography on Mahayana sutras on pp. 43–78.

Find this resource:


Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1980. Though few of the perspectives presented in the author’s survey would be accepted today, the notes for chapter 4 contain a substantial bibliography on Mahayana sutras and early Mahayana.

Find this resource:


Pfandt, Peter. Mahāyāna Texts Translated into Western Languages: A Bibliographical Guide. Rev. ed. with supplement. Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1986.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Very good bibliography of full and partial Western language translations of Mahayana texts. Also contains a good bibliography of other bibliographies on the subject.

Find this resource:


Early Scholarship
The development of scholarship on early Mahayana proceeded slowly and often on tenuous evidentiary grounds. Several perspectives that developed in the first few decades of the study of early Mahayana nevertheless exerted an influence on later work that significantly outweighed their merit. Burnouf 2010 was the first to argue that the Mahayana was a distinct “school” of Buddhism. The author was also the first to draw a distinction between Mahayana sutras and what he called “simple sutras,” arguing that the former were composed later. Vassilief 1865 surveyed Tibetan translations of many Mahayana sutras and suggested for the first time that Mahayana allowed for increased lay involvement, an idea that played a key role in the development of the lay origin theory (see Lay Origin Theory). Rhys Davids 1881 was the first to suggest that the Mahayana resulted from the emergence of a spirit of altruism, which led Buddhists to reject the arhat ideal in favor of that of the bodhisattva. This problematic view immediately became highly influential and remains so to this day.

Burnouf, Eugène. Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism. Translated by Katia Buffetrille and Donald S. Lopez Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in French in 1844. First publication to distinguish between Mahayana and non-Mahayana sutras, and the first to suggest that Mahayana constituted a distinct “school” of Buddhism.

Find this resource:


Rhys Davids, T. W. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by Some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism. London: Williams and Norgate, 1881.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Though most of the work deals with other topics, Appendix XI, “The Key-note of the ‘Great Vehicle,’” for the first time identifies the Mahayana’s core impulse as the altruistic desire to save all beings, a problematic idea that remains widely current.

Find this resource:


Vassilief, V. Le Bouddisme, ses dogmes, son histoire et sa littérature. Translated by G. A. La Comme. Paris: A. Durand, 1865.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in Russian in 1857. An influential, though now largely forgotten, study of Indian Buddhism with a long chapter on the Mahayana. Author presents brief summaries of many Mahayana sutras on the basis of Tibetan translations. First publication to associate the Mahayana with increased lay participation.

Find this resource:


The Lay Origin Theory
Przyluski 1934 contains a good presentation of the original formulation of the lay origin theory developed by the author. Essentially combining the idea that the Mahayana allowed increased lay participation and the idea that it began as an altruistic reaction to the arhat ideal (see Early Scholarship), he argued that the arhat ideal was specific to Buddhist monasticism and that the compassionate reaction against it came specifically from the laity. Though the author did not cite any actual evidence in support of his theory it became dominant in Western scholarship for more than the next half-century. Lamotte 1954, Lamotte 1984, and Conze 1967 contain versions of Przyluski’s theory presented by two leading 20th-century scholars. Przyluski’s theory is often incorrectly attributed to Lamotte in scholarship. Hirakawa 1963 and Hirakawa 1990 present the author’s distinctive but problematic theory that Mahayana developed amidst groups of laypeople who congregated at stūpa sites. Though Hirakawa’s theory became highly influential in Japan, apparently mainly because it appealed to Japanese religious sentiments, it did not become influential in the West. Harrison 1987 questioned the lay origin theory, arguing that Mahayana sutras that seem likely to be early show a clear monastic bias. This publication was highly influential and quickly led to the abandonment of the lay origin theory in Western scholarship. No Western scholars of early Mahayana now maintain this theory.

Conze, Edward. “Mahayana Buddhism.” In Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays. By Edward Conze, 48–86. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1967.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1959. Presents a modified version of Przyluski’s theory, according to which the Mahayana emerged largely as a result of lay pressure on monks.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul. “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among the Followers of the Early Mahāyāna.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10.1 (1987): 67–89.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Questioned the lay origin theory, arguing that early Mahayana sutras show a monastic bias. Quickly led to the abandonment of the lay origin theory in Western scholarship.

Find this resource:


Hirakawa, Akira. “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas.” Translated by Taitetsu Unno. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57–106.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents the author’s signature theory that Mahayana developed amidst groups of laypeople who congregated at stūpa sites.

Find this resource:


Hirakawa, Akira. A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna. Edited and translated by Paul Groner. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Another publication that presents the author’s theory that the Mahayana developed from groups of laypeople who congregated at stūpa sites.

