Sarvastivada

The transmission of Buddhism to China from Central Asia was launched through the Silk Road during the Later Han Dynasty in the 1st century C.E. I will discuss why the Han Chinese could accept Buddhism when they already had advanced religions such as Confucianism and Taoism. The earliest form of Chinese Buddhism was introduced to China; namely, Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma and early Mahāyāna literatures through distinguished rulers, scholars and pilgrimages from India and Central Asia. Kumārajīva (343–413) is one of the foreigner masters from Central Asia and through the remarkable development of Buddhism in Medieval Chinese Buddhism in the 5th century C.E. The Chinese started to understand Indian thought more accurately through the prolific translations of Kumārajīva. Through this, Taoist and Confucian notions were removed from Buddhist texts.

It is strongly believed that Kumārajīva made a remarkable contribution for Sarvāstivāda and Mahāyāna doctrines as well. Buddhist Scholars have considered that Kumārajīva played an important role for Mahāyāna as well as being a strong opponent of Hīnayāna. However, this assumption is quite controversial. Therefore, I will discuss the background of Chinese Buddhism prior to Kumārajīva’s arrival in Chang-an (Xian) during the Later Qin dynasty, his biography, prolific translation works; his works for the foundation of Mādhyamika in Medieval Chinese Buddhism.

In this paper, I will also put forward the argument that Kumārajīva was an advocator of Mahāyāna, especially for showing the new religious path to Mahāyāna Buddhism in China and being the founder of the Chinese Mādhyamika School (San-lun i.e. three treatises). I will consider the influence of Sarvāstivādin thought on Kumārajīva’s thought and especially, meditation texts included in the Āgamas of the Sarvāstivādin tradition. Therefore, I will argue that Kumārajīva’s remarkable contribution was for both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna in Medieval Chinese Buddhism, discuss his Sarvāstivādin collaborators in translation works and his contribution to Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma and Vinaya.

In conclusion, I will show evidence that Kumārajīva usually was a supporter of Mahāyāna but also contributed to Hīnayāna Buddhism in Medieval Chinese Buddhism throughout his life and works.

Keywords: Kumārajīva, Transmission, Silk Road, Confucianism &Taoism, Hīnayāna, Sarvāstivāda, Mahāyāna, Medieval Chinese Buddhism and Chinese Mādhyamika.

依據林鎮國的說法，天台智顗的哲學理論是透過禪修的實踐，藉以發現實相 的真理。就存有論 來說，真理存在於方法之前；但就經驗上來說，真理必須透過方法來開顯。 在智顗具有創造性詮釋和實踐性辯證意義下的「三諦」、「三觀」以及「三智」，存在著「三諦」作為「三觀」的對境， 而在覺悟經驗所生產出的果「三智」之相對關係。事實上，從智顗的文本中關於「三觀」或「三諦」的論述是充滿辯證性、實踐性、認識論以及動態的方法論意義的。此外，吳汝鈞在對天台宗的判釋中，將天台判教為為佛性圓覺， 這種圓覺具有一種背反(Antinomie)的性格，也就是存有論上的交纏、並存、無法分開的極端矛盾關係。在這種處於存有論的對等性之二元相待(duality)背反性格，有賴於主體透過內在的主體性─佛性，來克服與超升，達到一種絕對的、無對的最高主體性─佛性圓覺。在他的觀點裡，如此的圓覺超越了龍樹(Ngrjuna)主要著作《中論》關於諸法在因緣生滅過程的靜態覺照，而是一種包含認識論的(epistemological)、存有論的與功夫論的動態覺照和實踐。
    本文將重點放在探討智顗如何創造性的詮釋龍樹主要著作《中論》文本中的詩頌，以建構其「一心三觀」與「三諦圓融」之思想。事實上，這種創造性的詮釋不僅將龍樹文本中偏向靜態的諸法因緣生滅之存有學，賦予動態、辯證意味的認識論與實踐哲學。此外，龍樹在論證方法學上常用透過歸謬法 所達成的雙重否定(double ne gative)語言策略─「雙非」或「雙遮」，在被天台智顗借用置入其學說系統之下，成為具有辯證性、動態性、與同時性的實踐哲學、認識論、功夫論的「雙照雙遮」，並以「中道佛性」作為超越主客對立的能動性基礎達致最高主體性。

A translation from Sanskrit, intended for classroom use, of the "Chapter on Collections" (Samudāya-adhikaraṇam) of Ācārya Śaṅkara's Commentary on the Brahma Sūtras (II.2.18-27.)  This passage contains the best-known and most influential Hindu critique of the Sarvāstivāda school of Buddhist reductionist realism.  This is a draft; comments are welcome.

