Vinayas II
The Sanskrit and Pali term “Vinaya” (Tib. ’Dul ba; Chin. lü [[[律]]]) refers to the body of teachings concerning monastic discipline or law attributed to the historical Buddha. In theory each ordination lineage or school possessed its own Vinaya. However, only six seemingly complete Vinayas have come down to us, belonging to schools (nikāyas) from both sides of the so-called great schism in Buddhist history purportedly a century or so after the Buddha’s death: one is a Vinaya belonging to the Mahāsāṅghikas (“Majority”; with significant sections from an offshoot school, the Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādins), and five stem from the branch known as the Sthaviras (“Elders”): (1) Theravāda (Mahāvihāra), (2) Dharmaguptaka, (3) Mahīśāsaka, (4) Sarvāstivāda, and (5) Mūlasarvāstivāda. In addition, we have some materials from the Kāśyapīya and Sāṃmitīya. As for the Vinayas of schools whose literatures have not survived, little can be said. In at least one well-documented case, a quotation from a lost Theravādin Vinaya (of the Abhayagiri school) has survived (von Hinüber, 1996, 22–23).
The Vinaya texts deal with rules and procedures, that is, they (1) dictate proper deportment and behavior of bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs (monks and nuns) and (2) govern the actions of the monastic community or saṅgha as a corporate entity. These two foci are reflected in the twofold division in this textual corpus between (1) vinayavibhaṅgas (explanations of the Vinaya) or sūtravibhaṅgas (explanations of the [[[Prātimokṣa]]] sūtra) and (2) vastus (Pal. khandhaka; chapters). The former are two separate canonical analyses of the rules for monks and nuns contained in their respective Prātimokṣasūtras, ritual texts containing lists of approximately 250 rules for monks (350 for nuns) to be recited fortnightly by all ordained monastics to ensure the purity of the community by allowing for the confession of any infractions. The latter are a series of approximately 20 thematically arranged chapters on various topics such as confession (recitation of the Prātimokṣasūtra); ordination; penance and probation (for transgressions of the second class of prātimokṣa offenses); rains’ retreat; schisms; and the use of leather, medicines, and robe cloth.
Not all Vinayas or monastic-law codes contain the same sections. In addition to the vibhaṅgas and vastus, the two most important sections are the Parivāra, the third and final section of the Theravāda Vinaya, and the Uttaragrantha, the fourth and final section of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. Whereas, in comparison with other sections of the same Vinaya, the Parivāra is a much later or younger (1st/2nd cents.[?]; von Hinüber, 1996, 22) section, the opposite seems to be true of the Uttaragrantha. Most of the material common to all extant Vinayas is found in the vibhaṅgas and vastus; unlike the Parivāra or Uttaragrantha, these sections lend themselves particularly well to comparative studies and discussions of historical, textual development, whether it be in terms of enlargement from some hypothetical urtext (e.g. Frauwallner, 1956) or borrowing and leveling (e.g. Schopen, [1985] 1997, 25–29; [2012] 2014, 128–129n7). Structure of the Vibhaṅgas
The basic structure of the vibhaṅgas of all Vinayas is similar, albeit with some important differences. As a rule, the vibhaṅgas follow the order of presentation of rules found in the Prātimokṣasūtras: the rules are presented in categories of descending order of gravity of offense, seven in total, with the addition of an eighth category being a listing of seven formal procedures for dispute resolution. The eight categories are as follows (with representative but not exhaustive Indian terminology and Chinese and Tibetan transcriptions and translations; for an indication of the number of rules in each category in extant Vinaya texts, see table 1 below):
1. offenses entailing excommunication from the saṅgha (Skt./Pal. pārājika; Chn. boluoyi [[[波羅夷]]]; Tib. pham par ’gyur ba);
2. offenses entailing temporary penance (Skt. saṅghāvaśeṣa/saṃghātiśeṣa; Pal. saṅghādisesa; Chn. sengqieposhisha [僧伽婆尸沙]/sengcanfa [僧殘法]; Tib. dge ’dun lhag ma);
3. undetermined offenses (Skt./Pal. aniyata; Chn.
buding [[[不定]]]; Tib. ma nges pa);
4. offenses entailing atonement with confis cation (Skt. naiḥsargika-pāyantikā; Pal. nissaggiyapācittiya; Chn. nisaqiboyiti [尼薩耆波逸提]/ sheduofa [捨墮法]; Tib. spang ba’i ltung byed);
5. offenses entailing atonement (Skt. pāyantikā/ pātayantikā/pācattika; Pal. pācittiya; Chn. boyiti [波逸提]/duofa [墮法]; Tib. ltung byed);
6. offenses entailing confession (Skt. pratideśanīya/ pratideśanika; Pal. pāṭidesanīya; Chn. boluotitisheni [波羅提提舍尼]/huiguofa [悔過法]; Tib. so sor bshags par bya ba);
7. rules dictating etiquette (Skt. śaikṣa; Pal. sekhiya; Chn. zhongxuefa [衆學法]; Tib. bslab pa’i chos); and
8. legal procedures for dispute resolution (Skt. adhikaraṇaśamatha; Pal. adhikaraṇasamatha; Chn. miezhengfa [滅諍法]; Tib. rtsod pa zhi bar bya ba’i chos). The individual rules of the Prātimokṣasūtras are presented in detail in the vibhaṅgas according to a fivefold structure, again with some variation. The names of these five sections are known primarily from the Samantapāsādikā, extant in Pali (von Hinüber, 1996, 13): (1) narrative frame (vatthu), (2) establishment of rule (paññatti), (3) amendment of rule (anupaññatti), (4) word analysis (padabhājaniya) including casuistry dealing with hypothetical situations, and (5) exception clauses (anāpatti). Some rules have another section (vinītavatthu) dealing with “case law,” included in the Theravāda Vinaya between the word analysis and the exception clauses but found in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya and all other extant Vinayas in distinct and separate sections outside the vibhaṅgas.
Each category of analysis is not necessarily found for every rule in the extant Vinayas. In general, most of the some 250 individual rules of training (śikṣāpada) for monks are introduced with a narrative frame story. Some of the rules dictating protocols of etiquette (śaikṣa) have highly abbreviated or even no frame stories, and most have little in terms of the other categories of analysis mentioned above. Moreover, in some Vinayas the frame stories for rules applicable to both monks and nuns are abbreviated in the nuns’ vibhaṅga. In narratively rich traditions such as the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, even for the shared rules, there are separate frame stories and other categories of analysis for nuns’ rules.
Structure of the Vastus
Structurally, although not necessarily in terms of content, it is the vastus and what are usually taken to be their Mahāsāṅghika counterparts (the 14 vargas of the bhikṣuprakīrṇaka and, to a lesser extent, the 7 vargas of the Abhisamācārikā dharmāḥ; Frauwallner, 1956, 198) in which we see the greatest divergence between the Sthavira Vinayas and the non-Sthavira Mahāsāṅghikavinaya (Mohesengqi-lü; 摩訶僧祇律; T. 1425). Among the Sthavira Vinayas, there is more or less agreement in terms of the chapter titles and their general content. We may differentiate a total of 22 chapters as follows (Sanskrit titles from the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya where extant):
1. Pravrajyāvastu (Chapter on “Going Forth” or Ordination);
2. Poṣadhavastu (Chapter on Monks’ and Nuns’ Fortnightly Prātimokṣasūtra Recitation and Confession Ceremony on Poṣadha [“Fast”] Days of the Full and New Moons);
3. Pravāraṇāvastu (Chapter on the Pravāraṇā [“Invitation”] Ceremony Marking the End of the Rains’ Retreat When Monks and Nuns are Invited to Point out Any Offenses That They Have Seen, Heard, or Suspected during the Rains’ Retreat);
4. Varṣāvastu (Chapter on the Three-Month Rains’ Retreat);
5. Carmavastu (Chapter on the Use of Leather);
6. Bhaiṣajyavastu (Chapter on the Use of Medicines);
7. Cīvaravastu (Chapter on the Use of Robes and Other Property);
8. Kaṭhinavastu (Chapter on the Kaṭhina [“Rough Cloth”] Donated by Laypeople After the Rains’ Retreat and the Ceremony That Exempts Monks and Nuns from Certain Vinaya Requirements For up to Five Months Thereby Allowing Them to Receive Donations of Robe Cloth Which They Then Make into Robes;
9. Kauśāmbakavastu (Chapter on the Kauśāmbaka Dispute);
10. Karmavastu (Chapter on the Campā Incident);
11. Pāṇḍulohitakavastu (Chapter on Formal Acts for Suspension and Other Disciplinary Measures);
12. Pudgalavastu (Chapter on the Six-Day Mānatva/Mānāpya Penance for the Commission of Saṅghā vaśeṣa Offenses);
Table 1: Approximate Number of Prātimokṣa Rules for Monks and Nuns According to Vinaya Tradition
(Arranged in Ascending Order of Rule Total)
Vinaya tradition Monks/ Nuns Pār. SA Aniy. NP Pāy. Pratid. Śai. AŚ Total
Sāṃmitīya Monks 4 13 2 30 90 4 ? ? ?
Mahāsāṅghika Monks 4 13 2 30 92 4 66 7 218
Mahāsāṅghika- Lokottaravāda Monks 4 13 2 30 92 4 67 7 219
Theravāda (Mahāvihāra) Monks 4 13 2 30 92 4 75 7 227
Kāśyapīya Monks 4 13 2 30 90 4 96 7 246
Mūlasarvāstivāda (Chn.) Monks 4 13 2 30 90 4 99 7 249
Dharmaguptaka Monks 4 13 2 30 90 4 100 7 250
Mahīśāsaka Monks 4 13 2 30 91 4 100 7 251
Mūlasarvāstivāda Monks
(Tib.) 4 13 2 30 90 4 112 7 262
Sarvāstivāda (Chn.) Monks 4 13 2 30 90 4 113 7 263
Sarvāstivāda Monks
(Skt. fragments) 4 13 2 30 90 4 113 7 263
Sarvāstivāda (Binaiye) Monks 4 13 2 30 90 4 113 7 263
Mahāsāṅghika Nuns 8 19 0 30 141 8 77/
64a 7 290/
277a
Mahāsāṅghika- Lokottaravāda Nuns 8 19 0 30 141 8 66 7 279
Theravāda (Mahāvihāra) Nuns 8 17 0 30 166 8 75 7 311
Dharmaguptaka Nuns 8 17 0 30 178 8 100 7 348
Sarvāstivāda (Chn.) Nuns 8 17 0 30 178 8 107 7 355
Sarvāstivāda (Chn. Nuns Dunhuang) 8 17 0 30 178 8 110 7 358
Mūlasarvāstivāda Nuns (Chn. vibhaṅga and prātimokṣa) 8 20 0 33 180 11 99 7 358
Mūlasarvāstivāda Nuns (Tib. prātimokṣa) 8 20 0 33 180 11 112 7 371
Mahīśāsaka Nuns 8 17 0 30 210 8 100 (7)b 380
a vibhaṅga and prātimokṣa, respectively; b applicability assumed, rules not present in text. Abbreviations: Pār. = pārājika; SA = saṅghāvaśeṣa; Aniy. = aniyata; NP = naiḥsargika-pāyantikā; Pāy. = pāyantikā; Pratid. = pratideśanīya; Śai. = śaikṣa; AŚ = adhikaraṇaśamatha.
This table should not be taken as definitive but rather as an approximate guide (see also Waldschmidt, 1926, 3; Nishimoto, 1928; Takakusu, vol. V, 1936–1940, 1–23; Pachow, 1955, 11; Ueda, 1976, 204; Hirakawa, vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 21, 81).
13. Pārivāsikavastu (Chapter on the Parivāsa Probation for Concealment of Saṅghāvaśeṣa Offenses);
14. Poṣadhasthāpanavastu (Chapter on the Suspension of the Fortnightly Poṣadha Confession Ceremony);
15. Śayanāsanavastu (Chapter on the Use of Lodgings);
16. Adhikaraṇavastu (Chapter on Disputes);
17. Saṅghabhedavastu (Chapter on Schisms);
18. Chapter 18 is not properly counted among the vastus and is treated as a separate section in the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition: Kṣudrakavastu (Chapter on Miscellanea). This chapter contains material that is found in multiple sections in other Vinayas including the following four (Pali titles):
19. Vattakkhandhaka (Chapter on Deportment); 20. Bhikkhunīkkhandhaka (Chapter on Nuns);
21. Pañcasatikakkhandhaka (Chapter on the First Council of 500 Arhats); and
22. Sattasatikakkhandhaka (Chapter on the Second Council of 700 Arhats).
Unlike the above chapters, which comprise the section governing the actions of the saṅgha as a corporate body, the Mahāsāṅghika counterpart is divided into numbered but untitled vargas or sections. There is no one-to-one correlation between the Sthavira chapters and the vargas of the Mahāsāṅghika counterparts. Although the first varga of the extant Mahāsāṅghikavinaya may at first glance seem similar to the first of the Sthavira chapters, namely the chapter on ordination, the Mahāsāṅghika section contains not only a discussion of ordination but also a technical discussion on karmans or formal acts. This same order of topics is also found in a separate text known in the Shisong-lü (十誦律; T. 1435), the Modeleqie (摩得勒伽; T. 1441), and the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya as the Mātṛkā. Moreover, the style of the Mahāsāṅghika vargas also corresponds with that of the Mātṛkās. The Mātṛkās, however, are very different in style from the vastus, which generally begin with and contain numerous narratives, something almost entirely lacking from the Mātṛkās. Strictly in terms of the development of Vinaya literature, we may compare the structure of the thematic sections of the Mahāsāṅghikavinaya not with the vastus of the Sthavira Vinayas but with the khaṇḍakas of the various Sthavira Mātṛkās, thus relieving us of the necessity of engaging in textual gymnastics in order to posit some hypothetical rearrangement that might explain the structural differences between the Mahāsāṅghikavinaya and the Sthavira Vinayas (Clarke, 2004a).