Find this resource:


Lamotte, Étienne. “Sur la formation du Mahāyāna.” In Asiatica: Festschrift Friedrich Weller zum 65. Edited by Johannes Schubert and Ulrich Schneider, 377–396. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1954.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Influential publication in which the author presents the lay origin theory in much the same terms as Przyluski 1934.

Find this resource:


Lamotte, Étienne. “Mahāyāna Buddhism.” In The World of Buddhism: Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Society and Culture. Edited by Heinz Bechert and Richard Gombrich, 90–93. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1984.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Abridged English version of Lamotte 1954 that briefly presents the author’s version of the lay origin theory.

Find this resource:


Przyluski, Jean. “Origin and Developement of Buddhism.” Translated by F. W. Thomas. Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1934): 337–351.

DOI: 10.1093/jts/os-XXXV.140.337Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents the original lay origin theory in detail in English.

Find this resource:


Mahayana and the Nikāyas
One of the main issues in scholarship on the Mahayana has been the question of the relationship between the Mahayana and the nikāyas, or “monastic lineages,” or “schools.” Kern 1901–1903 was apparently the first to suggest that the Mahayana emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika nikāya, an idea that, along with the lay origin theory (see Lay Origin Theory), was influential through most of the 20th century. Bareau 1955 presents perhaps the most in-depth argument in support of this theory, though the author is less committed to it in Bareau 1966. Hirakawa 1963 argued against the Mahāsāṃghika origin theory, in part by arguing that Sarvāstivāda doctrinal categories were adopted by several Mahāyāna texts. Bechert 1973 is one of several publications in which the author argued that the Mahayana was not separate from the nikāyas and that Mahayana and non-Mahayana monks could live together in the same monasteries. Silk 2002 focused attention on this issue, drawing attention to the fact that several leading scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated similar views. The author makes the strong point that there is no evidence that there was ever “any kind of Buddhist monk other than one associated with a Sectarian [i.e., nikāya] ordination lineage” in Indian Buddhism. This perspective is now generally accepted in Western scholarship.

Bareau, André. Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule. Paris: École française d’Extrême Orient, 1955.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents a complex argument in support of the Mahāsāṃghika origin theory by a leading 20th-century scholar.

Find this resource:


Bareau, André. “Le Bouddhisme indien.” In Les religions de l’Inde III: Bouddhisme, Jaïnisme, religions archaïques. Edited by André Bareau, W. Schubring, and Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf, 7–246. Paris: Payot, 1966.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents a vision of early Mahayana that places less emphasis on the Mahāsāṃghikas than Bareau 1955.

Find this resource:


Bechert, Heinz. “Notes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of Mahāyāna.” In German Scholars on India. Edited by The Cultural Department of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, 6–18. Varanasi, India: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1973.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

One of several publications in which the author argues that the Mahayana was not separate from the nikāyas. Though several earlier scholars held this view, the author was the only leading Western scholar to consistently do so in the second half of the 20th century before it became generally accepted in the 1990s.

Find this resource:


Hirakawa, Akira. “The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and Its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas.” Translated by Taitetsu Unno. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 22 (1963): 57–106.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues against the Mahāsāṃghika origin theory, in part by arguing that many Mahayana texts make use of Sarvāstivādin doctrinal categories.

Find this resource:


Kern, H. Histoire du bouddhisme dans l’Inde. 2 vols. Translated by Gédéon Huet. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1901–1903.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in Dutch from 1882–1884. Author seems to have been the first to suggest that the Mahayana emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika nikāya.

Find this resource:


Silk, Jonathan A. “What, If Anything, Is Mahāyāna Buddhism? Problems of Definitions and Classifications.” Numen 49.4 (2002): 355–405.

DOI: 10.1163/156852702760559705Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Draws attention to the fact that several leading scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries believed that the Mahayana was not separate from the nikāyas. Strongly suggests that all Mahayana monastics belonged to nikāya lineages.

Find this resource:


The “Cult of the Book”
Though scholars had recognized for more than a century that Mahayanists practiced book worship, Schopen 2005b argued that this practice played a central role in the development of early Mahayana and its institutional structure. On the basis of a creative reading of a handful of cryptic passages from Mahayana sutras, the author argued, contra Hirakawa (see Lay Origin Theory), that early Mahayanists rejected stūpa worship and established new cult sites where they enshrined and worshipped books. He argued that these sites served as “institutional bases” for the new movement. Although Schopen’s argument was tenuous, his views became widely accepted. Schopen 2005a modified the conclusions of Schopen 2005b slightly, suggesting that the book cult was not part of the origin of Mahayana but developed “not . . . too much” later. Drewes 2007 analyzes Schopen’s cryptic passages in broader context and argues that they neither refer to actual book shrines nor reflect a negative attitude toward stūpa or relic worship. The author also draws attention to the fact that, despite claims that have been made, there is no known case in which an ancient Mahayana sutra manuscript has been found in a stūpa. It is now generally accepted that Schopen’s book shrines did not exist. Though Mahayanists clearly worshipped books, non-Mahayana Buddhists also worshipped them, and there is no reason to believe that book worship played any more central role in Mahayana than it does in the many other Indian and world religious traditions that practice book worship, for example, Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Drewes, David. “Revisiting the Phrase ‘sa pṛthivīpradeśaś caityabhūto bhavet’ and the Mahāyāna Cult of the Book.” Indo-Iranian Journal 50.2 (2007): 101–143.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues that Schopen’s theory of book shrines is based on a misreading of a handful of passages in Mahayana sutras and points out that there is no archaeological or other evidence for such shrines.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “On Sending the Monks Back to Their Books: Cult and Conservatism in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen,108–153. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005a.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Modifies the conclusion of Schopen 2005b, suggesting that rather than being involved in the origin of Mahayana, Mahayana book shrines probably developed a short time afterward.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “The phrase ‘sa pṛthivīpradeśaś caityabhūto bhavet’ in the Vajracchedikā: Notes on the Cult of the Book in Mahāyāna.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 25–62. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005b.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1975. Influential publication that argues that early Mahayanists rejected stūpa and relic worship and established cult sites where they enshrined and worshipped books.

Find this resource:


Textual Practice
Inspired primarily by Schopen 2005b (cited under the “Cult of the Book”) and theoretical work on “oral” and “written traditions,” several scholars have argued that the use of writing played an important role in the Mahayana’s development. Gombrich 1990 argues that the “rise of the Mahayana is due to the use of writing” in the sense that writing enabled Mahayanists to preserve texts independently of traditional oral textual transmission lineages. McMahan 2002, Harrison 2003, and Shimoda 2009 argue that the use of writing played a key role in the development of Mahayana texts and ideas. Drewes 2010 mentions recent discoveries that make it clear that writing was used much earlier in Buddhist tradition than was long thought and points out that Mahayana sutras make significantly more frequent reference and attach higher prestige to mnemic/oral practices than they do to written ones. The author argues that oral textuality remained dominant in early Mahayana and that it is doubtful that writing was responsible for either the rise of the Mahayana or its conceptual development. Scholars of Mahayana often go astray because of a general lack of familiarity with Indian culture. Narayana Rao 1993 discusses Indian textual practices associated with the purāṇas, providing resources for better understanding those of the Mahayana. The author argues that purāṇic tradition was characterized by a “literate orality” in which texts were typically composed and used orally, but in which people were “very proud . . . of their ability to possess a written text of what they perform orally” (p. 95). Drewes 2011 surveys the long neglected vast corpus of Mahayana sutra material on figures called dharmabhāṇakas, or “preachers of dharma,” who composed, memorized, copied, and preached Mahayana sutras. The author argues that these figures were the primary agents of the Mahayana movement.

Drewes, David. “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, Part 1.” Religion Compass 4.2 (2010): 55–65.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Suggests that oral/mnemic practices retained primary importance in Mahayana and that writing played a less important role in the movement than has been thought.

Find this resource:


Drewes, David. “Dharmabhāṇakas in Early Mahāyāna.” Indo-Iranian Journal 54.4 (2011): 331–372.

DOI: 10.1163/001972411X552517Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Surveys the vast amount of material on dharmabhāṇakas, or “dharma preachers,” who composed, preached, and transmitted Mahayana sutras and claimed to be advanced bodhisattvas.

Find this resource:


Gombrich, R. “How the Mahāyāna Began.” In The Buddhist Forum. Vol. 1. Edited by Tadeusz Skorupski, 21–30. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1988. Argues that the development of the use of writing for the preservation of Buddhist texts was responsible for the development of the Mahayana, making it possible for Buddhists to preserve texts outside of traditional oral transmission lineages.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul. “Mediums and Messages: Reflections on the Production of Mahāyāna Sūtras.” Eastern Buddhist 35.1–2 (2003): 115–151.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Suggests that Mahayana emerged from “a convergence of meditation and textual transmission in the forest environment” stimulated by the advent of writing, and that Mahayana sutras were originally composed in written form.

Find this resource:


McMahan, David. Empty Vision: Metaphor and Visionary Imagery in Mahāyāna Buddhism. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues that along with making it possible for Mahayanists to preserve and spread their teachings, the use of writing was responsible for the development of ideas and imagery found in Mahayana sutras.

Find this resource:


Narayana Rao, Velcheru. “Purāṇa as Brahminic Ideology.” In Purāṇa Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts. Edited by Wendy Doniger, 85–100. Albany: State University of New York, 1993.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Discusses the interplay between oral and written textual practices in Hindu tradition in a manner that sheds interesting light on this issue in Mahayana.