Conventionally, the label 'classical yoga' has been aligned with—and sometimes conflated with—the text of Patañjali's Yogasūtra. Yet if we broaden the scope of inspection to a wider textual corpus, we can identify a richer and more complex discourse of classical yoga in soteriological contexts. This discourse is also employed in Buddhist Sarvāstivāda traditions and is semantically and metaphorically entangled across religious boundaries. By comparing passages from the Pātañjalayogaśāstra and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, this article highlights the botanical image of the seed and its seedbed (the substratum) as a key metaphorical structure in the soteriology of the two texts.

This is the fourth volume of proceedings of the Āgama seminars convened by the
Āgama Research Group at the Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts (formerly
Dharma Drum Buddhist College). It comprises nineteen studies, contributed by
eighteen different scholars, on various themes related to the Connected Collections of
discourses (suttas, sūtras) — Saṃyutta-nikāya in Pali, Saṃyukta-āgama in Sanskrit —
transmitted by different early Buddhist lineages of reciters, preserved in their Indic
originals in Gandhari, Pali and Sanskrit as well as in Chinese and Tibetan translations.
This research draws attention to fundamental methodological points posed by the
study of these scriptural collections as windows into the formation of early Buddhist
texts and the organisation of their transmission.

This is the third volume of proceedings of the Āgama seminars convened by the
Āgama Research Group at the Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts (formerly
Dharma Drum Buddhist College). It collects academic contributions on various
aspects related to the Middle-length Collections of discourses (sūtras, suttas)
transmitted by different early Buddhist lineages of reciters, preserved in their
Indic originals in Gandhari, Pali and Sanskrit as well as in Chinese and Tibetan
translations.

This article studies narratives related to the topic of women receiving a prediction or declaration (vyākaraṇa) for Buddhahood. The texts in question—in their received form—have their place in the Indian Buddhist traditions of the Middle Period. The first episode taken up is the story of Princess Munī who receives the prediction of becoming the present Buddha Śākyamuni; this is found in the so-called “Scripture on the Wise and the Fool.” The second episode is the story of Yaśomatī who receives the prediction that she will become the Buddha Ratnamati; this is found in the Avadānaśataka. When evaluating these comparatively rare instances of predictions received by women, two aspects come up for special consideration: (a) the textual significance of variations regarding the presence or absence of a change of sex, and (b) the epistemological and soteriological consequences for female audiences of women’s narratives constructed by the third-person perspective of male monastic text transmitters. The variations document that the transmitters did not always perceive the transformation of sex into a male as a categorical necessity. This transformation may not have been integral to these narratives of the bodhisattva path as articulated by the textual communities in which these texts originated and circulated.

This article contains annotated translations of canonical quotations nos. Up 6012, Up 6010, Up 8020, Up 6007 and Up 3070 in the Tibetan Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā, the ‘Essential Companion to the Treasury of Abhidharma’, that parallel discourses nos. 467, 473 and 474, 482, 485 and a brief modular passage in discourses nos. 486–489 in the Vedanā-saṃyukta, the chapter on the ‘Connected [Discourses] on Feelings’ of the Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-āgama (T 99). The themes broached are: pleasant feelings being nothing but unsatisfactory or duḥkha (Up 6012); all feelings are duḥkha, and meditative progressions of gradual subsiding and gradual ceasing of all constructions, with a foremost cessation declared superior to them (Up 6010); five states that are abandoned and five states that are fulfilled by a noble disciple who experiences the happiness of seclusion (Up 8020); methods of exposition according to different enumerations of feelings, and understanding the significance of numerous teachings taught according to different methods as a foundation for not causing quarrels and for dwelling in peace in the Teacher’s Dharma and Discipline (Up 6007); all beings subsist because of nutriment (Up 3070).