The following select survey of the extant corpus of canonical Indic Vinaya literature, including works preserved in Chinese and Tibetan translation but excluding indigenous Chinese or Tibetan works and the numerous karmavācanā (formularies of formal ecclesiastical acts) collections, is arranged according to sectarian divisions as presently understood. Important texts including the Pinimujing (毘尼母經; T. 1463; Haimavata school[?] or Dharmaguptaka school[?]) and Foshuo bichu wufajing (佛說苾芻五法經; T. 1479) have not been included due to space limitations and the fact that their sectarian identity remains disputed or unclear. (Surveys of Vinaya literature include Frauwallner, 1956; Banerjee, 1957, 28–50, 79–246; Lamotte, [1958] 1988, 165–179; Hirakawa, [1960] 1999–2000; Tokuda, 1974; Yuyama, 1979; Hirakawa, 1982, 6–14; Tsedroen, 1992; Prebish, 1994; Wang, 1994; and Heirman, 2007. For Central Asian Vinaya texts, see Inokuchi, 1995, 329–351. For Dunhuang Vinaya texts in Chinese, see Tsuchihashi, 1980, 661–886. For Dunhuang Vinaya texts in Tibetan, see Okimoto, 1985. For Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya texts in Tibetan, with reference to Yijing’s Chinese translations, see Sakurabe, 1928. For an update to Yuyama, 1979, in light of Indic manuscript finds, see Yamagiwa, 2007. For catalogues of Sanskrit fragments from the Sarvāstivādin and Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinayas, see Chung, 2002; Hartmann & Wille, 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; Wille, 2014a; 2014b. For the Gilgit Vinaya texts, see Clarke, 2014. For Gandhari Vinaya texts – especially on the two versions of rules from a prātimokṣasūtra preserved on different sides of the same folio [obverse seemingly Dharmaguptaka/Kāśyapīya and reverse perhaps Sarvāstivādin/Mūlasarvāstivādin], see Falk & Strauch, 2014, 57–60; see also Strauch, 2014, 817–825. For manuscript evidence on the marginalia of SHT [V] 1068, suggestive of early Vinaya Studies in Central Asia, see Clarke, 2011.)
There is a substantial commentarial literature on the Vinayas extant in Tibetan and Chinese translations, but only a small number of commentaries are extant in Sanskrit. (For a useful but dated survey of Indian commentaries in Tibetan translation, with a few in Chinese, see Banerjee, 1957, 36–50; Maeda, 2001.)
Mohesengqi-lü
The Mohesengqi-lü (摩訶僧祇律; Mahāsāṅghikavinaya; T. 1425 [XXII]; 40 fasc.) is the only extant, “complete” non-Sthavira Vinaya. Unlike most of the Sthavira Vinayas, this Vinaya preserves its sectarian identity in its title, albeit in transcription. It was translated by the Indian Buddhabhadra (Fo- tuobatuoluo [[[佛陀跋陀羅]]]; 359–429 ce) in collaboration with Faxian (法顕; c. 337–422 ce) between 416 and 418 ce on the basis of a manuscript copied and brought back to China by Faxian from Pāṭaliputra. This Vinaya contains a large number of quotations from āgama and jātaka material (Hirakawa, vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 361–369). It is arranged as follows:
(1) [[[Bhikṣu]]] prātimokṣavibhaṅga (boluotimucha fenbie [波羅提木叉分別]; T. 1425 [XXII] 227a5– 412b15; fasc. 1–22);
(2) Miscellaneous [i.e. Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka] Recitation of the Varga Dharmas (zasong baqufa [雜誦跋渠法]; T. 1425 [XXII] 412b20–499a16; 14 vargas; fasc. 23–33); (3) Abhisamācārikā dharmāḥ (weiyifa [威儀法]; T. 1425 [XXII] 499a21–514a17; 7 vargas; fasc. 34–35); (4) Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣavibhaṅga (biqiuni boluotimuch a fenbie [比丘尼波羅提木叉分別]; T. 1425 [XXII] 514a22–544c10; fasc. 36–40);
(5) Miscellaneous [i.e. Bhikṣuṇīprakīrṇaka] Varga
(za baqu [雜跋渠]; T. 1425 [XXII] 544c11–548a28; 5 vargas; fasc. 40);
(6) Postscript (siji [私記]; T. 1425 [XXII] 548a29– b25; fasc. 40); and
(7) Sūtra on the Severity of Retribution for Transgression of Precepts Spoken by the Buddha (Foshuo fanjiezuibaoqingzhongjing [佛說犯戒罪報輕重經]; T. 1425 [XXII] 548b26–549a2; fasc. 40; this sūtra is almost identical to T. 1467 [XXIV], the translation of which is untenably attributed to An Shigao [[[安世高]]; fl. 148–180 CE]; the latter text, however, contains six extra verses after the prose section). The sūtra details the length of time to be spent in hell for the commission of various monastic offenses (on T. 1467, see Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 198–200). (The bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣavibhaṅga, the bhikṣuṇīprakīrṇaka, the section related to nuns in the bhikṣuprakīrṇaka [471a25–476b11], and the postscript have been translated into English by Hirakawa Akira [1982]. For a German translation of the Abhisamācārikā dharmāḥ, see Karashima, 2012; miscellaneous French translations are available in Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 270–335.) (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 144–147; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.55–1.57; Prebish, 1994, 57–60.)
Mohesengqi-lü dabiqiu jieben
The Chinese translation of this bhikṣuprātimokṣa, titled Mohesengqi-lü dabiqiu jieben (摩訶僧祇律大比丘戒本; Mahāsāṅghikavinaya Great Bhikṣu Precept Book; T. 1426 [XXII]; one fasc.), is ascribed to the Indian Buddhabhadra. A number of important discrepancies between this prātimokṣa and the vibhaṅga of the Mohesengqi-lü preclude the possibility that the former is merely an extraction from the vibhaṅga. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 232–240; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.51; Prebish,
1994, 56–57.) Mohesengqi biqiuni jieben The Chinese translation of this bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa, titled Mohesengqi biqiuni jieben (摩訶僧祇比丘尼戒本; Mahāsāṅghika Bhikṣuṇī Precept Book; T. 1427 [XXII]; one fasc.), is ascribed to Faxian and Buddhabhadra (Juexian [[[覺賢]]]). There are inconsistencies between this prātimokṣa and the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga of the Mohesengqi-lü, particularly in the number of śaikṣa rules: 77 in this prātimokṣa, with only 64 in the vibhaṅga (see table 1 above). This prātimokṣa is thought not to be a separate translation but an extract that became corrupt during its transmission in China (English translation in Kabilsingh, 1998, 44–79). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 246–247; vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 76–77; Yuyama,
1979, § 1.52; Prebish, 1994, 57.)
Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādins
Vinaya of the Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādins
We do not possess a complete text of the Vinaya of the Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādins. Our knowledge of the structure of this Vinaya is based on the Mahāsāṅghika parallels preserved in Chinese and the following limited corpus of Indian manuscripts. The attribution of fragments to this Vinaya is not entirely secure (Tournier, 2014); the attributions are generally based on similarities with Chinese parallels in the Vinaya of the Mahāsāṅghikas and various terminological peculiarities. The attribution of complete manuscripts, however, is secure, since these preserve colophons. Although long considered an avadāna, the Mahāvastu (ed. Senart, 1882–1897; trans. Jones, 1949–1956; Hiraoka, 2010) has clearly been shown by V. Tournier (2012) to be a part of the Vinaya of the Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādins (as noted above, the Mohesengqi-lü contains a large number of quotations from āgama and jātaka material). A 12th– 13th-century manuscript (“manuscript Sa”) published by A. Yuyama (2001, xlvi–xlix) appears to be the oldest witness of the Nepalese Mahāvastu manuscript tradition (Tournier, 2012). In connection with the Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādin Vinaya texts found in Tibet, one should not forget that Atiśa (982–1054 ce), a prominent figure in the phyi dar (“later spread”) of Buddhist teachings into Tibet, was ordained in the Mahāsāṅghika lineage (Chattopadhyaya, 1967, 69–70). The Abhisamācārikā dharmāḥ and bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣavibhaṅga may have been copied in Vikramaśīla (Tournier, forthcoming a), a monastery closely associated with the Mahāsāṅghikas (Roth, 1970, xv–xvi). (For a detailed survey of Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravādin materials, see Tournier, forthcoming a.) Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda:
Bhikṣuprātimokṣavibhaṅga
A fragment (no. 7) first edited by S. Lévi (1932, 11–12), reedited and discussed by O. von Hinüber (1986), and studied by H. Matsumura (1988) and É. Nolot (1988), preserves a parallel to T. 1425 (XXII) 307a–b (naiḥsargika 11 but perhaps 12 for the fragment). S. Karashima (2002) transliterates and translates folio 136 from a manuscript written in Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I script (6th cent.) corresponding to T. 1425 (XXII) 336c26–29 (pācattika 6) and fragments from folio 14(x) corresponding to T. 1425 (XXII) 337a19–24 (pācattika 7). S. Karashima (2000a) transliterates and translates a fragment (Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I) corresponding to T. 1425 (XXII) 341a23–b17 (pācattika 13) and fragments from two folios in early Western Gupta script (4th cent.) corresponding to T. 1425 (XXII) 391b7–c18 (pācattikas 83–84; Karashima, 2006; further folios are scheduled to appear in Schøyen, vol. IV, forthcoming; see also Braarvig, 2014, 164). Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda:
Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka
S. Lévi (1932, 5–8) edits and discusses a Gilgit/ Bamiyan Type I fragment (no. 5) on the pratisāraṇīyakarman (a procedure for reconciliation made by a monk to laypeople whom he has offended), a parallel to which is found at T. 1425 (XXII) 425c–426a. A single fragmentary folio (no. 80) in North Western Gupta Brahmi (5th cent.) was edited by S. Sasaki and N. Yamagiwa (2006) but now should be studied in light of V. Tournier’s remarks (2014). A quotation from the bhikṣuprakīrṇaka is preserved in Śāntideva’s 8th-century Śikṣāsamuccaya (Yuyama, 2003; Tournier, 2014). (On a fragment in the Schøyen collection [MS 2379/72], presumably from the pātrapratisaṃyukta section of the bhikṣuprakīrṇaka, with parallels in the Mahāvastu [iii: 305.3–310.6] and the Mahāsāṅghika Abhisamācārikā dharmāḥ [T. 1425 (XXII) 501b2–11], see Tournier, forthcoming b.) A summary of the bhikṣuprakīrṇaka in the form of keywords (prakīrṇakoddāna) is appended to the bhikṣuṇīvinaya (bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣavibhaṅga and bhikṣuṇīprakīrṇaka; see Roth, 1970, 327–334; for a useful comparative listing of the bhikṣuprakīrṇaka and its Chinese parallels, see Chung, 2006, 183–187).
Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda:
Abhisamācārikā dharmāḥ
A complete, 50-folio palm-leaf manuscript with colophon identifying sectarian affiliation was found by R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana in Zha lu Monastery in Tibet, the seat of Bu ston (1290–1364 ce; see below), and was first edited by Jinānanda (1969; see Bandurski, 1994, 95–96 [§ 55b]; the Anglophone reader may still profit from the translation in S. Singh & K. Minowa [1988]; a facsimile edition was published by Taisho University in 1998; various chapters have been edited and translated into Japanese by the Abhisamācārika Dharma Study Group at Taisho University; see Yonezawa & Nagashima, 2014, 331; for an edition and German translation, see Karashima, 2012).
Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda:
Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣavibhaṅga and
Bhikṣuṇīprakīrṇaka
An Indic text with colophon identifying sectarian affiliation was edited by G. Roth (1970) on the basis of an 11th– 12th-century, 80-folio palm-leaf manuscript found in Zha lu Monastery in Tibet by R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana (see Bandurski, 1994, 94–95 [§ 55a]; fol. 71b, not included in Roth, 1970, is edited in the second edition [2005]; for a French translation, see Nolot, 1991). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999– 2000, 104–108; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.66–1.60; Prebish, 1994, 62–65.)
Mahāsāṅghika-Lokottaravāda:
Bhikṣuprātimokṣa
A complete circa 12th-century Indic manuscript of a bhikṣuprātimokṣa, found by R. Sāṅkṛtyāyana in
Ngor Monastery in Tibet in 1934, was edited first by W. Pachow and R. Mishra (1952–1953; see Yuyama, 1979, § 1.61.S.1) and republished as a monograph in 1956 (also edited by Tatia, 1976; see Bandurski, 1994, 96–97 [§ 57]). An English translation of the inferior edition by W. Pachow and R. Mishra is available from C.S. Prebish (1975). Folios of a separate manuscript – 57[?], 59–71, and 82–101 with a supplementary leather folio between folios 82–83 and 115–116 reedited with a supplementary folio from 106r(?) covering naiḥsargika 30 to pāyattikā 46, pāyattikā 64 to śaikṣa 47(?), and the concluding verses – have been edited by S. Karashima (2013). Folios 72–81 and 102–116 with a supplementary folio from 106r(?) covering pāyattikā rules 46–64 and śaikṣa 48(?) to the concluding verses, with a Bactrian colophon, have also been edited by S. Karashima (2008). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 106; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.61; Prebish, 1994, 61–62.)
On the Theravāda (Mahāvihāra) Vinaya, see the surveys by O. von Hinüber (1996, 8–22) and P. Kieffer-Pülz (2014, 46–62). A. Heirman’s claim (2007, 190) that the Pali Vinaya was translated into Chinese in the late 5th century must be rejected. The evidence cited by her from Sengyou’s (僧祐; 445–518 ce) catalogue of 518 ce, the Chu sanzang ji ji (出三藏記集), tells us only that a tapili (他毘利; transcribing perhaps a form of Sthavira, but not Theravāda and certainly not Pali) Vinaya text was translated into Chinese. Moreover, since Sengyou’s catalogue does not record the number of fascicles (and when the number is recorded in subsequent catalogues, the text is said to be only one fascicle in length), this translation cannot possibly have been the (or even a) Pali Vinaya. At best, the tapili may have been a Sthavira prātimokṣa.