Find this resource:


Shimoda, Masahiro. “The State of Research on Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Mahāyāna as Seen in Developments in the Study of Mahāyāna Sūtras.” Acta Asiatica 96 (2009): 1–23.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents a convoluted argument that the Mahayana’s use of writing enabled Mahayana sutra authors to develop a “far-ranging world going beyond that of past traditions” (p. 21).

Find this resource:


Forest/Ascetic Monks
With the collapse of the lay origin theory (see Lay Origin Theory), the main theory that has taken hold in Western scholarship is that forest-dwelling or ascetic monks were primarily responsible for the emergence of the Mahāyāna. Schopen 1995 and Schopen 2005 suggest on the basis of criticisms of immorality and advocacy of ascetic practices found in some Mahayana sutras that early Mahayana groups reacted against the settled, landed, and ritual-focused monasticism evidenced by certain vinaya texts in favor of a return to the supposed early Buddhist ideal of forest-dwelling asceticism. Harrison 1995 claims that the Mahayana sutras translated into Chinese by Lokakṣema in the 2nd century, which at the time were the oldest datable Mahayana texts, place a strong, positive emphasis on forest dwelling and ascetic practice. Ray 1994 argues that nonmonastic forest renunciants have been the primary innovators in the history of Buddhism and that they were responsible for Buddhism’s initial development, the rise of the Mahayana, and the development of Vajrayāna. Nattier 2003 argues that the Ugraparipr̥cchā Sūtra represents the earliest or most primitive form of Mahayana that we have access to and that it depicts the bodhisattva path as something adopted by strict ascetics. Drewes 2010 draws attention to problems with these new theories and suggests that it is unlikely that forest dwelling or ascetic practice played a significant role in the Mahayana movement.

Drewes, David. “Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, Part 2.” Religion Compass 4.2 (2010): 66–74.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Points out that there is little evidence that forest dwellers or ascetics played a significant role in the Mahayana and suggests that the theory is based on a projection of an essentialized vision of Buddhism qua meditative quest for enlightenment onto Mahayana texts.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul. “Searching for the Origins of the Mahāyāna: What Are We Looking For?” Eastern Buddhist 28.1 (1995): 48–69.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Claims that the 2nd-century Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras linked to Lokakṣema strongly emphasize forest dwelling and ascetic practice, though this now seems incorrect.

Find this resource:


Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues that the Ugraparipr̥cchā Sūtra represents the earliest or most primitive form of Mahayana that we have access to and that it depicts the bodhisattva path as something adopted by ascetic monks who sometimes practiced forest dwelling.

Find this resource:


Ray, Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues on the basis of four mostly late texts that nonmonastic forest renunciants were responsible for the rise of the Mahayana.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “Deaths, Funerals, and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code.” In Buddhism in Practice. Edited by Donald S. Lopez Jr., 473–502. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Suggests on the basis of a few likely rather late Mahayana sutras that advocate ascetic practice and forest dwelling that early Mahayana groups reacted against the settled, landed monasticism evidenced by the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “The Mahāyāna and the Middle Period in Indian Buddhism: Through a Chinese Looking-Glass.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 3–24. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 2000. Expands on the argument in Schopen 1995 that early Mahayanists were forest dwellers, but allows, likely following Nattier 2003, that some also lived in monasteries.

Find this resource:


Pure Land
Devotion to the Buddha Amitābha with the aim of being born in his “pure land,” Sukhāvatī, which became important in East Asian Buddhism, was long thought to be a central aspect of Indian Mahayana. Schopen 2005 draws attention to passages in a significant number of Mahayana sutras that promise rebirth in Sukhāvatī for a range of standard Buddhist and Mahayana practices that have nothing to do with Amitābha. The author deduced that rebirth in Sukhāvatī quickly became dissociated from the cult of Amitābha, where it developed, to become a religious goal of the Mahayana in general. Silk 1993 makes the point that there is no evidence that there was ever a specific cult of Amitābha in India and suggests that rebirth in Sukhāvatī began as a generalized Mahayana religious goal. Schopen 2005, in an appended note, argues that this suggestion is inconsistent with the early date of the [larger] Sukhāvatīvyūha, but ignores the fact that this text does not seem to be aware of a specific Amitābha cult. Nattier 2000 is a study of the Akṣobhyavyūha Sūtra, which deals with the Buddha Akṣobhya and his land Abhirati. The author makes the useful suggestion that we extend the category of “pure land” to include this sutra and other sutras dedicated to so-called celestial Buddhas. Following the generally accepted view, she argues that the Akṣobhyavyūha represents a more primitive version of pure land thought than the Sukhāvatīvyūha. The author claims that the Akṣobhyavyūha represents “acts of strenuous self-denial” as being necessary to attain Buddhahood, though the text presents several easy ways to be born in Abhirati where one is said to be able to progress toward Buddhahood with ease. Nattier 2003 presents the same basic ideas, but includes a discussion of the Chinese translations of the larger Sukhāvatīvyūha that is absent in Nattier 2000. Fussman 1999 contains a valuable, wide-ranging discussion of the place of Amitābha and Sukhāvatī in Indian Buddhism. The author argues that rather than a paradise intended for the masses, Sukhāvatī was originally understood as being accessible only to advanced bodhisattvas. Schopen 2005, in the appended note, concurs, suggesting that Sukhāvatī was originally seen as a destination for “religious virtuoso[s].” Both authors unfortunately ignore the fact that Mahayana sutras consistently claim that everyone who accepts their authenticity is an advanced bodhisattva. Ducor 2004 is a good response to Fussman 1999 but projects later scholastic concerns onto the Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtras that undoubtedly would have been foreign to their authors.