This paper gives a close-up look at the canonical quotation in the third chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya of the opinion that the scent of the Pārijāta Tree spreads fifty leagues against the wind, which is held to be “stated concerning ‘not to exceed a [single] tree’” (vṛkṣānatikramaṃ saṃdhāyoktam ity). The focus is in particular on the corresponding citation found in the third chapter of Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā (Up 3085). The paper presents the text and translation of the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā’s quotation, and then comments on the significance of its textual features in relation to Śamathadeva’s work and his mode of quoting canonical material as well as to the study of the development of the Prajñapti, a work of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma Śamathadeva references for this quotation alongside a discourse (sūtra) from the Madhyama-āgama.

The Sarvāstivāda is a school which parted from the original line of the Sthavirāvadins  after the 3rd Buddhist Council held around 250 BCE in Pāṭaliputra under the patronage of the famous king Aśoka. They migrated to Kashmir and become most influential and powerful in the Northwest of India, spreading their teachings via the Silk Road over the West Asian kingdoms to China.
They questioned the impeccability of the arahants, but their central doctrine was the “sarvam asti”- all exists, it is the doctrine of the tri-temporal existence, as it is worked out in the Vijñānakaya-śāstra. The Sarvāstivādins saw the base of this doctrine in the teachings of the Buddha, but their doctrine had been widely disputed. This small paper should bring a small light into the core of their teachings.

This study takes up the first occurrence in Buddhist literature of an illustrative simile comparing the five aggregates (Sanskrit skandhas/Pali khandhas) to a chariot (ratha), found in an early discourse attested in different parallel versions (SN 5.10, SĀ 1202, SĀ2 218, Up 9014). It introduces and translates the version extant in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā (Up 9014), and then comments on this initial formulation of the chariot simile in light of the ancient Indian background against which the early Buddhist texts and teachings emerged. The implications of the distinctive Buddhist use of the chariot imagery in this context appears to be less to the forefront in subsequent uses of the simile in later Buddhist tradition, which tend to shift focus on intra-Buddhist scholastic preoccupations and debates concerning the ontological standing of the person or sentient beings in general. These later developments will be discussed in a follow-up article.

BULAN CHIT-GWEE TELAH TIBA!!! Berbagai mitos tentang setan kelaparan seringkali dikaitkan dengan bulan ini, antara lain — yang paling populer — adalah tentang dibukanya gerbang alam mereka sehingga bebaslah mereka berwisata ke dunia kita selama sebulan penuh. Mitos ini tidak didukung oleh kaum Buddhis sebab memang ada dua macam setan kelaparan sebagaimana disebutkan dalam jilid 16 Saddharma-smr̥tyupasthāna Sūtra 《正法念處經》 (T. vol. 17, № 721 hlm. 142c–143b).

This article examines aspects of the production of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Dīrghāgama (Collection of Long Discourses) manuscript produced in or around the area of Gilgit in Pakistan that was discovered in last decade of the 20th century. The manuscript was the product of a long copying tradition and the only extant witness was copied by a scriptorium consisting of several scribes. The techniques used by a pair of scribes referred to as Scribe C and Scribe D are discussed demonstrating their unique collaboration to copy this manuscript. Interlinear marks left by these scribes on birch bark folios will be discussed with the hope that in pointing out such marks, which appear to be relatively unique to a particular scribe, we will be able to identify the work of certain scribes across manuscripts. The second portion of the article discusses the phenomenon of repair made to the birch bark folios of the Dīrghāgama manuscript as well as pointing out similar instances of repair in other manuscripts from the Gilgit area. These repairs to manuscripts raise questions concerning the production of birch bark folios and how they were selected and used by Buddhist manuscript traditions in Gilgit in the first millennium of the Common Era.