Sifen-lü
The Sifen-lü (四分律; Four-Part Vinaya; T. 1428 [XXII]; 60 fasc.) is traditionally ascribed to the Dharma guptakas. With the exception of a few minor Sanskrit fragments (see Hartmann & Wille, 2014b, 219), the Vinaya of this school is extant only in a Chinese translation made by the Kashmiri Buddhayaśas (Fotuoyeshe [[[佛陀耶舍]]]; fl. 4th–5th cents.), who is said to have taught the (or a) Sarvāstivādin Vinaya to Kumārajīva (344–409/413 ce), and Zhu Fonian (竺佛念; fl. early 5th cent.) between 410 and 412 ce. Since displacing the Mahāsāṅghikavinaya and the Sarvāstivādin Shisong-lü in China (Wang, 1994, 183–184), at least nominally this Vinaya has been followed by most Buddhist schools in China, Korea, and Japan throughout Buddhist history. Unlike many of the other Vinayas extant in Chinese translation, there is a rich Chinese exegetical tradition on this Vinaya preserved in the literature of Daoxuan’s (道宣; 596–667 ce) Nanshan “Southern Mountain”
Vinaya school (南山律宗), Fali’s (法礪; 569–635 ce) Xiangbu “Xiang Province” school (相部宗), and Huaisu’s (懷素; 624/634–697/707 ce) Dongta “Eastern Pagoda” Vinaya school (東塔律宗). (On the Vinaya schools, see Tokuda, 1969; 1974; Satō, 1986, 208–227.)
The Sifen-lü is arranged as follows:
Preface (T. 1428 [XXII] 567a2–b19);
Part 1 (T. 1428 [XXII] 567b20–713c29; fasc. 1–21): introductory verses (T. 1428 [XXII] 567b23–568c5) and bhikṣuvibhaṅga (T. 1428 [XXII] 568c6–713c28); Part 2 (T. 1428 [XXII] 714a1–835c11; fasc. 22–37): bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga (ming nijiefa [明尼戒法]), chapter on ordination (1) (numbers in parentheses here and below refer to the chapter numbers from table 2 above) down to chapter on the rains’ retreat (3); (for an English translation of the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga [T. 1428 [XXII] 714a4–778b14], see Heirman, 2002; for a partial [T. 1428 (XXII) 779a1–803a18] English translation of the chapter on ordination and a complete translation of the chapter on the rains’ retreat, see the ongoing translation project at https://dharma- guptakavinaya.wordpress.com/downloads/); Part 3 (T. 1428 [XXII] 835c12–936b17; fasc. 37–49): chapter on the pravāraṇā ceremony (4) down to chapter on deportment (18); (for complete English translations of the chapters on pravāraṇā and on nuns [17], see the ongoing translation project at https://dharmaguptakavinaya.wordpress.com/ downloads/); and Part 4 (T. 1428 [XXII] 936b18–1014b20; fasc. 50–60): chapters on lodgings (19) down to chapter on the council of 700 arhats (22) (T. 1428 [XXII] 936b21– 971c2; fasc. 50–54). Part 4 also contains the following sections known from the Uttaragrantha (fasc. 55–60): Vinītaka (tiaobu [調部]; T. 1428 [XXII] 971c7–990b7) and *Ekottarikā (pini zengyi [毘尼增一]; T. 1428 [XXII] 990b8–1014b19).
The division into four parts is not according to length, and it is unclear how the divisions work in terms of content (miscellaneous French translations in Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 352–354; Wieger, vol. I, 1910–1913, 334–471). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 138–142; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.35–1.39; Prebish, 1994, 72–76.) Sifen-lü biqiu jieben
This bhikṣuprātimokṣa, titled Sifen-lü biqiu jieben
(四分律比丘戒本; Four-Part Vinaya Bhikṣu Precept Book; T. 1429 [XXII]; one fasc.), was compiled in China by Huaisu, who extracted the applicable rules from the vibhaṅga of the Sifen-lü, translated by Buddhayaśas. It is not a separate translation (French translation in Wieger, vol. I, 1910–1913, 212– 259; Japanese translation in Satō, 2008, 81–151). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 247–250; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.31; Prebish, 1994, 70–71.) Sifen seng jieben
This is a separate translation of a bhikṣuprātimokṣa, titled Sifen seng jieben (四分僧戒本; Four-Part Monks’ Precept Book; T. 1430 [XXII]; one fasc.), and attributed to the translator Buddhayaśas. It is not an extract from the vibhaṅga of the Sifen-lü. Rather, this translation seems to have been produced prior to the translation into Chinese of the Sifen-lü (English translations in Beal & Gogerly, 1862; Beal, 1871, 206– 239). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000,
247–250; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.31; Prebish, 1994, 70–71.)
Sifen biqiuni jieben
This bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa, titled Sifen biqiuni jieben
(四分比丘尼戒本; Four-Part Bhikṣuṇī Precept
Book; T. 1431 [XXII]; one fasc.), was compiled by Huaisu, who extracted the applicable rules from the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga of the Sifen-lü, translated by Buddhayaśas. It is not a separate translation (English translations in Tsomo, 1996, 25–73; Kabilsingh, 1998, 167–209; French translation in Wieger, vol. I, 1910–1913, 260–291; Japanese translation in Satō, 2008, 155–240). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 247–250; vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 75–76; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.32; Prebish, 1994, 70–71.)
Wufen-lü
The Vinaya attributed to the Mahīśāsakas survives only in a Chinese translation known as the Wufenlü (五分律; Five-Part Vinaya; T. 1421 [XXII]; 30 fasc.) translated between 423 and 424 ce from a manuscript brought back by Faxian from Sri Lanka. The translation was made by a team comprising, among others, the Kashmiri Buddhajīva (Fotuoshi [佛陀什]; fl. early 5th cent.), who himself was a Mahīśāsaka monk and Vinaya specialist, the Khotanese śramaṇa Zhisheng (智勝; fl. early 5th cent.), Zhu Daosheng
(竺道生; 355–434 ce), and bhikṣu Shi Huiyan (釋慧嚴; 363–443 ce). Originally translated in 34 fascicles, it is now extant in 30 fascicles. The full title is Mishasaibu hexi wufen-lü (彌沙塞部和醯五分律). Although the exact meaning of the term hexi (和醯) is unclear (see Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 151), the sectarian identity (Mishasaibu [彌沙塞部]; i.e. Mahīśāsaka [*nikāya (?)]) preserved in transcription in the title is relatively clear. Although it is often stated that among the extant corpus of Chinese Vinaya translations, the Wufenlü is closest to the Theravāda Vinaya in terms of content and wording, this was rejected already over 80 years ago by Nishimoto Ryūzan (1932, 15), who argued rather that the Sifen-lü is closer to the Theravāda Vinaya. The Wufen-lü is arranged as follows:
Part 1 (T. 1421 [XXII] 1a2–77b20; fasc. 1–10):
bhikṣuvibhaṅga;
Part 2 (T. 1421 [XXII] 77b21–101a5; fasc. 11–14):
bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga;
Part 3 (T. 1421 [XXII] 101a6–153c21; fasc. 15–22):
chapters from ordination (1) to kathiṇa (9);
Part 4 (T. 1421 [XXII] 153c22–164a12; fasc. 23–24): chapters on dispute settlement (10) and formal
ecclesiastical acts (11);
Part 5 (T. 1421 [XXII] 164a13–194b21; fasc. 25–30): chapter on saṅghabheda (12) down to the chapter on the second council (21) but also including a section known from the Uttaragrantha: Vinītaka (18)
(T. 1421 [XXII] 182a5–185a27); and Colophon (T. 1421 [XXII] 194b22–28).
The division into five parts is not according to length, and it is difficult to see how the divisions work in terms of content (miscellaneous French translations in Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 336–351; Wieger, vol. I, 1910–1913, 470–477; Jaworski, 1929; 1931). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 149–151; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.45–1.47; Jong, 1981, 109-112; Prebish, 1994, 67–70.) Mishasai wufen jieben There are two separate bhikṣuprātimokṣas preserved under the same Taishō number. The first is the Mishasai wufen jieben (彌沙塞五分戒本; Mahīśāsaka
Five-Part Precept Book; T. 1422 [XXII] 194c2–200b12; one fasc.), translated by Buddhajīva and the rest of the Wufen-lü translation team. The attribution to Buddhajīva is misleading, however, since this is not a translation but rather an extract from the vibhaṅga of the Wufen-lü. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 232–240, 244–245; Yuyama, 1979,
§ 1.41; Prebish, 1994, 66.)
Wufen jieben
The second bhikṣuprātimokṣa is simply titled Wufen jieben (五分戒本; Five-Part Precept Book; T. 1422 [XXII] 200b13–206b19; one fasc.) with the additional title Mishasai jieben (彌沙塞戒本; Mahīśāsaka Precept Book). This translation is also attributed to Buddhajīva and his translation team. However, not only does the translation terminology not match that of Buddhajīva, but the number of rules and their order of presentation also differ from the Wufen-lü. This bhikṣuprātimokṣa is closest to the textual tradition of the Sarvāstivādins. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 235, 244–245; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.41.) Wufen biqiuni jieben
This bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa, titled Wufen biqiuni jieben (五分比丘尼戒本; Five-Part Bhikṣuṇī Precept Book; T. 1423 [XXII]; one fasc.), was compiled from the vibhaṅga of the Wufen-lü by Shi Minghui (釋明徽) in 522 ce (English translation in Kabilsingh, 1998, 83–125). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 245–246; vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 76; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.42; Prebish, 1994, 66.)
Shisong-lü
The Shisong-lü (十誦律; Ten-Recitation Vinaya; T. 1435 [XXIII]; 61 fasc.) is thought to belong to the Sarvāstivādins. Nothing in the title or the content of the text, however, confirms this sectarian affiliation. Following the problematic practice of using Sanskrit words for Chinese Buddhist terms even when unattested and without presenting a case for their adoption, the Shisong-lü is often referred to as the Daśādhyāyavinaya (Nanjio, 1883, 246) or Daśabhāṇavāravinaya (Hirakawa, 1982, 7).
The Shisong-lü was translated into Chinese between the years 404 and 409 ce by Kumārajīva (Luoshi [羅什]) in collaboration with the North Indian *Puṇyatāra (Furuoduoluo [[[弗若多羅]]]) and, after the death of *Puṇyatāra, *Dharmaruci (Tanmoliuzhi [[[曇摩流支]]]). *Puṇyatāra, who is said to have recited the work from memory, allegedly died when only two-thirds of the translation had been completed. A manuscript brought by *Dharmaruci allowed for completion up to fascicle 58. After the death of Kumārajīva, the Kashmiri Vimalākṣa (Beimoluocha [卑摩羅叉]; c. 338–414 ce),
Kumārajīva’s own Vinaya teacher, is said to have edited the text, reworking it into 61 fascicles and changing the title of the last section or recitation from shansong (善誦; Good Recitation or Well Recited) to binisong (比尼誦; Vinaya Recitation; variant: biqiusong [比丘誦]; Bhikṣu Recitation). The Sanskrit title of the Chinese shansong is unknown (comp. with Lamotte’s [(1958) 1988, 168] *Kuśalādhyāya and Chung’s [2005, 1] *Kuśalaparivarta). The shansong, however, contains unmistakable parallels to the Uttaragrantha of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, a text which, at least judging from the Tibetan translation, may also have been called the Uttamagrantha (Vogel, 1985, 110n60). It is possible that shan (善; good; Lamotte’s kuśala) translates Uttama and that song (誦; recitation [i.e. adhyāya]) translates grantha. If this proposal is accepted, the Sanskrit title of this Vinaya – if it had one – may have been *Daśagranthavinaya, although this is unattested.
The Shisong-lü contains an important list of 18 sūtras known as the Mahāsūtras (see Hirakawa, vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 369–371; Skilling, 1997, 4–6, 20–24; for a survey of Sanskrit fragments corresponding to the Shisong-lü, see, with caution as to the identifications, since parallels in Tibetan generally have been overlooked, Chung, 2002; on Sarvāstivādin Vinaya fragments in Tocharian, see, among others, Ogihara, 2009; 2011; 2013; for Uighur fragments, see Elverskog, 1997, 32).
The title of the text reflects its division into ten recitations or sections as follows: Recitations 1–3 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 1a2–147b16; fasc. 1–20): bhikṣuvibhaṅga. (On Sanskrit fragments of the bhikṣuvibhaṅga preserved in the Turfan collection, see Rosen, 1959; for listings of identified Sanskrit fragments, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014b, 216.)
Recitation 4 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 148a1–206b26; fasc. 21–28): chapters from ordination (1) down to robes (7) – traditionally known as the 7 fa (法). (For listings of identified Sanskrit fragments from recitations 4 and 5, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014b, 214–216, 219; 2014c, 251; Wille, 2014a, 193–195; 2014b, 232; for an edition of Sanskrit fragments from the Upasaṃpadāvastu [[[Chapter]] on Ordination] and a translation of the corresponding Chinese, see Chung, 2004; on the Pravāraṇāvastu [[[Chapter]] on the Pravāraṇā], see Chung, 1998; on the Bhaiṣajyavastu [[[Chapter]] on the Use of Medicines], see Chung & Wille, 2002; evidence of an earlier redaction of fasc. 27–28 may exist in a manuscript found at Dunhuang; see Stein 797, 406 ce; Palumbo, 2013, 124–128.) Recitation 5 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 206c1–256b24; fasc. 29–35): chapters from kathiṇa (8) down to disputes (15) – traditionally known as the 8 fa (法). (For a Sanskrit fragment from Kizil of the chapter on kathiṇa and a translation of the corresponding Chinese, see Boltz & Salomon, 1988.)