Ducor, Jérôme. “Les sources de la Sukhāvatī, autour d’une étude récente de G. Fussman.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27.2 (2004): 357–410.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Useful response to Fussman 1999 but projects later scholastic concerns onto the Sukhāvatīvyūha texts.

Find this resource:


Fussman, Gérard. “La place des Sukhāvatī-vyūha dans le bouddhisme indien.” Journal Asiatique 287.2 (1999): 523–586.

DOI: 10.2143/JA.287.2.556480Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Broad, in-depth discussion of Sukhāvatī and Amitābha in Indian Buddhism. Argues that rather than a paradise for the masses, Sukhāvatī was originally understood as a place where only advanced bodhisattvas could be born.

Find this resource:


Nattier, Jan. “The Realm of Akṣobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land Buddhism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 23.1 (2000): 71–102.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues that the Akṣobhyavyūha Sūtra represents an earlier stage of pure land thought than the larger Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra. Depicts the text as requiring difficult practice to obtain rebirth in Abhirati, the “pure land” of the Buddha Akṣobhya, though it does not actually do so.

Find this resource:


Nattier, Jan. “The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha.” Pacific World 3rd ser., 5 (2003): 179–201.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents many of the same ideas as Nattier 2000, but discusses the Chinese translations of the larger Sukhāvatīvyūha that were neglected by this earlier publication.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “Sukhāvatī as a Generalized Religious Goal in Sanskrit Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 154–189. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1977. Draws attention to passages in many Mahayana sutras that promise rebirth in Sukhāvatī for various practices that have nothing to do with Amitābha. Argues that the idea of rebirth in Sukhāvatī quickly became dissociated from the specific cult of Amitābha where it supposedly originated.

Find this resource:


Silk, Jonathan A. “The Virtues of Amitābha: A Tibetan Poem from Dunhuang.” Bulletin of Institute of Buddhist Cultural Studies, Ryukoku University 32 (1993): 1–109.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Briefly makes the important suggestion, contra Schopen 2005, that a specific cult of Amitābha was not found in Indian Mahayana and first developed in East Asia.

Find this resource:


Chinese Translations
Harrison 1987 initiated a significant Sinological shift in Western scholarship on Mahayana by arguing that the earliest Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras, a group of roughly a dozen texts dating to the late 2nd century, were the best evidence we possessed for early Mahayana. The author briefly presents information on each of the early translations and makes several significant observations about their content. Harrison 1993 surveys the 2nd-century translations in more detail. Nattier 2003 is a translation and study of the Ugraparipr̥cchā Sūtra, which was translated into Chinese in the 2nd century. Some of the author’s arguments, including the very early date that she assigns to the text and her suggestions about the general course of the Mahayana’s development, have not been accepted by other scholars. Boucher 2008 is a translation and study of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipr̥cchā Sūtra, which was translated into Chinese by Dharmarakṣa in the late 3rd or early 4th century. The author presents the text as additional evidence that forest dwellers played a central role in early Mahayana (see Forest/Ascetic Monks), but there is no evidence to suggest that this sutra was especially early. Harrison 1998 is a translation of Lokakṣema’s 2nd-century translation of the Pratyutpanna Sūtra. Weller 1987 is a translation of Lokakṣema’s translation of the Kāśyapaparivarta Sūtra. Nattier 2008 contains a great deal of valuable textual information on the early Chinese translations of Mahayana texts.