Three passages from the introduction to the Sanskrit Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda
Prātimokṣasūtras are discussed here: (1) the translation of the motion (jñapti) with which the
Prātimokṣasūtra recitation is opened; (2) the immediately subsequent sentence which in the
Mūlasarvāstivāda version seems to be shorter than in all other traditions; and (3) a sentence
from the section describing the manner in which monks have to confess their offences
centering on the meaning of the words anuśrāvaṇā/°naṃ, vyākaraṇaṃ and the construction
yathā … evaṃ.

This article contains annotated translations of canonical quotations in the Tibetan Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā that parallel discourses nos. 231, 238, 240, 245, 252 and 255 in the chapter on the six sense-bases of the Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-āgama (T 99).

This study presents highlights from an investigation of the Saṃyukta-āgama quotations in Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā. These are drawn from collated editions, translations and comparative readings of partial or full discourse (sūtra) quotations paralleling discourses found in selected saṃyuktas of the Chinese translation of the Saṃyukta-āgama (Taishō no. 99). The examples are grouped together as representative of textual features at both the discourse (sūtra) level (setting, proper names, modules, phraseology and internal structure) and at the collection level (titles, uddānas, intra-/inter-textual references, abbreviation patterns). The quantity and quality of similarities and discrepancies between the parallel versions show pervasive variance and variability in the patterns of correspondences, at the mini-, micro- and nano-levels. The findings do not however allow for identification according to neatly defined lineages of transmission within the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Greater Sarvāstivāda (inclusive of Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda). They testify to the intricacies of textual transmission within these traditions, showing that the recensions of the Saṃyukta-āgama represented by the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā and the Sanskrit Saṃyukta-āgama underlying the received Chinese translation are quite closely related yet not identical. The study articulates a model of multiplicity of versions for the discourse transmission that is not dissimilar to what is emerging in recent scholarship in the case of the Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas. This may be read as a reflection of textual transmission among fragmented and spread-out textual communities which nevertheless coalesce under a unifying denominational and ideological umbrella – that of ‘Greater Sarvāstivāda’. These textual characteristics would express particularism, but also a degree of constancy in institutional and communal identity.

This article argues for the meaningfulness of distinguishing between Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sarvāstivāda oral transmission lineages of Āgama texts. It begins by taking up relevant observations by Hartmann (2020) and Enomoto (2000). This leads on to exploring the significance of the term nikāya and its relation to the recital of the monastic code of rules. Next the relationship in general between Vinaya and Āgama texts comes into view, followed by an examination of differences between Madhyama-āgama discourses and their parallels in quotations in Śamathadeva's Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā and in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. A brief consideration of the term Theravāda serves to provide an additional perspective on the question of oral transmission lineages vis-à-vis nikāyas, and the apparent provenance of the Saṃyukta-āgama (T 99) from Sri Lanka. The overall conclusions are that differences between the Madhyama-āgama and the Saṃyukta-āgama extant in Chinese translation point to distinct transmission lineages. The identification of such distinct transmission lineages makes it reasonable to employ the term Mūlasarvāstivāda to refer to the Saṃyukta-āgama extant in Chinese translation as T 99, as its transmission lineage appears to be close to quotations in the Abhidharmakośopāyikā-ṭīkā and in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya.

Terdapat dua teks Āṭānāṭiya yang saling berkaitan, namun memiliki perbedaan isi: yang pertama tanpa dhāraṇī, yang kedua dengan dhāraṇī. Keduanya dapat dijumpai dalam Kangyur Tibet, masing-masing dengan judul:
● lCang-lo-can gyi pho-brang gi mdo ལྕང་ལོ་ཅན་གྱི་ཕོ་བྲང་གི་མདོ (Āṭānāṭiya Sūtra), diterjemahkan oleh Ānandaśrī dan Tharpa Lotsāwa Nyima Gyaltshen.
● mDo chen-po kun-tu-rgyu-ba dang, kun-tu-rgyu-ba ma-yin-pa dang-mthun-pa’i mdo མདོ་ཆེན་པོ་ཀུན་ཏུ་རྒྱུ་བ་དང་། ཀུན་ཏུ་རྒྱུ་བ་མ་ཡིན་པ་དང་མཐུན་པའི་མདོ (Āṭānāṭīya nāma Mahāsūtra), diterjemahkan oleh Jinamitra, Prajñāvarman, dan Yeshe De.