Recitation 6 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 257a1–302c8; fasc. 36–41): “miscellaneous recitation” (zasong [雜誦]), being the Devadatta chapter (tiaodashi [調逹事]) on schisms (16) and a chapter on miscellanea (zafa [雜法]) (17). Recitation 7 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 302c9–346a4; fasc. 42–47): bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga and gurudharma rules for nuns. (For listings of identified Sanskrit fragments, see Wille, 2014a, 193; note also the fragments edited in Waldschmidt, 1926, 17–45, with a systematic analysis and miscellaneous translations of nuns’ rules from Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan [1926, 71–184].)
Recitation 8 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 346a5–378c7; fasc. 48–51): Uttaragrantha counterparts – (a) Nidāna, (b) *Ekottarikā, and (c) Kathāvastu. Recitations 8–10 need to be read in conjunction with the Uttaragrantha of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, extant chiefly only in Tibetan, and the Modeleqie (摩得勒伽; T. 1441) in order to understand the, perhaps confused, shared underlying structure. (For listings of identified Sanskrit fragments from Uttaragrantha counterparts [[[recitations]] 8–10], see Wille, 2014a,
193–195; 2014b, 233, 237.)
(a) The first part of the text titled zengyifa (增一法; *Ekottarikā; 346a7–352b26) is not a numerically arranged Ekottarikā but this Vinaya’s counterpart to the Nidāna of the Uttaragrantha of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (see below).
(b) The *Ekottarikā proper is found somewhat later (352b27–354c8; 355c10–373c6; a section of the Nidāna is erroneously repeated from 354c10–355c7). The *Ekottarikā enumerates the
“ones” to “tens” twice; the second section (369b25– 373c6) is labeled zengyihou (增一後; After [?] the *Ekottarikā). The first of the two sections of “fives” (358a28–367a5; 370c20–372a12) is extremely long; in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, the length of this section may have contributed to its development into a separate text, the *Pañcaka (see below).
(c) The text after the *Ekottarikā corresponds to the Kathāvastu of the Mūlasarvāstivādin Uttaragrantha, although here it seems to be labeled – most likely erroneously – zengshiyi xiang chu (增十一相初; Beginning [?] of the Incremental section on “elevens”; 373c7–378c6). Recitation 9 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 379a1–409c19; fasc. 52–55): Uttaragrantha counterparts – (a) Upāliparipṛcchā and (b) *Māṇavikā.
(a) The Upāliparipṛcchā section (379a3–405a20) consists of a clarification of points arising from the bhikṣuvibhaṅga (379a3–397a11) and the chapters from ordination (1) down to disputes (15) (397a15–405a20). The lack of an Upāliparipṛcchā section covering the chapter on leather (5) may not be coincidental in light of the following remark by Guṇaprabha (see below): carmavastvādīnāṃ māṇavikā (“the chapter on leather and so forth [are dealt with in] the Māṇavikā”; Vinayasūtra’s Pravrajyāvastu Study Group, 2007, 45.17–46.1 [[[sūtra]] 98]). (b) The last section of the Upāliparipṛcchā – if indeed part of the Upāliparipṛcchā – is labeled wen zashi chu (問雜事初; Beginning [?] of the Questions on the Chapter on Miscellanea; 405a21–409c18). Despite its title, it is the same core text as the Mūlasarvāstivādin *Māṇavikā (see below). Recitation 10 (T. 1435 [XXIII] 410a1–470b20; fasc. 56–61): Uttaragrantha and other counterparts – (a) Mātṛkā, (b) unidentified section, (c) Vinītaka, (d) unidentified section, (e) councils, and (f) Muktaka.
(a) Section 410a4–423b9 is a Mātṛkā with its standard, threefold division (410a4–414c9; 414c10– 417c21; 417c22–423b9; see below).
(b) Section 423b10–424b15 is curious, with, seemingly, no known correspondence in any other canonical Vinaya text, although it does correspond in part to a section in the Merv (Bairam Ali) Sanskrit manuscript ( Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, 1999a; 1999b; 1999c; 2000a; 2000b), as noted by S. Karashima (2000b, 214). Curiously, the Merv manuscript also contains a number of indications of its close relationship to the Vinaya tradition of the Mūlasarvāstivāda (Clarke, 2001, 91–92).
(c) The Vinītaka (424b16–445a12) contains case law from the four pārājikas and the first five saṅghāvaśeṣas, with close parallels in all other Sthavira Vinayas. It is not another Upāliparipṛcchā, as is sometimes claimed (see below).
(d) The text here (445a12–c6) contains a number of hypothetical questions and clarifications of previous rulings. Parallels in other Vinayas have not been identified. The beginning of this section is not indicated. The end is marked with the statement that the “Five Divisions are complete” (五段竟); to what this refers is unclear. In light of an interlinear annotation at 442c25, it may be possible to understand this section as a continuation of the Vinītaka and that the “Five Divisions” refer to the five types of offenses from saṅghāvaśeṣa down to pratideśanīya. This would mean that this Vinītaka ([c] and [d]) also includes select rules beyond the fifth saṅghāvaśeṣa.
(e) The next two sections are the chapters on the first (445c10–450a26) and second councils (450a27– 456b8), respectively; these are not found in the Uttara grantha of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya but in the Kṣudrakavastu.
(f) The final section (456b9–470b19) is the counter part of the Muktaka of the Uttaragrantha (see below). (Miscellaneous French translations are available in Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 231–269). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 127–135; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.15–1.19; Prebish, 1994, 79–83.)
Binaiye
The title of this text, Binaiye (鼻奈耶; T. 1464 [XXIV]; ten fasc.), is a transcription of Indic Vinaya. Translated in 383 ce and attributed to Zhu Fonian (竺佛念; fl. late 4th cent.), this is one of the earliest Chinese Vinaya translations. According to a preface by the Chinese cataloguer Daoan (道安; 312–385 ce), it was recited by the Kashmiri monk Yaśas (Yeshe
[耶捨]). The sectarian affiliation of the text is not mentioned, but it is generally thought to be Sarvāstivādin. This text is incomplete insofar as it contains only a vibhaṅga. It also contains some interesting transcriptions that may help to identify the language from which it was translated. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 162–166, 179; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.15.C.1.) Shisong biqiu boluotimucha jieben The translation of this text, titled Shisong biqiu boluotimucha jieben (十誦比丘波羅提木叉戒本;
Ten-Recitation [[[Vinaya]]] Bhikṣuprātimokṣa Precept Book; T. 1436 [XXIII]; one fasc.) is attributed to Kumārajīva. There are a number of minor differences between this text and the Shisong-lü. Hirakawa Akira attributes the variation to differences in the originals, suggesting that this text is a translation and not an extraction from the vibhaṅga of the Shisong-lü. The earliest dated manuscript found at Dunhuang (Stein 797, 406 ce) contains a Sarvāstivādin bhikṣuprātimokṣa on one side (and fasc. 27–28 of the Shisong-lü on the other). The texts appear not to agree with the received versions of either text and given the early colophon date may transmit earlier versions (Palumbo, 2013, 124–128; Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 168–175, dates the translation of the Dunhuang bhikṣuprātimokṣa between 265 and 360 ce, making it the earliest extant Vinaya text preserved in Chinese translation; Sanskrit fragments of Sarvāstivādin bhikṣuprātimokṣa manuscripts from Central Asia have been edited, recovering a complete text, and translated into German by G. von Simson [1986; 2000]; for further listings of identified Sanskrit prātimokṣa fragments, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014b, 216; Wille, 2014a, 194; 2014b, 233; for a Tocharian fragment [pāyantikā 59–62], see Ogihara, 2012; French translation from Chinese by É. Huber is aligned with Sanskrit fragments in Finot, 1913, 473–543; W. Pachow translates this text into English [1955, 69–219] and compares the wording of other prātimokṣa traditions; note also the Mahīśāsaka bhikṣuprātimokṣa, listed above, which appears to be Sarvāstivādin [Wufen jieben; T. 1422 (XXII) 200b13–206b19]). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 232–240; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.11; Prebish, 1994, 76–78.)
Shisong biqiuni boluotimucha jieben
The translation of this text, titled Shisong biqiuni
boluotimucha jieben (十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本; Ten-Recitation [[[Vinaya]]] Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa Precept Book; T. 1437 [XXIII]; one fasc.), is attributed to Faying (法穎; misprinted as Faxian [法顕] in the Taishō edition). It is an extraction from the vibhaṅga of the Shisong-lü (Sanskrit fragments in Finot, 1913, 548–549; see also Hartmann & Wille, 2014b, 214; Wille, 2014a, 193; note also the fragments edited in Waldschmidt, 1926, 17–45, with a systematic analysis and miscellaneous translations of nuns’ rules from Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan [1926, 71–184]; English translation from Chinese in Kabilsingh, 1998, 126–166). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 240–244; vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 77; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.12; Prebish, 1994, 76–78.) Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa (Discovered in
There is an incomplete and undated Chinese translation of a bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa from Dunhuang, preserved in the collection at Otani University (Kyoto) and dated paleographically to the 6th century ce. The text is extant from only the eighth naiḥsargika onward, with a total of 326 rules preserved (yielding an estimated total of 358). It matches quite well with the Shisong-lü. Nishimoto Ryūzan (1929) suggests that it may be a translation by Kumārajīva. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 243; vol. II, 77; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.12.C.2.)
The Vinaya texts of the Mūlasarvāstivādins are traditionally categorized into four main divisions: Vinayavibhaṅga, Vinayavastu, Vinayakṣudraka, and Vinayottaragrantha (Eimer, 1987). The largest collection of Vinaya material currently available in Sanskrit, representing approximately one quarter of this Vinaya but containing only vastu, prātimokṣa, and karmavācanā material, was discovered in a cache of manuscripts near Gilgit in modern-day Pakistan in 1931. A Sanskrit vibhaṅga fragment was also found (Lévi, 1932, 19–20; Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 101), suggesting the probability that a complete vibhaṅga – if not a complete Vinaya – was preserved at Gilgit. Numerous vibhaṅga fragments, presumably from the same find, have been recently identified (Hartmann & Wille, 2014a, 148–149). Translations of this Vinaya into Tibetan and Chinese are extant in various degrees of completeness. There are also secondary translations into Mongolian and Manchu from Tibetan and into Xixia (西夏; Tangut) from Chinese.
In contrast to the other extant Vinayas, the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya is enormous and particularly unwieldy on account of its propensity toward repetition rather than abbreviation and its inclusion of many sūtras and avadānas (see Panglung, 1981), including the so-called Mahāsūtras (see Hirakawa, vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 372–376; Skilling, 1997, 4, 6–17, 25–31). Due to its length, the Chinese translation is presented not in one text – as are all of the other Chinese Vinaya translations – but in a series of separate texts.
The Tibetan translation is thought to be complete. However, some of the Mūlasarvāstivādin Sanskrit material found in the Schøyen collection such as the fragmentary Vinayoddānagāthā is not included in the Tibetan translation of the Vinaya (’Dul ba). Two Vinayoddānagāthās are also known from Yijing’s (義淨; 635–713 ce) translation corpus (T. 1456, 1457). The existence of Sanskrit fragments proves that these Uddānagāthās were not compiled by Yijing (Clarke, 2002, 59 [postscript]). The presence of fragments of Sanskrit texts from the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya that are not preserved in the Tibetan translation is perhaps best explained by positing not the incompleteness of the Tibetan translation but the existence of multiple Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinayas. The strongest evidence for the existence of multiple Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinayas is found in the corpus of texts for nuns. Although we have no Sanskrit manuscripts, bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅgas and bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣas are preserved in Tibetan and Chinese translations. Curiously, the order and wording of rules in the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga preserved in Tibetan do not match that of the Tibetan bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa. In reference to this situation, the Tibetan polymath Bu ston (1290–1364) concluded that the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga preserved in Tibetan does not belong to the Mūlasarvāstivādins (Vogel, 1985, 110n61). In contrast, Yijing’s corpus of bhikṣuṇī texts is unproblematic. In spite of Bu ston’s claim that the Tibetan bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga is not Mūlasarvāstivādin, it matches closely enough with Yijing’s Chinese translation to conclude that the former is in fact Mūlasarvāstivādin, although clearly not identical to the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition known to Yijing. Further evidence supporting the Mūlasarvāstivādin affiliation of the Tibetan bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga can be found in the Āryasarvāstivādimūlabhikṣuṇī- prātimokṣasūtravṛtti (D 4112/P 5614), a commentary preserved in Tibetan to a text that, until recently, was thought to be lost; a few folios of what appears to be the root text have now been found in a manuscript from the Pelliot Dunhuang collection in Paris (Clarke, 2012a). This commentary identifies itself as *Sarvāstivādimūla (given in Tibetan in both transcription and translation), most likely synonymous with Mūlasarvāstivāda (see Enomoto, 2000, 245). Analysis of the text reveals that it is a commentary on a prātimokṣa that is close to the traditions preserved in the Tibetan bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga, a fact that further supports the claim that the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga introduced into Tibet is in fact Mūlasarvāstivādin, in contrast to Bu ston’s view.
A close examination of the Vinayasūtra (Sāṅkṛtyāyana, 1981) and its autocommentary, the Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyāna (Bapat & Gokhale, 1982) – Vinaya handbooks by Guṇaprabha (c. 5th–7th cents.; see Schopen, [1994] 2004, 312–313), the foremost exegete on the Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya tradition transmitted to Tibet – establishes beyond any doubt that the bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa preserved in Tibetan belongs to the same tradition as that known to Guṇaprabha. The only way to explain this situation, then, seems to be to posit the existence of two Mūlasarvāstivādin traditions: one known to Yijing in Nālandā and the other known to Guṇaprabha in Mathurā. Thus at least three Mūlasarvāstivādin bhikṣuṇī textual traditions were transmitted to Tibet: one represented by a fragmentary prātimokṣa found only in Dunhuang and the Āryasarvāstivādimūlab hikṣuṇīprātimokṣasūtravṛtti, another represented by the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga, and a third found in the canonical bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa and the works of Guṇaprabha. Of course, it may be that these traditions represent only temporally or geographically different versions of the same tradition.