Boucher, Daniel. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Study and translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipr̥cchā Sūtra, a Mahayana sutra translated into Chinese in the late 3rd or early 4th century.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul. “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among the Followers of the Early Mahāyāna.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10.1 (1987): 67–89.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Seminal article that initiated a significant Sinological shift in the field. Surveys the 2nd-century Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras and presents several new perspectives on the movement that are now generally accepted.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul. “The Earliest Chinese Translations of Mahāyāna Buddhist Sūtras: Some Notes on the Works of Lokakṣema.” Buddhist Studies Review 10.2 (1993): 135–177.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Surveys the translations linked to Lokakṣema in more detail than Harrison 1987.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul, trans. “The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra.” In The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra; The Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sutra. Edited by Paul Harrison and John McRae, 1–116. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1998.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Translation of a revised version of Lokakṣema’s 2nd-century translation of an important sutra.

Find this resource:


Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Study and translation of the Ugraparipr̥cchā Sūtra, a Mahayana sutra translated into Chinese during the 2nd century.

Find this resource:


Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Valuable, painstakingly researched, textual survey of Buddhist texts translated into Chinese from the mid-2nd to late 3rd century.

Find this resource:


Weller, Friedrich, trans. “Kāśyapaparivarta: Nach der Han-Fassung verdeutscht.” In Friedrich Weller: Kleine Schriften. Vol. 2. Edited by Wilhelm Rau, 1136–1304. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden, 1987.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1970. German translation of Lokakṣema’s 2nd-century Chinese translation of the Kāśyapaparivarta Sūtra.

Find this resource:


Women in Mahayana
Some scholars, for example, Paul 1979, have argued that the Mahayana opened up increased opportunities for women. Harrison 1987 argues that in the early Chinese translations women are represented as participants in the Mahayana but depicted in a strong unfavorable light. This is true not only of the early Chinese translations but also of Mahayana sutras in general. Nattier 2003 goes further to suggest that early Mahayanists had an especially strong masculine orientation and developed a more negative attitude toward women than other Buddhists, though this seems unlikely. The status of women actually seems not to have been an issue for Mahayana authors, who seem to have uncritically accepted the complex, generally negative attitudes toward women current in their day.

Harrison, Paul. “Who Gets to Ride in the Great Vehicle? Self-Image and Identity among the Followers of the Early Mahāyāna.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10.1 (1987): 67–89.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Draws attention to the fact that the early Chinese translations represent women as participants in the Mahayana but depict them in a negative light.

Find this resource:


Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2003.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Goes beyond Harrison 1987 to suggest that early Mahayanists had a strong masculine orientation and developed a more negative attitude toward women than other Buddhists.

Find this resource:


Paul, Diana Y. Women in Buddhism: Images of the Feminine in the Mahāyāna Tradition. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1979.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Perhaps the most noteworthy of several older publications that dubiously claimed that the Mahayana had a more positive attitude toward women and a greater concern for their needs than earlier forms of Buddhism.

Find this resource:


Sutra Translations
Mahayana sutras are virtually our sole source of evidence for early Mahayana. Dozens of the hundreds of surviving Mahayana sutras have been translated into English and other Western languages. Chang 1983 contains abridged English translations of twenty-two Chinese translations of Mahayana sutras, including the Akṣobhyavyūha (chapter 17) and Kāśyapaparivarta (chapter 20), which were first translated into Chinese in the 2nd century. Conze 1973 is a translation of the Sanskrit text of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, which seems to have been the most important early Mahayana sutra. The translation is abridged and somewhat idiosyncratic, but still very valuable. Gomez 1996 contains translations of the Sanskrit versions of two of the most important pure land sutras, the smaller and larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sutras, as well as translations of Chinese translations of the same texts. Unfortunately the author does not translate the Chinese translation of the larger sutra recently linked to Lokakṣema, which is most relevant to the study of early Mahayana. Harrison 1990 is a translation of the Tibetan translation of the Pratyutpanna Sūtra and Harrison 1998 is a translation of Lokakṣema’s 2nd-century Chinese translation of the same text, making interesting comparisons between the two versions possible. Kern 1909 is the only published English translation of the Sanskrit version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, or Lotus Sūtra. Lamotte 1994 is the most technical of several English translations of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, one of the most beautiful Mahayana sutras. It is based on the Tibetan and Chinese translations but unfortunately was published before the recent discovery of a Sanskrit manuscript of the text. Lamotte 1998 is a translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra on the basis of its Chinese and Tibetan translations. The sutra was first translated into Chinese by Lokakṣema in the 2nd century, but Lokakṣema’s translation is lost.

Chang, C. C., ed. A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contains abridged English translations of twenty-two sutras on the basis of 6th-century Chinese translations.

Find this resource:


Conze, Edward, trans. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines and Its Verse Summary. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Abridged translation of the Sanskrit version of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the Mahayana sutra for which we now have the oldest datable documentary evidence.