Kanon Pāli, di dalam Dīgha Nikāya 32, memiliki padanan teks pertama yaitu Āṭānāṭiya Suttanta. Sedangkan dalam Dīrgha Āgama Tionghoa 《長阿含經》 (T. № 1), yang berasal dari mazhab Dharmaguptaka, tidak tersua judul Āṭānāṭiya atau sūtra lain yang isinya paralel. Dan, memang, di sepanjang Tripiṭaka Tionghoa hanya kita temukan padanan dari Āṭānāṭiya dengan dhāraṇī, di bawah judul Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra 《毘沙門天王經》 (T. № 1245).

Katalog K’ai-yüan shih-chiao lu 《開元釋教錄》 (T. vol. 55, № 2154 hlm. 563a) menyebutkan bahwa sebuah teks 阿吒那智經 pernah diterjemahkan pada tahun ke-3 era Lung-shuo 龍朔 (663 M) oleh Śramaṇa Nadi 沙門那提 (juga dipanggil *Puṇyotpādya 布如烏伐耶, atau dalam bahasa Cina Fu-shêng 福生 ‘melahirkan jasa’). Namun, sayangnya, terjemahan ini telah punah. Kita juga tidak tahu apakah ini merupakan terjemahan dari Āṭānāṭiya tanpa dhāraṇī atau dengan dhāraṇī.

Kanonisitas kedua Āṭānāṭiya diterima, paling tidak, oleh mazhab Sarvāstivāda. Gāthā berlindung kepada Buddha di tiga masa yang diucapkan oleh Vaiśravaṇa (hanya terdapat pada Āṭānāṭiya dengan dhāraṇī) dikutip dalam Sarvāstivāda-vinaya Vibhāṣā《薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙》 (T. vol. 23, № 1440 hlm. 505c). Āṭānāṭika juga merupakan salah satu dari 18 judul mahāsūtra yang disebutkan dalam Vinaya Piṭaka kaum Sarvāstivādin 《十誦律》 (T. vol. 23, № 1435 hlm. 174b).

Potongan manuskrip Sanskerta yang diduga sebagai sebuah versi Āṭānāṭiya ditemukan pertama kali di awal abad XX di Asia Tengah. Dugaan tersebut didasarkan pada perkataan āṭānāṭi yang terkandung di dalamnya. Transliterasinya bisa dilihat pada hlm. 24–27 Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan vol. 1, yang diterbitkan tahun 1916 oleh A. F. Rudolf Hoernle. Ms. Hoernle, akan tetapi, tidak memiliki kemiripan isi dengan bagian mana pun dari Āṭānāṭiya tanpa dhāraṇī atau Āṭānāṭiya dengan dhāraṇī.

Masih di Asia Tengah, pada tahun-tahun berikutnya benar-benar ditemukan ms. Āṭānāṭiya dengan dhāraṇī di bawah judulĀṭānāṭika Sūtra. Ms. Asia Tengah ini memiliki lebih banyak dhāraṇī yang disisipkan di paragraf-paragraf yang, pada terjemahan Tibet atau Tionghoa, seharusnya tidak memuatnya. Belakangan ditemukan lagi ms. Āṭānāṭīya (dengan -ṭī- panjang) Sūtra di Gilgit, dengan bahasa yang lebih mendekati Sanskerta klasik. Baik Āṭānāṭika Sūtra Asia Tengah maupun Āṭānāṭīya Sūtra Gilgit juga hanya berupa fragmen yang tidak lengkap. Perbandingan keduanya dapat dilihat pada artikel di sini.

Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra Tionghoa

Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra diterjemahkan pada tahun 990 oleh Trepiṭaka Dharmadeva (Fa-t’ien 法天) di masa Dinasti Sung Utara. Teks kita ini memuat sembilan dhāraṇī seperti Mahāsūtra Tibet, namun dalam bentuk yang lebih singkat. Juga berbeda denganMahāsūtra Tibet, di mana Buddha menceritakan kembali kepada para bhikṣu semua yang diucapkan oleh Vaiśravaṇa secara persis, pada teks kita pengulangan tersebut tidak terjadi.

Terjemahan Dharmadeva secara umum lebih ringkas, bahkan cenderung menyederhanakan, dibanding Mahāsūtra Tibet yang berusaha dengan taat menerjemahkan kata demi kata secara harfiah dari sumber aslinya. Maka dalam gāthā pergi berlindung yang diucapkan Vaiśravaṇa, teks kita kekurangan panggilan untuk Buddha cakṣuṣmān (seperti pada ms. Asia Tengah) ataubuddhimān (seperti pada ms. Gilgit; bandingkan Tib. blo-ldan བློ་ལྡན). Sebaliknya, panggilan mahāvīra diterjemahkan bebas menjadi ta wu-wei 大無畏 ‘yang teragung tanpa ketakutan’. Hilanglah seruan terkenal Namas te, puruṣājanya! Namas te, puruṣottama! pada paragraf 7–10, dan disederhanakan saja dengan 歸依、頂禮、尊重、恭敬 ‘mereka pergi berlindung, menyembah, memuliakan, dan menghormati-Nya’. Nama Gautama dihindari di akhir paragraf-paragraf tersebut; demikian pula gelar Jina.

Beberapa karakter juga kurang pada teks kita — khususnya pada transkripsi nama diri — sehingga mesti ditambahkan (dalam posting ini ditampilkan dengan warna magenta). Pada awal par. 10, misalnya, karakter 主 ‘pemimpin’ jelas diperlukan untuk mempertahankan simetri dengan par. 7–9. Kalimat-kalimat berikutnya pun mengandung istilah 藥叉主 ‘pemimpin para yakṣa’ (觀此非人而能禮敬，彼藥叉主守護北方).

Kekurangkonsistenan dapat dilihat pada terjemahan kalimat-kalimat yang seharusnya tampil simetris, contohnya: 命 menggantikan 依 pada par. 9 sehingga menjadi 歸命、頂禮、尊重、恭敬. Contoh lain pada par. 14–16 kita dapati 常來親近，侍奉衛護; tetapi, pada par. 17, 19, dan 21 常來親近，侍奉供養; sementara pada par. 20 kalimat ini hilang sama sekali. Kekurangkonsistenan disebabkan pula karena suatu kata kadangkala ditranskripsikan, kadangkala diterjemahkan. Pada akhir daftar nama di par. 14 *yāvati jagatogati ditranskripsikan dengan 野嚩帝·惹誐睹誐帝; sementara di par. 18 dan 21 klausa ini diterjemahkan sebagai 乃至世間行者 ‘hingga semua yang berkelana di dunia’. Dalam hal nama diri, Madhumada tampil dalam transkripsi 麼度麼多, sementara Puṣpamada diterjemahkan menjadi 花醉. Kombinasi transkripsi-translasi juga terjumpai, seperti: 欲麼睹 (Kāmamada), 俱枳羅成 (?Kokilasāra), 金麼拏尾 (Kanaka-mānavi).