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Bhikṣuvibhaṅga
The Chinese translation by Tripiṭaka master Yijing is simply titled Genben shuo yiqie youbu pinaiye
(根本說一切有部毘奈耶; Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya
(?)] vinaya; T. 1442; 50 fasc.). The text is not called a vibhaṅga but simply a Vinaya. There is no translation colophon for the vibhaṅga specifically, although detailed colophons to Yijing’s Vinaya works may be found in at least four places (譯場列位; T. 1452 [XXIV] 418b19–419b25; T. 1456 [XXIV] 520a17–b21; T. 1457 [XXIV] 523c4–524a6; and appended to the first fascicle of the bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga but not reproduced in the Taishō edition – see Ikeda, 1990, 276–279). The date and place of issue of Yijing’s translations are recorded in the Kaiyuan shijiao lu (開元釋教錄) catalogue (730 ce), with the bhikṣuvibhaṅga being listed as issued on Nov 17, 703 ce at Ximing-si (西明寺; T. 2154 [LV] 567c27–568a20). The translation dates here and below are publication or issuance dates (see Chen, 2004, 8). The quality of Yijing’s translations has sometimes been called into question, most prominently by É. Lamotte ([1958] 1988, 170). But such characterizations are based on two problematic assumptions: that the Sanskrit and/or Tibetan texts that have come down to us were similar or even identical to those used by Yijing and that there was only ever a single, stable Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya tradition (Clarke, 2014, 15; see also above). The Tibetan translation (D 3/P 1032), titled ’Dul ba rnam par ’byed pa, in 25,000 ślokas, 83 bam pos or fascicles, made under royal decree of Dpal lha btsan po by Jinamitra (ācārya [[[teacher]]] of the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣikas and vinayadhara [[[Vinaya]] expert] of the Ārya-Mūlasarvāstivādins) and Klu’i rgyal mtshan (fl. late 8th–early 9th cent.), is usually dated to the first decade of the 9th century (Skilling, 1997, 140–141).
For listings of identified Sanskrit fragments, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014a, 148–149; Wille, 2014a, 195; 2014b, 237; see also Lévi, 1932, 19–20. For Sanskrit parallels preserved in extracts from the Divyāvadāna (chs. 13, 21, 35–37), see Ōtani daigaku toshokan-zō, 1930–1932, 407–412. For Uighur fragments, see Elverskog, 1997, 31. Miscellaneous French translations are available in Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 425–449. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999– 2000, 73–74, 154–155; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.25; Prebish,
1994, 96–97.)
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga The Chinese translation by Yijing, titled Genben shuo yiqie youbu pichuni pinaiye (根本說一切有部苾芻尼毘奈耶; Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)]
Bhikṣuṇīvinaya; T. 1443; 20 fasc.), was issued in 710 ce. A Tibetan translation (D 5/P 1034), titled Dge slong ma’i ’dul ba rnam par ’byed pa, in 28 bam pos was made by the Kashmiri upādhyāya (preceptor) Sarvajñādeva, the Kashmiri upādhyāya Dharmākara, the Indian upādhyāya Vidyākara, and Dpal gyi lhun po, and it was revised by the Indian upādhyāya Vidyākara prabha and Dpal brtsegs. It is usually dated to the first decade of the 9th century (Skilling, 1997, 134–135, 140–141). As noted above, the Tibetan and Chinese translations do not correspond exactly; they are translations of different texts (or vastly different versions of the same text). The Tibetan translation was not made by the same team that translated the bhikṣuvibhaṅga, bhikṣuprātimokṣa, bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa, and so on, and this may also account for what is clearly a very different text, or perhaps textual tradition, from the one translated by Jinamitra’s team. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 74, 154–155; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.26; Prebish, 1994, 96–97.)
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Bhikṣuprātimokṣa
We possess a number of versions of bhikṣuprātimokṣas from the Mūlasarvāstivādin tradition. Thirty-eight folios in four incomplete Sanskrit manuscripts were preserved at Gilgit, with some overlap in text confirming through the discrepancies in word and rule order that, at the very least, the bhikṣuprātimokṣa was certainly not a stable document. We also have a complete Sanskrit text preserved in Tibet ( Hu-von Hinüber, 2003). A Chinese translation by Yijing in one fascicle, titled Genben shuo yiqie youbu jiejing (根本說一切有部戒經; Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)] Precept Sūtra; T. 1454), was issued in 710 ce. The details of the Tibetan translation, So sor thar pa’i mdo (D 2/ P 1031), in two bam pos (700 ślokas), are the same as those given above for the bhikṣuvibhaṅga.
For a detailed survey of the extant Sanskrit material from Gilgit, including listings of editions and select translations; a concordance covering most of the extant Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese bhikṣuprātimokṣas; and full-color plates, see Clarke, 2014. For further listings of identified Sanskrit fragments, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014a, 149; 2014b, 216; Wille, 2014a, 194; 2014b, 233. The English translation by C.S. Prebish (1975) from Sanskrit relied solely on A.C. Banerjee’s problematic editions (1953; 1954; and later 1977). The Tibetan text was translated into English by S. Chandra Vidyabhusana (1915) and into Japanese by Masuda Shin’ya (1969). For a translation of the rules unique to monks, see Rockhill, 1884b, 194–201; the numbering of monks’ rules among the shared rules is given in parentheses to the nuns’ rules in Rockhill, 1884a; 1884b. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 73, 154–155; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.21; Prebish, 1994, 86–88.)
Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa
The Chinese and Tibetan versions of these texts do not match (see above). The Chinese translation by Yijing in one fascicle, titled Genben shuo yiqie youbu pichuni jiejing (根本說一切有部苾芻尼戒經;
Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)] Bhikṣuṇī Precept Sūtra; T. 1455) was issued in 710 ce. The details of the Tibetan translation, Dge slong ma’i so sor thar pa’i mdo (D 4/P 1033), in two bam pos, are the same as those given above for the bhikṣuvibhaṅga.
There are a number of interesting prātimokṣa texts for nuns preserved in Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts, a full survey of which is a desideratum given that they were catalogued (La Vallée Poussin, 1962, 1–21; Yamaguchi, vol. I, 1977–1988, 1–51; Lalou, vol. II, 1939–1961, 5–19; Wang, 1999, 115–122) at a time when in modern Western scholarship there was yet little recognition of the problems surrounding the bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa or bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga (see, however, Ōtani daigaku toshokan-zō, 1930–1932, 412n3; on some of these previously unidentified or misidentified texts from Dunhuang and the need for a new catalogue, see Clarke, 2012a; for an English translation from Chinese, see Kabilsingh, 1998, 210–248; for a French translation from Tibetan, see Rockhill, 1884a; 1884b; for an English translation from Tibetan, see Tsomo, 1996, 75–130). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 74, 154–155; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.22; Prebish, 1994, 86–88.)
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Vastus
The 17 vastus of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya are extant in a single, fragmentary manuscript from Gilgit, originally consisting of 523 folios, of which approximately four-fifths survive (Wille, 1990, 16). K. Wille (1990, 17) reconstructs the title from the colophon as Vinayavastvāgama. Each vastu extant in the Chinese translation by Yijing is transmitted as a separate text. Of the 17 vastus of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, only seven are extant in Yijing’s translations: Pravrajyāvastu (chujia shi [出家事]; Chapter on “Going Forth”; T. 1444; four fasc.),
Pravāraṇāvastu (suiyi shi [隨意事]; Chapter on the Pravāraṇā; T. 1446; one fasc.), Varṣāvastu (anju shi [安居事]; Chapter on the Rains’ Retreat; T. 1445; one fasc.), Carmavastu (pige shi [皮革事]; Chapter on Leather; T. 1447; two fasc.), Bhaiṣajyavastu (yao shi [藥事]; Chapter on Medicines; T. 1448; 18 fasc.), Kaṭhinavastu (jiechinayi shi [羯恥那衣事]; Chapter on Kaṭhina; T. 1449; one fasc.), and Saṅghabhedavastu (poseng shi [破僧事]; Chapter on Schisms; T. 1450; 20 fasc.). The Kaiyuan shijiao lu records that Yijing unexpectedly died before revising his translation of the vastus (Chn. basudu [跋窣堵]), stating that he translated 70–80 fascicles but that they remain unedited (T. 2154 [LV] 569a23–25). Only 50 fascicles (with three listed as missing) are recorded in the later Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu (貞元新定釋教目錄) catalogue compiled by Yuanzhao (圓照) in 800 ce (T. 2157 [LV] 868c20– 869a7). Hirakawa Akira (vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 154–157; vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 212–213) suggests that Yijing may have completed a draft translation of the entire vastu section but that many fascicles were later lost (in English, see Matsumura, 1996, 172–173).
The voluminous Tibetan translation titled ’Dul ba gzhi (D 1/P 1030), in 109 bam pos, made by Sarvajñādeva, Dharmākara, Vidyākaraprabha, and Dpal gyi lhun po, and revised by Vidyākaraprabha and Dpal brtsegs – the same team that translated the problematic bhikṣuṇīvibhaṅga (see above) – is usually dated to the first decade of the 9th century (Skilling, 1997, 134–135, 140–141).
For a detailed survey of the extant Sanskrit material from Gilgit, including listings of editions and select translations; references to Sanskrit parallels preserved in extracts from the Divyāvadāna (chs. 1–7, 9–10, 17, 23–24, 30–32; see also Ōtani daigaku toshokan-zō, 1930–1932, 399–407); a concordance covering most of the extant Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese vastus; and full-color plates, see Clarke, 2014. For further listings of identified Sanskrit fragments, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014a, 149–151; 2014c, 250; Wille, 2014a, 193–195; Yao, forthcoming. For miscellaneous French translations from Chinese, see Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 372–419 (the Saṅghabhedavastu), 420–424 (the Bhaiṣajyavastu). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 73, 100–103, 155–157; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.27; Prebish, 1994,
89–95.) Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Kṣudrakavastu The Kṣudrakavastu (Chapter on Miscellanea) is extant only in Chinese and Tibetan translations. Yijing’s Chinese translation, Genben shuo yiqie youbu pinaiye zashi (根本說一切有部毘奈耶雜事; Chapter on Miscellanea of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)]; T. 1451; 40 fasc.), was issued in 710 ce. The text is arranged according to eight sets of ten uddānas (verses consisting of keywords) organized under eight piṇḍoddānas (verses summarizing the uddāna keywords), and all summarized under one meta-uddāna given at the beginning of the text; in various places, antaroddānas (additional keyword summaries) are also found. The organizational structure of the text is briefly mentioned by Yijing at the beginning of his translation, in which we read that there are a total of 89 uddānas. There is also a separate Vinayoddānagāthā, which preserves nothing but the uddānas of this text: Genben shuo yiqie youbu zashi shesong (根本說一切有部雜事攝頌;
Summary Verses from the Chapter on Miscellanea of the [[[Vinaya]] of the] Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)]; T. 1457; one fasc.), issued in 710 ce – there is no Tibetan version of this or any other Vinayoddānagāthā as a separate text. The Tibetan translation, ’Dul ba phran tshegs kyi gzhi (D 6/P 1035), was made by Vidyākaraprabha, Dharmaśrīprabha, and Dpal ’byor in 59 (60 in Stog) bam pos (on the detailed colophon, see Harrison, 1994, 305–306). The Kṣudrakavastu is particularly important for the study of bhikṣuṇīs in India; it contains a detailed section on rules exclusively for nuns. Material from this vastu is quoted eight times in Śamathadeva’s ṭīkā, the Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣyopāyikā, five of which provide exact references to the uddāna system (Honjō, vol. I, 2014, 36). The Chinese and Tibetan translations do not match perfectly in terms of organization (for the correspondences between the Tibetan and Chinese translations, with reference to Sanskrit parallels preserved in extracts from the Divyāvadāna [chs. 12, 17], see Ōtani daigaku toshokan-zō, 1930–1932, 414–416; for a brief synopsis of the content with detailed summaries of the accounts of the first and second councils and the Mahāparinirvāṇa preserved in the Kṣudrakavastu, see Banerjee, 1957, 89–99; see also Hirakawa, vol. II, [1960] 1999–2000, 215; for miscellaneous French translations from Chinese, see Chavannes, vol. II, 1910–1911, 355–371). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 74–75, 154–155; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.27; Prebish, 1994, 97–98.)
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Uttaragrantha (Sanskrit)
This text, especially the sections known as the Nidāna and Muktaka, is extremely important for the textual warrants that it provides for several important practices including authorizations for the worship of stūpas (Schopen, [1998] 2004, 278n14) and the Bodhisattva image (Schopen, 2005, 131–132; Kishino, 2013, 59–60).
A complete and an incomplete Uttaragrantha – if this is the correct title – are extant in Tibetan translation (see below). Quotations are preserved in commentaries such as Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyāna and Śamathadeva’s Abhidharmakoṣabhāṣyopāyikā (Honjō, vol. I, 2014, 37 [note that Honjō’s “mātṛkā” is in fact the Muktaka]; for listings of identified Sanskrit fragments, see Hartmann & Wille, 2014a, 151; Wille, 2014a, 193, 195; 2014b, 232; Yao, forthcoming, n13).
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Uttaragrantha (Chinese)
There is no complete Uttaragrantha translation in Yijing’s corpus of Chinese translations. There are, however, two Uttaragrantha sections extant in Yijing’s oeuvre: the Nidāna (Nituona [尼陀那]) and Muktaka (Mudejia [目得迦]), respectively. These two sections are preserved in a single, tenfascicle translation titled Genben shuo yiqie youbu nituona mudejia (根本說一切有部尼陀那目得迦;
Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)] Nidānamuktaka; T. 1452), issued in 703 ce. This translation is often erroneously identified in scholarship as the Nidānamātṛkā. It is unclear why only these two sections of the Uttaragrantha were translated by Yijing. However, a hint as to the relative importance of the Nidāna and Muktaka, at least to Yijing, can perhaps be gleaned from their comparatively early translation date. The translation of the Nidāna and Muktaka was issued in 703 ce; the Kṣudrakavastu was not issued until 710 ce.