Find this resource:


Gómez, Luis O., trans. The Land of Bliss: The Paradise of the Buddha of Measureless Light; Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Sukhāvatīvyūha Sutras. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1996.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contains translations of the smaller and larger Sukhāvatīvyūha sutras from both the Sanskrit and Chinese.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul, trans. The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present: An Annotated English Translation of the Tibetan Version of the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Translation of the Tibetan translation of the Pratyutpanna Sūtra, made around the beginning of the 9th century, which can be fruitfully compared with Harrison 1998.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul, trans. “The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra.” In The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sutra; The Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sutra. Edited by Paul Harrison and John McRae, 1–116. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1998.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Translation of the 2nd-century Chinese translation of the Pratyutpanna Sūtra.

Find this resource:


Kern, H., trans. The Saddharma-pundarîka; or, The Lotus of the True Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1909.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1884. Only published English translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra (or Lotus Sūtra) from Sanskrit.

Find this resource:


Lamotte, Étienne, trans. The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa). Translated by Sara Boin. Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1994.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in French in 1962. Translation of the beautiful Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, produced on the basis of translations and fragments of the text in Chinese, Tibetan, and Sanskrit, that was unfortunately published before the recent discovery of a complete Sanskrit manuscript of the text.

Find this resource:


Lamotte, Étienne, trans. Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress; An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. Translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Richmond, UK: Curzon, 1998.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in French in 1965. Translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra from a 5th-century Chinese and c. early-9th-century Tibetan translation and some Sanskrit fragments. This text was reportedly translated by Lokakṣema in the 2nd century, but this translation is lost.

Find this resource:


Epigraphical, Documentary, and Art Historical Evidence
Schopen 2005b and Schopen 2005a draw attention to the important fact that there was only one known epigraph that could be linked to the early Mahayana: an inscription on a pedestal that identifies the image associated with it, now lost except for its feet, as the Buddha Amitābha, which dates to about 153 CE. Salomon 1999 presents a 3rd-century inscription from Central Asia discovered after the original publication of Schopen 2005b and Schopen 2005a that apparently makes reference to a king who had “set out on the Mahāyāna.” This publication also draws attention to a 3rd-century letter, also from Central Asia, which makes reference to a magistrate who had also “set out on the Mahāyāna.” Fussman 1999, following an earlier publication by John Brough (“Amitābha and Avalokiteśvara in an Inscribed Gandhāran Sculpture,” published in 1982), reads an inscription on a Gandhāran sculpture dating to about the 2nd century as identifying the figures it depicts as Amitābha and Avalokiteśvara, but Salomon and Schopen 2002 disputes this reading, arguing that the inscription does not actually mention either figure. Allon and Salomon 2010 revisits this issue, suggesting that the inscription may mention Avalokiteśvara, though it is doubtful that it mentions Amitābha. Several scholars, for example, Fussman 1999 and Harrison and Luczanits 2012, have argued that certain early and somewhat later Gandhāran sculptures depict known Mahayana figures, such as Amitābha, Avalokiteśvara, and Mañjuśrī, but these identifications remain uncertain. Focusing primarily on the figure of Avalokiteśvara, Boucher 2008 argues that there is no evidence for the Mahayana in early Gandhāran art.

Allon, Mark, and Richard Salomon. “New Evidence for Mahāyāna in Early Gandhāra.” Eastern Buddhist 41.1 (2010): 1–22.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contains a brief survey of the early inscriptional evidence for Mahayana. Revisits the 2nd-century inscription discussed in Salomon and Schopen 2002, suggesting that it may refer to Avalokiteśvara.

Find this resource:


Boucher, Daniel. “Is There an Early Gandhāran Source for the Cult of Avalokiteśvara?” Journal Asiatique 296.2 (2008): 297–330.

DOI: 10.2143/JA.296.2.2036304Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues against the widespread tendency to identify Gandhāran sculptures as depictions of Avalokiteśvara and other Mahayana figures.

Find this resource:


Fussman, Gérard. “La place des Sukhāvatī-vyūha dans le bouddhisme indien.” Journal Asiatique 287.2 (1999): 523–586.

DOI: 10.2143/JA.287.2.556480Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Discusses several sculptures that the author identifies as depicting Amitābha and other Mahayana figures, but apart from the Amitābha image discussed in Schopen 2005a, the author’s identifications are speculative.

Find this resource:


Harrison, Paul, and Christian Luczanits. “New Light on (and from) the Muhammad Nari Stele.” In Special International Symposium on Pure Land Buddhism, 69–127, 197–207. Kyoto: BARC Research Center for Buddhist Cultures in Asia, 2012.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Discusses a large number of interesting “complex steles,” likely dating from the mid-3rd to early 5th centuries, that depict complex, difficult-to-interpret scenes of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Argues inconclusively that these steles constitute evidence for the Mahayana and that many of them depict Amitābha, Avalokiteśvara, and Sukhāvatī.