Daftar nama makhluk-makhluk supranatural barangkali merupakan bagian paling menarik dari teks kita. Hampir seluruhnya berupa transkripsi tanpa tanda baca apa pun, kesulitan timbul untuk memenggal nama demi nama. Rekonstruksi nyaris mustahil dilakukan tanpa bantuan Mahāsūtra Tibet di mana, untungnya, nama-nama itu diterjemahkan dan dipisahkan dengandang(-ni) དང་﹙ནི﹚. Penggunaan karakter — terutama untuk sukukata terakhir — seringkali tampak tidak konsisten, misalnya aksara “la” yang seharusnya ditranskripsikan dengan 羅 diganti 路, atau 迦 untuk aksara “ka” diganti 俱. Akan tetapi, harus kita ingat bahwa pada sumber Indis aslinya semua nama tersebut akan muncul dalam bentuk nominatif. Apabila Aśoka (bentuk nominatif:Aśokaḥ) tampil sebagai 阿輸俱, maka 俱 di situ sesungguhnya merupakan transkripsi untuk akhiran -kaḥ. Hal lain yang menambah kerumitan adalah adanya sandhi serta partikel-partikel selain nama diri yang ikut ditranskripsikan. Terkena aturan sandhi, Maṇiḥ + maṇiḥ + maṇicaraḥ memang berubah menjadi Maṇirmaṇirmaṇicaraḥ; namun, bunyi -r tersebut malah ikut ditranskripsikan sehingga menjadi 摩尼里、摩尼里、摩尼左囉. Pada kasus lain, Nandyeva yang berarti ‘Nandin saja’ (Nandī + eva) ditranskripsikan 難禰嚩. Kecuali untuk penyimpangan-penyimpangan demikian, yang akan kita tampilkan miring/italik, dalam posting ini bentuk dasar dari nama diri selalu digunakan.

Dalam posting ini juga rekonstruksi dhāraṇī semata-mata bersifat tentatif. Dhāraṇī dari Mahāsūtra Tibet hanya akan dilirik sebagai contoh. Dalam Mahāsūtra terdapat variansi bacaan antara yang diucapkan Vaiśravaṇa dengan ulangannya oleh Buddha — terjadi, bahkan, dalam satu salinan teks yang sama; belum lagi varian-varian yang akan ditemukan di berbagai edisi Kangyur berbeda. Selain itu, seperti yang sudah disinggung di atas, dhāraṇī dalam Mahāsūtra lebih panjang dan memuat kata/frase yang tidak ada pada Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra. Jadi, nilai setiap karakter Tionghoa akan lebih kita pertimbangkan daripada mengikuti mentah-mentah Mahāsūtra Tibet (misalnya: otumbha otumbhe 烏凍麼烏凍彌 vs. Tib. oṃ tumbhe tumbhe ཨོཾ་ཏུམྦེ་ཏུམྦེ).

LINK: Transliterasi Mandarin dari Vaiśravaṇa Sūtra untuk keperluan pendarasan dapat diunduh di https://sites.google.com/site/dharmasangiti/Atanatiya.pdf

The Central Asian manuscript fragments contain parts of two versions of a Sanskrit
Sarvāstivāda Bhikṣuprātimokṣasūtra. In addition to deviations between both versions, each of
them shows different degrees of influence from the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuprātimokṣasūtra.
In order to verify whether variants are solely different in wording or whether they also imply
varying contents a thorough examination of each single rule is necessary. In the present
contribution, I examine the variants in Niḥsargikā Pātayantikā 27, counted as 26 in some of the
Sarvāstivāda sources and in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuprātimokṣasūtra.

The Sarvāstivāda give an analysis of experience into impartite units called dharmas.  What largely distinguishes the Sarvāstivāda is the view that all dharmas exist concurrently in all time periods: past, present, and future. How is it that each of these events which occur in the past and future exist concurrently with the events of the present moment?  The answers the Sarvāstivāda provide further reveal epistemological and soteriological motivations. They hold that if past and future are to be known, they must exist concurrently to be available for apprehension in the present.  In this paper I want to first explain how these dharmas persist across the three time-periods and what I take to be the primarily soteriological motivations for this view. The soteriological concerns address how the current or future karmic outcome of past actions is possible without an immediate link between the action and its outcome.

Page 129. 114 A Synchronistic Method of Higher Processes Dr. Dion Oliver Peoples Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University Buddhists, if they take the social-guidance philosophy seriously, are likely to label themselves as a disciple of the Buddha. ...

From 2002. Рыбаков, Р. Б. (ed.) Петербургский рериховский сборник: Вып. V. СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петербургского университета, 2002, pp. 167-90. My very own take on the aṅgas and pravacanas in the form of a systematic expose of the relevant sources. Wofully inadequate as to sources, esp. Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādin. Rectified some of it in subsequent papers. Rather embarrassed about the thing, honestly, but it's quite popular here in Russia.