Yijing also translated a text known as the Genben shuo yiqie youbu nituona mudejia shesong (根本說一切有部尼陀那目得迦攝頌; Mūlasarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)] Nidānamuktakoddānagāthā; T. 1456; one fasc.), issued in 710 CE. This text is merely a compilation of uddānas and piṇḍoddānas found throughout the Nidāna and Muktaka. Accordingly, it functions as a table of contents to the Nidāna and Muktaka. This text is not preserved in Tibetan, but Sanskrit fragments have been identified in the Schøyen collection, a fact that, as discussed above, turns out to have implications for our knowledge of the multiplicity of the Vinayas of the Mūlasarvāstivādins and the “completeness” of the Tibetan translation.
The Chinese translation of the Nidāna (T. 1452 [XXIV] 415a2–435b28; fasc. 1–5) consists of 46 divisions arranged under five piṇḍoddānas, with ten uddānas under the first four piṇḍoddānas and six under the fifth piṇḍoddāna. The entire text is summarized at the beginning in a single meta- piṇḍoddāna titled in Chinese damen zongshesong (大門總攝頌; Great-Gate Piṇḍoddāna) and in
Tibetan sgo rnams kyi mdo bsdus pa. One fragment in the Schøyen collection (MS 2381/212) confirms that the Chinese term damen (大門; great gate) and Tibetan sgo (gate) translate the Sanskrit term mukha (on the Nidāna, see also below). The Chinese translation of the Muktaka (T. 1452 [XXIV] 435c1–455c2; fasc. 6–10) consists of 40 divisions arranged under four piṇḍoddānas, with ten uddānas under each piṇḍoddāna. Like the Nidāna, the entire text is summarized at the beginning in a single meta-piṇḍoddāna titled in Chinese damen zongshesong (大門總攝頌; Great-Gate Piṇḍoddāna (on the Muktaka, see also below).
Both the Nidāna and the Muktaka deal primarily with issues of monastic discipline from, and generally following the structure of, the vastus. Almost identical questions, however, are also occasionally found in the Upāliparipṛcchā. Thus, the intended functions of the Nidāna and the Muktaka remain unclear. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 154–155.)
Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya: Uttaragrantha (Tibetan)
As mentioned above, there are two Tibetan translations of the Uttaragrantha: one incomplete, the other complete. The incomplete translation is titled ’Dul ba gzhung bla ma; the complete translation is titled ’Dul ba gzhung dam pa, which may translate not Uttaragrantha but Uttamagrantha (Vogel, 1985, 110n60). The names of the translators are not recorded for either translation of the Uttaragrantha, although in the colophon to the incomplete text (for translations, see Ōtani daigaku toshokan-zō, 1930– 1932, 417; Kishino, 2006, 203–205 [translation appendix]; on the colophon, see also Scherrer-Schaub, 2009, 165–167), it is recorded that both texts were translated in the time of the translator Klu’i rgyal mtshan, which places the translation in circa the first decade of the 9th century. The ’Dul ba gzhung bla ma (D 7[a]/P 1036) in 11 bam pos contains only an Upāliparipṛcchā (Questions of Upāli), covering down to pāyantikā 20 of the bhikṣuvibhaṅga (for a translation of the Upāliparipṛcchā from the ’Dul ba gzhung bla ma, see Kishino, 2006).
The colophon to the incomplete Uttaragrantha preserves, in the Derge and Peking editions, a lengthy quotation from the colophon of a commentary on this text, the Vinayottarāgamaviśeṣāgama- praśnavṛtti, in which details of the incomplete and inferior state of preservation of the ’Dul ba gzhung bla ma are recounted. According to this colophon, following the Shunga ruler Puṣyamitra’s (187–151 bce) persecution of Buddhism (Lamotte, [1958] 1988, 386–392), it became difficult to find a complete text of the Uttaragrantha in Mathurā; the incomplete version is all that could be remembered by a monk from Kashmir. The Upāliparipṛcchā contains section colophons in which it is identified as the Kashmiri Upāliparipṛcchā (see the Stog Palace edition [’Dul ba, da 18a2–3; 36b7; 41a5–6; 92b6–7: nye bar ’khor gyis zhus pa kha che ba]).
As discussed by P. Harrison (1994, 306), there are two different colophons to the complete Uttaragrantha (for a translation of one version, see Samten & Russell, 1987). Of particular interest for our knowledge of the content of the Uttaragrantha is the series of verses found before this colophon in which each of the sections of the Uttaragrantha is briefly defined. The definitions look very similar to those found in Bu ston’s ’Dul ba spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa (General Exposition on Vinaya; Lokesh Chandra, 1971, zha 48a6–49a5), although his are in prose, not verse.
The ’Dul ba gzhung dam pa (D 7[b]/P 1037) in 53 bam pos contains the following 12 sections:
Section 1: Upalis zhus pa (The Questions of Upāli; Skt. Upāliparipṛcchā; Sanskrit title attested as Pṛcchā in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 1–21). This section consists of a relatively terse and formulaic, question-and-answer-format dialogue between Upāli and the Buddha, in which Upāli asks for clarification of details related to various Vinaya offenses. Structurally, the text follows the order of the bhikṣuvibhanġa and then the vastus. Section 2: ’Dul bar byed pa (The Adjudications; Skt. Vinītaka; Sanskrit title attested in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 22–25). This section contains what appears to be case law. It deals only with case law for the first nine bhikṣuprātimokṣa rules, that is, the four pārājikas and the first five saṅghāvaśeṣas. This and its parallels in other texts are perhaps the richest source available for Indian Buddhist monastic attitudes toward sexuality and sexual transgressions (and any other matters discussed in these nine rules). The Vinītaka is cited approximately 45 times in Śākyaprabha’s Āryamūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikāvṛtti- prabhāvatī. Similar sections are found in all extant Sthavira Vinayas including the Theravāda Vinaya, wherein the individual case histories are to be found under the respective rules in sections known as the vinītavatthus, and also the Mahāsāṅghikavinaya. (For a detailed study, see Clarke, 2012b.)
Section 3: Gcig nas ’dzegs pa ([[[Vinaya]] Topics Numerically Arranged in] Single Increments; Skt. *Ekottarikā; Sanskrit title unattested in Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya works, but the variant title Vinayotarikā found in the Merv manuscript [ Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, 1999a, 28; 2000b, 14–15; Clarke, 2001, 90–91]; bam pos 26–27). The text is arranged under three piṇḍoddānas, each with ten uddānas, yielding a total of 30 uddānas. This is a relatively long text, arranged according to the standard format for numerical discourse (all the “ones” are followed by the “twos,” “threes,” and so on, down to the “tens”). The coverage is somewhat uneven, with some numbers such as the “twos” receiving considerable authorial attention and some, such as the “nines,” not, as can be seen by the uddāna distribution (“ones”: piṇḍoddāna 1; “twos”: uddānas 1–10; “threes”: uddānas 11–15; “fours”: uddāna 16; “fives”: uddānas 17–20; “sixes”: uddānas 21–22; “sevens”: uddāna 23; “eights”: uddānas 24–26; “nines”: uddāna 26; and “tens”: uddānas 27–30).
The *Ekottarikā is much more, however, than simply a collection of lists of numerically arranged, random items. The section on the “twos,” for instance, contains detailed lists concerning the qualities of the holder of the monastic office of the *vaiyāpṛtyakara (Tib. dge ’dun gyi zhal ta pa), an administrative or managerial position held by certain monks (Silk, 2008, 39–73). The section on the “fives” contains at least 14 separate discussions concerning the qualities of a vinayadhara. The section on the “sixes” contains a detailed discussion of the six great teachings or mahopadeśas (bstan po chen po drug). The section on the “eights” contains a dialogue between the Buddha and Mahāprajāpatī Gautamī, who requests a doctrinal explanation about the nature of the dharma. Conspicuous by their absence from the “eights” are the eight gurudharma rules for nuns, the imposition of which Mahāprajāpatī Gautamī is said to have accepted as a condition for the establishment of the bhikṣuṇī saṅgha but according to which bhikṣuṇīs remain in a subordinate position to bhikṣus regardless of seniority. Section 4: Lnga pa (The Fives; Skt. *Pañcaka; Sanskrit title unattested in Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya works, but the variant title Vinayapaṃcika found in the Merv manuscript [Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, 1999a, 28; 2000b, 14–15; Clarke, 2001, 90–91]; bam pos 28–29). This section consists primarily of lists of terms arranged into groups of five, with one piṇḍoddāna and ten uddānas in total. In the format of an exchange between the Buddha and Upāli, it begins with a detailed discussion of protocols and procedures concerning how monks are supposed to accuse (gleng ba) other monks of offenses, all conveniently arranged into fives. Many lists are given, including, for instance, the five types of ācāryas (slob dpon lnga), five types of abuse (spyo ba rnam pa lnga), and the five types of protocols for receiving donations (byin len rnam pa lnga). Curiously, given its initial focus on protocols for accusing other monks of offenses, the *Pañcaka contains seemingly only one mention of the sthalastha or arbitrator monk. (On this text, see Borgland, 2014, 47–49.)
Section 5: Bcu drug (The Sixteens; Skt. *Ṣoḍaśaka; Sanskrit title unattested in Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya works, but the variant title Vinayaṣoddaśika found in the Merv manuscript [Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, 1999a, 28; 2000b, 14–15; Clarke, 2001, 90–91]; bam po 30). This is an exceedingly short text arranged around a single uddāna. In format, the text is a dialogue between Upāli and the Buddha, with most of the dialogue consisting of a set of lists given by the Buddha to Upāli in response. The text consists of 16 short sections, each of which begins with an initial list of 16 matters, followed usually by two further lists of five attributes, which make the monk in question from the initial list either unsuitable in the first list (sections 1–13) or suitable in the second list to perform a certain task (sections 1–16). The text deals primarily with the settlement of monastic disputes. As noted above, the sections on the “fives” in the *Ekottarikā sections in both the Sarvāstivādin Shisong-lü and the Modeleqie are conspicuously long. It appears almost as if the sections on the vinayadhara and his abilities and qualifications from the section of “fives” in the *Ekottarikā have been collected and modified to discuss the sthalastha in the *Ṣoḍaśaka. (On this text, see Borgland, 2014, 54–56.)
Section 6: Gleng gzhi ([The Collected] Incidents [on Vastu Legislation]; Skt. Nidāna; Sanskrit title attested in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 31–37). (For a preliminary study, see Clarke, 2002; for a detailed study and an English translation, see Kishino, 2013; see also above.) Section 7: Rkyang pa (The Separate [Collected Incidents on Vastu Legislation]; Skt. Muktaka; Sanskrit title attested in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 38–43). (For a preliminary study, see
Clarke, 2001; see also above.) Section 8: Gtam gyi dngos po (The Matters of Discussion [on Vinaya Topics]; Skt. Kathāvastu; Sanskrit title attested in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 44–45; for three broken Sanskrit folios from the Turfan collection [SHT (V) 1068] that correspond well with the Kathāvastu, see Clarke, 2011). A notable and distinctive characteristic of the Kathāvastu is that it seems to be one of only two Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya texts known not to include an uddāna system as part of their structural arrangement (the other being the Mātṛkā; see below). In terms of format, the text is a catechism between Upāli and the Buddha without narrative sections, although, curiously, neither the Buddha nor Upāli are introduced by name until well into the text. The text itself is not divided into any marked sections.
The text begins abruptly with a series of approximately 30 Abhidharma questions concerning the nature of Vinaya offenses. Although no formal transition is marked, after the application of Abhidharma categories to monastic offenses, the text moves to a number of what we might classify as legal puzzles. The first of these is whether there is any matter (dngos po; Skt. *vastu) that can be both an offense and not an offense. The legal point to which attention is drawn is the exception already built into a number of prātimokṣa rules that allows monks to engage in certain activities in times of sickness and various other exceptional circumstances (dus ma gtogs te; Skt. anyatra samayāt). One such case is the 36th pāyantikā of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, which allows monks to participate in a separate group meal (’dus shing za ba; Skt. gaṇabhojana) away from the rest of the saṅgha in times of illness or travel. Various other legal questions are broached.
Of further interest is the discussion and awareness of gender differences in monastic legislation exhibited by the Vinaya authors/redactors. In response to the question of whether there are any cases in which a pārājika offense is deemed to be a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense, the rule against touching the body of a member of the opposite sex is cited. If a nun touches the body of a male, she incurs a pārājika. The same action is only a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense for a monk who touches a female. Likewise, while it is a pārājika offense for a nun to conceal another’s grave offense, it is only a pāyantikā if a monk does the same. For the act of following a suspended monk, a nun incurs a pārājika, but the same action results in only a duṣkṛta or wrongdoing for a monk. Not all monastic law, however, is more lenient toward monks. The intentional emission of sexual fluids (i.e. masturbation) is a saṅghāvaśeṣa offense for monks but a lesser offense, a pāyantikā, for nuns.
Section 9: Ma na bi ka (The Young, Female Brahman; Skt. *Māṇavikā; Sanskrit title attested in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 46–47). The text is arranged under a series of piṇḍoddānas and uddānas: two piṇḍoddānas, the first containing 11 uddānas, the second 15. There is some confusion concerning this title, the significance of which is not clear. Although Sanskrit māṇavikā is only feminine, the title sometimes seems to be understood as the masculine māṇavaka (young, male Brahman). To whom the title refers is unclear; no Brahman boy or girl seems to be mentioned in the text.