Find this resource:


Salomon, Richard. “A Stone Inscription in Central Asian Gāndharī from Endere (Xinjiang).” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 13 (1999): 1–13.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Presents a 3rd-century inscription from Central Asia discovered after the initial publication of Schopen 2005b and Schopen 2005a that seems to refer to a king who had “set out on the Mahayana.” Also draws attention to a 3rd-century letter from Central Asia, which makes reference to a magistrate who had done the same.

Find this resource:


Salomon, Richard, and Gregory Schopen. “On an Alleged Reference to Amitābha in a Kharoṣṭhī Inscription on a Gandhāran Relief.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25.1–2 (2002): 3–31.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Argues that an inscription on a 2nd-century sculpture that Fussman 1999 reads as identifying the figures it represents as Amitābha and Avalokiteśvara does not actually do so.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “The Inscription on the Kuṣān Image of Amitābha and the Character of Early Mahāyāna in India.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 247–277. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005a.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1987. Discusses and edits an inscription found on a stone image pedestal discovered in 1977, dated 153 CE, that identifies the image associated with it, now lost except for its feet, as the Buddha Amitābha.

Find this resource:


Schopen, Gregory. “Mahāyāna in Indian Inscriptions.” In Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers. By Gregory Schopen, 223–246. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2005b.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Originally published in 1979. Draws attention to the important fact that the early Mahayana left virtually no inscriptional evidence of its existence. The author’s assertion that the terms śākyabhikṣu and paramopāsaka refer to Mahayanists has been rejected by several scholars.

Find this resource:


Recent Manuscript Discoveries
In recent years fragments of several early Mahayana sutra manuscripts have come to light. Braarvig 2000–2006 contains transcriptions, translations, and studies of several Mahayana sutra manuscript fragments from Afghanistan dating from roughly the 2nd or 3rd to 8th century. A group of manuscripts now known as the Split Collection was recently discovered in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region and contains part of a Prajñāpāramitā manuscript dating to the 1st century CE that corresponds to the first and fifth chapters of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. This is now the oldest datable evidence for the Mahayana. Falk 2011 provides a general description of the Split Collection and Falk and Karashima 2012 provides a detailed discussion of the Prajñāpāramitā manuscript in this collection and a transcription of the first half of the text. Strauch 2008 provides a general survey of the Bajaur Collection, a group of manuscripts which came to light in 1999 that includes a long, incomplete, 1st- or 2nd-century manuscript of a previously unknown Mahayana sutra related to the Akṣobhyavūha. Strauch 2010 discusses the contents of this manuscript, though a transcription remains an urgent desideratum. Allon and Salomon 2010 provides a useful overview of recent Gandhāran Mahayana sutra manuscript discoveries and notices some fragments that have not yet been published.

Allon, Mark, and Richard Salomon. “New Evidence for Mahāyāna in Early Gandhāra.” Eastern Buddhist 41.1 (2010): 1–22.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Useful overview of the recent early Mahayana manuscript discoveries. Notices several unpublished Gandhāran Mahayana sutra manuscript fragments.

Find this resource:


Braarvig, Jens, ed. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection: Buddhist Manuscripts. 3 vols. Oslo, Norway: Hermes, 2000–2006.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contains transcriptions, translations, and studies of recently discovered Mahayana sutra manuscript fragments from Afghanistan dating from roughly the 3rd to 8th century.

Find this resource:


Falk, Harry. “The ‘Split’ Collection of Kharoṣṭhī Texts.” Annual Report of the International Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 14 (2011): 13–23.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Discusses the Split Collection of Buddhist manuscripts, which contains part of a 1st-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript.

Find this resource:


Falk, Harry, and Seishi Karashima. “A First-Century Prajñāpāramitā Manuscript from Gandhāra: Parivarta 1 (Texts from the Split Collection 1).” Annual Report of the International Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 15 (2012): 19–61.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Contains a transcription of the first half of the Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from the Split Collection, which is now the oldest datable evidence for the Mahayana and plates.

Find this resource:


Strauch, Ingo. “The Bajaur Collection of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts: A Preliminary Survey.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 25 (2008): 103–136.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

General survey of the Bajaur Collection of mostly Buddhist manuscripts, which came to light in 1999 and includes a lengthy incomplete manuscript of a previously unknown sutra related to the Akṣobhyavyūha.

Find this resource:


Strauch, Ingo. “More Missing Pieces of Early Pure Land Buddhism: New Evidence for Akṣobhya and Abhirati in an Early Mahayana Sutra from Gandhāra.” Eastern Buddhist 41.1 (2010): 23–66.

Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

Discusses the contents of the manuscript of the sutra related to the Akṣobhyavyūha in the Bajaur Collection.