The *Māṇavikā is quoted in a range of Vinaya compendia, digests, and commentaries extant primarily only in Tibetan, including Śākyaprabha’s Āryamūlasarvāstivādiśrāmaṇerakārikāvṛtti- prabhāvatī, Guṇaprabha’s Ekottarakarmaśataka and Vinaya sūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyāna, Vimalamitra’s Prātimokṣasūtraṭīkāvinayasamuccaya, Viśeṣamitra’s Vinayasaṃgraha, and Dharmami tra’s Vinaya sūtraṭīkā. An indication of the importance of the *Māṇavikā to Guṇaprabha may be gleaned from the fact that he cites it in his Vinayasūtravṛtty- abhidhānasvavyākhyāna close to 30 times.
As noted in Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtravṛtty- abhidhānasvavyākhyāna, the *Māṇavikā seems to deal with matters beginning with those from the Carmavastu and then other vastus (see above). The text opens with a question in which Upāli seeks clarification of the Buddha’s previous pronouncement concerning ordination in the hinterlands with a quorum of five monks including a vinayadhara, a matter previously discussed in the Carmavastu. Upāli asks whether an ordination performed with only five monks, one being a vinayadhara, would be valid even if a regular quorum of ten monks were available. The text then moves on to a clarification of the rule by which a monk incurs a naiḥsargika if he has an extra robe for more than ten days. Here too the text elaborates on the rule in the Carmavastu that states that the ten-day period does not apply for robes during transit when sent from one monk to another. The rule is clarified here in relation to deaf and blind monks and how they know when they have received extra robes.
The discussion under the second to seventh uddānas of the first piṇḍoddāna addresses issues arising from the Bhaiṣajyavastu (Chapter on Medicines) concerning the consumption or use of sugar beer (ram chang), human breast milk (mi’i ’o ma), human flesh (mi’i sha), meat that has been slaughtered specifically for a monk (de’i phyir ched du bsad pa’i sha), leeches (srin bu pad ma), woodpeckers (bya shing rta mo), frogs (sbal pa), and different mixtures of foods taken as medicine such as morning medicines mixed with afternoon medicines, or seven- day medicines with lifelong ones. The eighth and ninth uddānas move on to questions arising from the Cīvaravastu such as whether one may accept a robe from an insane person. With the beginning of the tenth uddāna, the text moves on to a discussion as to whether a monk who nurses another monk is entitled to inherit his patient’s property. The 11th and final uddāna of the first piṇḍoddāna starts with a discussion of how a monk may simultaneously spend the rains’ retreat in four places without committing an offense. The second set of uddānas, 15 in total, seems to deal with topics from the following vastus: Kaṭhinavastu (uddānas 1–4), Kauśāmbakavastu (uddānas 5–9), Karmavastu (uddānas 10–13), and Pāṇḍulohitakavastu (uddānas 14–15).
Section 10: Ma lta bu (The Summary [of Vinaya Topics]; Skt. Mātṛkā; Sanskrit title attested in Guṇaprabha’s autocommentary; bam pos 48–53). The Mātṛkā lacks any substantial narrative and an uddāna system. It is divided into three sections as follows: (1) section on ordination (bsnyen par rdzogs pa’i phung po; Skt. upasaṃpadākhaṇḍaka; 133 items); (2) section on [protocols] connected [with various monastic procedures and realia] (rab tu ldan pa’i phung po; Skt. pratisaṃyuktakhaṇḍaka; 98 items); and (3) section on obligatory behavior (bya ba’i phung po; Skt. vṛttakhaṇḍaka; 116 items). The vṛttakhaṇḍaka appears to have circulated as a separate text entitled Kriyāskandha (see Clarke, 2004b; for an initial study of Vinaya Mātṛkās, see Clarke, 2004a; two of the three Vinaya fragments identified by Hoernle – 1916, 149×/20, and 149×/16 – belong to this text).
Section 11: Upalis kun dris pa (The Inquiry by Upāli; Sanskrit title unattested). It is unclear whether this should be considered a separate section. It is nothing more than a single, seven-part question concerning the body (lus) and fruit (’bras bu) of the Vinaya (for brief comments on this section, see Kishino, 2013, 22–23n72).
Section 12: colophon. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 75; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.29; Prebish, 1994, 98–99.) Sapoduobu pini modeleqie
The Chinese translation of this text, titled Sapoduobu pini modeleqie (薩婆多部毘尼摩得勒伽; Sarvāstivāda [*nikāya (?)] Vinaya*mātṛkā; T. 1441 [XXIII]; ten fasc.), is ascribed to Saṅghavarman (Sengqiebamo [[[僧伽跋摩]]]; fl. early 5th cent.) in 435 ce. The text has long been misunderstood as a commentary on the Sarvāstivādin Shisong-lü (see above). It is, however, a canonical Vinaya text, one affiliated not with the Shisong-lü but more closely with the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. The term modeleqie (摩得勒伽) in the title is generally understood as a transcription of Sanskrit mātṛkā, but it might transcribe some other, phonetically similar, unattested or unrecognized Vinaya title. The Chinese title is usually reconstructed as Sanskrit Sarvāstivādavinayamātṛkā. If accepted as a Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya text, then the early translation date would make this perhaps our earliest datable textual evidence for the Mūlasarvāstivādins, albeit under the title Sarvāstivādins. When compared to the Uttaragrantha of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, preserved chiefly only in Tibetan, both the structure and the content of the text become clear. The so-called Sarvāstivādavinayamātṛkā is not a Mātṛkā but a collection of some seven sections including a Mātṛkā, all of which have counterparts in the Shisong-lü and the Mūlasarvāstivādin Uttaragrantha. The following section colophon from the Mātṛkā section is perhaps instructive with regard to the relationship between the Sapoduobu pini modeleqie and the Uttaragrantha /Uttamagrantha: “The Good Recitation [of the] *Mātṛkā expounded by the Buddha is complete” (佛說摩得勒伽善誦竟 (T. 1441 [XXIII]
605a5). As discussed above, the term shansong (善誦; Good Recitation) may be a translation of Sanskrit Uttamagrantha, an attested variant – at least in Tibetan translation – of Uttaragrantha. Although the syntax remains problematic, it is not impossible that this colophon was intended to read: “The *Mātṛkā [section] in the Uttamagrantha (Good Recitation) expounded by the Buddha is complete.” Indeed, this colophon marks exactly where the Mātṛkā section of the Modeleqie (Uttamagrantha/ Uttaragrantha counterpart) ends.
There are a number of Sanskrit fragments in the Hoernle and Turfan collections that correspond well to the Modeleqie (see Chung, 2002). However, they do not preserve section titles. The seven constituent sections of the Modeleqie are as follows (Sanskrit titles are from the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya; for more detailed discussion of these sections, see above on the Mūlasarvāstivādin Uttaragrantha). Introductory verses may belong to the Kathāvastu (T. 1441 [XXIII] 564c24–565a13).
Section 1: Kathāvastu (zhongfenshi [衆分事]):
T. 1441 (XXIII) 565a14–569b29;
Section 2a: Upāliparipṛcchā ([[[bhikṣu]]] prātimokṣavibhaṅga [優波離問分別波羅提木叉]): T. 1441
(XXIII) 569c1–579b25 (pārājikas: 569c1–571b4; saṅghāva śeṣas: 571b8–572b15; aniyatas: 572b16–c8; naiḥsargikas: 572c9–574c1; pāyantikās: 574c2– 579a19; pratideśanīyas: 579a20–b15; adhikaraṇaśamathas: 579b16–25);
Section 2b: Upāliparipṛcchā (vastus [優波離問事]): T. 1441 (XXIII) 579b26–582b12 (Pravrajyāvastu [問受戒事]: 579b26–580a28; Poṣadhavastu [問布薩事]: 580a29–b23; Pravāraṇāvastu [問自恣事]: 580b24–c1 6; Varṣāvastu [問安居事; text amended from fa (法) to shi (事) for consistency]: 580c17–27; Bhaiṣajyavastu [問藥事]: 580c28–581a9; note that here too the Carmavastu is missing [see above]; Cīvaravastu [問衣事]: 581a10–17; Kaṭhinavastu [問迦絺那衣事]: 581a18–b11; Kauśāmbakavastu [問俱舍彌事]: 581b12–20; Karmavastu [問羯磨事]: 581b21– c5; vastu on concealment of saṅghāvaśeṣa offenses
[問覆藏僧殘事]: 581c6–25; Poṣadhasthāpanavastu [問遮布薩事]: 581c26–582a7; Śayanāsanavastu [問臥具事]: 582a8–15; Adhikaraṇavastu [問滅諍事]: 582a16–24; Saṅghabhedavastu [問破僧事]: 582a25– 29; vastu on overturning of the alms’ bowl [問覆鉢事; a punishment for laypeople by not accepting their alms]: 582b1–12); it should be noted that the vastu names in this Upāliparipṛcchā match exactly neither those of the Shisong-lü nor those of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya; Section 3: Vinītaka: T. 1441 (XXIII) 582b13–593b20 (title at the head of this section: Chapter on Miscellanea of the Vinaya*mātṛkā [毘尼摩得勒伽雜事]); the case law of the Vinītaka deals only with the four pārājikas and the first five saṅghāvaśeṣas;
Section 4: Mātṛkā: T. 1441 (XXIII) 593b21–605a5 (all Vinaya Mātṛkās follow a threefold division into ordination, connected protocols, and deportment, preceded sometimes by lists of terms that are thereafter defined in each of these three divisions; the lists are found, with no internal division markers, at 593b21–c15, 593c15–29, and 593c29–594a17; the three divisions are found directly after at 594a17–598b10 [受戒聚], 598b11–601a21 [相應聚], and 601a22–605a4 [威儀聚]); Section 5: *Māṇavikā: T. 1441 (XXIII) 605a9– 607a25;
Section 6: *Ekottarikā: T. 1441 (XXIII) 607a25– 611b11 ([?]; neither the beginning, defined by the end of the *Māṇavikā, nor the end [610c6(?)] of the *Ekottarikā is clear; three different types of karmans [formal ecclesiastical acts of the saṅgha] are discussed [610c7–611b11]: 24 jñaptikarmans [白羯磨; acts consisting of a motion (jñapti) only]; 47 jñaptidvitīyakarmans [acts in which the motion is followed by a single proclamation and passed as the second (dvitīya) part of the procedure]; and 30 jñapticaturthakarmans [acts in which the motion is followed by three proclamations and passed as the fourth (caturtha) part of the procedure]; the number of formal acts in each category can be an indicator of sectarian affiliation [comp. e.g. the lists at T. 1441 (XXIII) 569a24–28, 610c9–611a29; T. 1458 (XXIV) 498c29–499c5; Peking, Bstan ’gyur, ’Dul ba’i ’grel pa (vol. CXXIII) zu 293b4–298a3]; whether the discussion of karmans is properly part of the *Ekottarikā is unclear); the section on the “fives” in the *Ekottarikā is extremely long; in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya the length of this section may have contributed to its development into a separate text, the *Pañcaka;
Section 7: Upāliparipṛcchā ([[[bhikṣu]]] prātimokṣavi bhaṅga): T. 1441 (XXIII) 611b15–626b9 (pārājikas: 611b15–615b8; saṅghāvaśeṣas: 615b9–617b1; aniyatas: 617b5–617c10; naiḥsargikas: 617c11–620a7; pāyantikās: 620a8–626a22; pratideśanīyas: 626a23– b9); it is unclear why there are two almost complete Upāliparipṛcchās covering the bhikṣuprātimokṣavibhaṅga (comp. 2a above); and
Colophon: T. 1441 (XXIII) 626b10–12 (the colophon gives the length of the text as 7,000 verses [[[偈]]] of 32 syllables [字] or a total of 224,000 syllables in ten fascicles; for a discussion of the relationship of the Hoernle [1916] fragments to this text, see Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 81–90). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 268; Yuyama,
1979, § 1.15.C.2.k.1; Prebish, 1994, 83–84.)
Jietuo jiejing
Jietuo jiejing (解脱戒經; Liberation-Precept Sūtra; T. 1460 [XXIV]; one fasc.) is a bhikṣuprātimokṣa ascribed to the Kāśyapīya school and translated in 543 ce by Gautama Prajñāruci (Qutan boreliuzhi [瞿曇般若流支]; fl. 6th cent.). It is the only Vinaya text of the Kāśyapīyas that has come down to us. It contains by one count a total of 246 rules for monks (including the seven adhikaraṇaśamathas). Structurally, this prātimokṣa is unique in that it presents the verses that are usually found at the end of other prātimokṣas (but not found in the Theravāda pātimokkha) and said to be the prātimokṣas of previous buddhas not at the end but at the beginning of the text. It
contains a short preface by Sengfang (僧昉; fl. 6th cent.). (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 250–251; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.71; Prebish, 1994, 76.)
Lü ershier mingliao lun
Lü ershier mingliao lun (律二十二明了論; Treatise on the Elucidation of 22 [Verses] on Vinaya; T. 1461 [XXIV]; one fasc.) is a commentary by *Buddhatrāta Table 3: Comparative Table of the Major Sections of the Sarvāstivādin/Mūlasarvāstivādin Uttaragranthas
Mūlasarvāsti vādavinaya Modeleqie
(摩得勒伽) Shisong-lü
(十誦律)
Sanskrit Tibetan Stog Derge T. 1452 T. 1441 T. 1435
1 Upāliparipṛcchā (vibhaṅga) Upalis zhus pa da 127a3– 323b7 na 92b1–235a2 – 569c1–579b25;
611b15–626b9 379a3–397a11
Upāliparipṛcchā (vastus) Upalis zhus pa da 323b7– 398b4 na 235a2– 288b5 – 579b26–582b12 397a15–
405a20
2 Vinītaka ’Dul bar byed pa da 398b4– na 32a5 na 288b5– pa 22b2 – 582b13–593b20 424b16–
445a12
3 *Ekottarikā Gcig nas ’dzegs pa na 32a5– 68a1 pa 22b2– 47b1 – 607a25–
611b11(?) 352b27–354c8;
355c10–373c6
4 *Pañcaka Lnga pa na 68a2– 87b5 pa 47b1– 61a5 – Included in *Ekottarikā, above(?) Included in *Ekottarikā, above(?)
5 *Ṣoḍaśaka Bcu drug pa na 87b5– 100b5 pa 61a5–70a6 – Included in *Ekottarikā, above(?) Included in *Ekottarikā, above(?)
6 Nidāna Gleng gzhi na 100b5–203b6 pa 70a6–141a7 415a2–435b28 – 346a7–352b26
7 Muktaka Rkyang pa na 203b7–291b6 pa 141a7–201b7 435c1–455c2 – 456b9–470b19
8 Kathāvastu Gtam gyi dngos po na 291b6–320b3 pa 201b7– 221b5 – 565a14–569b29 373c7–378c6
9 *Māṇavikā Ma na bi ka na 320b3–338b2 pa 221b5–233b4 – 605a9–607a25 405a21–409c18
10 Mātṛkā Ma lta bu na 338b2–453a3 pa 233b4–310a6 – 593b21–605a5 410a4–423b9
(Fotuoduoluoduo [佛陀多羅多]), translated by the Indian Tripiṭaka master Paramārtha (Zhendi [眞諦];
499–569 ce) in 568 ce. *Buddhatrāta, the author, is described as a Sāṃmitīya monk. The commentary is organized around and elucidates 22 verses said to cover some 65 important matters of the Vinaya of the Sāṃmitīya school. It contains a postscript that gives the translation date. (See also Hirakawa, vol. I, [1960] 1999–2000, 269–270; Yuyama, 1979, § 1.81; Prebish, 1994, 76; Namikawa, 2011, 28; Thiên Châu, 1999, 27–31, 117–122; Shōno, 2012.)
Bibliography
Bandurski, F., “Übersicht über die Göttinger Sammlungen der von Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana in Tibet aufgefundenen buddhistischen Sanskrit-Texte,” in: F. Bandurski et al., eds., Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur, SWTF Suppl. 5, Göttingen, 1994, 9–126.
Banerjee, A.C., Two Buddhist Vinaya Texts in Sanskrit:
Prātimokṣa Sūtra and Bhikṣukarmavākya, Calcutta, 1977.
Banerjee, A.C., Sarvāstivāda Literature, Calcutta, 1957.
Banerjee, A.C., Prātimokṣa-Sūtram (Mūlasarvāstivāda), Calcutta, 1954.
Banerjee, A.C., “The Prātimokṣa-Sūtra,” IHQ 29/3, 1953, 266–275.
Bapat, P.V., & V.V. Gokhale, Vinaya-Sūtra and Auto-Commentary on the Same by Guṇaprabha: Chapter I: Pravrajyāvastu, Compared with the Tibetan Version and Edited, TSWS 22, Patna, 1982.
Beal, S., A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese, London, 1871.
Beal, S., & D.J. Gogerly, “Comparative Arrangement of Two Translations of the Buddhist Ritual for the Priesthood, Known as the Prátimoksha, or Pátimokhan,” JRAS 19, 1862, 407–480.
Boltz, J.M., & R. Salomon, “A New Fragment of the Kaṭhinavastu of the Sarvāstivādavinaya,” JAOS 108/4, 1988, 539–544.
Borgland, J.W., “A Study of the Adhikaraṇavastu: Legal Settlement Procedures of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya,” diss., University of Oslo, 2014.
Braarvig, J., “The Schøyen Collection,” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014, 157–164.
Chandra Vidyabhusana, S., “ So-sor-thar-pa: Or, a Code of Buddhist Monastic Laws: Being the Tibetan Version of Prātimokṣa of the Mūla-Sarvāstivāda School,” JASB 11, 1915, 29–139; repr. So-sor thar pa (Khrims): Vol. 5 of the Dulwa Portion of the Kangyur (Leaves 1–29 and Top Line of Leaf 30), Calcutta, 2000.
Chattopadhyaya, A., Atīśa and Tibet: Life and Works of Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna in Relation to the History and Religion of Tibet, Calcutta, 1967, repr. Delhi, 1996.
Chavannes, É., Cinq cents contes et apologues: Extraits du Tripiṭaka chinois et traduits en français, 3 vols., Paris, 1910– 1911, 21962.
Chen, J., “Another Look at Tang Zhongzong’s (r. 684, 705–710) Preface to Yijing’s (635–713) Translations: With a Special Reference to Its Date,” ITBK 11, 2004, 3–27.
Chung, J., “More Fragments of Karmavācanā Texts,” in: J. Braarvig et al., eds., Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. III, MSC, Oslo, 2006, 177–188.
Chung, J., “Remarks on the So-Called Bhikṣvādhyāya in the Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins,” SBKN 36, 2005, 1–13.
Chung, J., Das Upasaṃpadāvastu. Vorschriften für die buddhistische Mönchsordination im Vinaya der Sarvāstivāda-Tradition. Sanskrit-Version und chinesische Version, SWTF Suppl. 11, Göttingen, 2004.
Chung, J., “ Sanskrit-Fragmente des sogenannten Daśādhyāya- vinaya aus Zentralasien. Eine vorläufige Auflistung,” in: J. Chung, C. Vogel & K. Wille, eds., Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon. Neuentdeckungen und Neu- editionen IV, SWTF Suppl. 9, Göttingen, 2002, 77–104.
Chung, J., Die Pravāraṇā in den kanonischen Vinaya-Texten der Mūlasarvāstivādin und der Sarvāstivādin, SWTF Suppl. 7, Göttingen, 1998.
Chung, J., & K. Wille, “Fragmente aus dem Bhaiṣajyavastu der Sarvāstivādins in der Sammlung Pelliot (Paris),” in: J. Chung, C. Vogel & K. Wille, eds., Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon. Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen IV, SWTF Suppl. 9, Göttingen, 2002, 105–127.
Clarke, S., Vinaya Texts, GMNAIFE 1, New Delhi, 2014.
Clarke, S., “On the Problems Surrounding the Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa Traditions Preserved in Tibetan: Pelliot tibétain 891 and 892 (*Ārya-sarvāstivādi-mūla-bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣa-sūtra),” paper delivered at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, University of Tokyo, Oct 29, 2012a.
Clarke, S., “An Unnoticed Collection of Indian Buddhist Case Law: The ’Dul bar byed pa of the Mūlasarvāstivādin Uttaragrantha,” paper delivered at the International Institute for Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, Nov 30, 2012b.
Clarke, S., “Towards a Comparative Study of the Sarvāstivādaand Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinayas: A Preliminary Survey of the Kathāvastu Embedded in the Uttaragrantha,” paper delivered at the XVIth Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Jinshan, Taiwan, Jun 20–25, 2011.
Clarke, S., “Vinaya Mātṛkā: Mother of the Monastic Codes, or Just Another Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner’s Handling of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya,” IIJ 47/2, 2004a, 77–120.
Clarke, S., “Right Section, Wrong Collection: An Identification of a Canonical Vinaya Text in the Tibetan bsTan ’gyur: Bya ba’i phung po zhes bya ba (Kriyāskandha-nāma),” JAOS 124/2, 2004b, 335–340.
Clarke, S., “The Mūlasarvāstivādin Vinaya: A Brief Reconnaissance Report,” in: Sakurabe Hajime Hakushi Kiju
Kinen Ronshū Kankōkai (櫻部建博士喜寿記念論集刊行会), ed., Sakurabe Hajime hakushi kiju kinen ronshū: shoki bukkyō kara abidaruma e (櫻部建博士喜寿記念論集・初期仏教からアビダルマへ; Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His 77th Birthday), Kyoto, 2002, 45–63.
Clarke, S., “The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Muktaka 根本説一切有部目得迦,” BK 30, 2001, 81–107.
Eimer, H., “Zur Reihenfolge der Texte in der Abteilung Vinaya des tibetischen Kanjur,” ZAS 20, 1987, 219–227; JT: Okada Yukihiro (岡田行弘), “Chibetto daizōkyō kanjuru no kairitsubu ni okeru tekisuto no hairetsu junjo (西蔵大蔵経甘殊爾の戒律部におけるテキストの配列順序),”
Bg 20, 1986, 1–10.
Elverskog, J., Uygur Buddhist Literature, SRS 1, Turnhout, 1997.
Enomoto, F., “‘Mūlasarvāstivādin’ and ‘Sarvāstivādin,’” in: C. Chojnacki, J.-U. Hartmann & V.M. Tschannerl, eds., Vividharatnakaraṇḍaka. Festgabe für Adelheid Mette, IeT 37, Swisttal-Odendorf, 2000, 239–250.
Falk, H., & I. Strauch, “The Bajaur and Split Collections of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts within the Context of Buddhist Gāndhārī Literature,” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014, 51–78.
Finot, L., “Le Prātimokṣasūtra des Sarvāstivādins: Texte sanskrit: Avec la version chinoise de Kumārajīva traduite en français par M. Édouard Huber,” JA 2, 1913, 465–557. Frauwallner, E., The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature, SOR 8, Rome, 1956.
Harrison, P., “In Search of the Source of the Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur: A Reconnaissance Report,” in: P. Kvaerne, ed., Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, vol. I, ICRHCOP 1, Oslo, 1994, 295–317.
Hartmann, J.-U., & K. Wille, “The Manuscript of the Dīrghāgama and the Private Collection in Virginia,” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014a, 137–155.
Hartmann, J.-U., & K. Wille, “The Central Asian Sanskrit Fragments in the Pelliot Collection (Paris),” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014b, 213–222.
Hartmann, J.-U., & K. Wille, “Further Collections of Sanskrit Manuscripts From Central Asia,” in: P. Harrison & J.-U.
Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014c, 247–255.
Heirman, A., “ Vinaya: From India to China,” in: A. Heirman & S.P. Bumbacher, eds., The Spread of Buddhism, HdO Section 8, vol. XVI, Leiden, 2007, 167–202.
Heirman, A., “The Discipline in Four Parts”: Rules for Nuns according to the Dharmaguptakavinaya, BTS 47–49, Delhi, 2002.
Hinüber, O. von, A Handbook of Pāli Literature, IPSAS 2, Berlin, 1996.
Hinüber, O. von, “A Fragment of the Mah āsāṃghika- Lokottaravāda-Vinaya from Bāmiyān,” BEI 4, 1986, 295–303.
Hirakawa Akira (平川彰), Ritsuzō no kenkyū (律蔵の研究; A Study of the Vinayapiṭaka), 2 vols., Tokyo, 1960, 21999–2000.
Hirakawa Akira, Monastic Discipline for the Buddhist Nuns: An English Translation of the Chinese Text of the Mahāsāṃghika-Bhikṣuṇī-vinaya, TSWS 21, Patna, 1982.
Hiraoka Satoshi (平岡聡), Budda no ōinaru monogatari: Bonbun “Mahāvasutu” zen’yaku (ブッダの大いなる物語・梵文『マハーヴァストゥ』全訳; The Buddha’s Great Story: A Complete Translation of the Sanskrit Text of the Mahāvastu), 2 vols., Tokyo, 2010.
Hoernle, A.F.R., Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan, Oxford, 1916, repr. Amsterdam, 1970.
Honjō Yoshifumi (本庄良文), Kusharon-chū Upāikā no kenkyū: Yakuchū-hen (倶舎論註ウパーイカーの研究・訳註篇; A Study of the Upāyikā Commentary to the Abhidharmakośa: An Annotated Translation), 2 vols., Tokyo, 2014.
Hu-von Hinüber, H., Das Bhikṣu-Prātimokṣasūtra der Mūlasarvāstivādins. Anhand der Sanskrit-Handschriften aus Tibet und Gilgit sowie unter Berücksichtigung der tibetischen und der chinesischen Übersetzungen kritisch herausgegeben, 2003, http://www.freidok. uni-freiburg.de/ volltexte/9535.
Ikeda On (池田温), Chūgoku kodai shahon shikigo shūroku (中國古代寫本識語集録; Collected Colophons of
Ancient Chinese Manuscripts), Tokyo, 1990.
Inokuchi Taijun (井ノ口泰淳) et al., eds., Chūō ajia no gengo to bukkyō (中央アジアの言語と仏教; The Language[s] and Buddhism of Central Asia), Kyoto, 1995.
Jaworski, J., “La Section de la Nourriture dans le Vinaya des Mahīśāsaka,” RO 7, 1931, 53–124.
Jaworski, J., “La section des Remèdes dans le Vinaya des Malūśāsaka [sic] et dans le Vinaya pali,” RO 5, 1929, 92–101. Jinānanda, Bhikṣu, Abhisamācārikā (Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka), TSWS 9, Patna, 1969.
Jones, J.J., The Mahāvastu, 3 vols., SBB 16 & 18–19, London, 1949–1956.
Jong, J.W. de, “Fa-hsien and Buddhist Texts in Ceylon,” JPTS 9, 1981, 105–115.
Kabilsingh, C., The Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha of the Six Schools, BIB 187, Delhi, 1998.
Karashima, S., “Manuscript Fragments of the Prātimokṣasūtra of the Mahāsāṃghika(-Lokottaravādin)s (2),” ARIRIAB 16, 2013, 47–90.
Karashima, S., Die Abhisamācārikā Dharmāḥ. Verhaltensregeln für buddhistische Mönche der MahāsāṃghikaLokottaravādins. Herausgegeben, mit der chinesischen Parallelversion verglichen, übersetzt und kommentiert, 3 vols., BPPB 13/1–3, Tokyo, 2012.
Karashima, S., “Fragments of a Manuscript of the Prātimokṣasūtra of the Mahāsāṃghika-(Lokottara)vādins (1),” ARIRIAB 11, 2008, 71–90.
Karashima, S., “The Pr ātimokṣa-Vibhaṅga of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins in Early Western Gupta Script,” in: J. Braarvig et al., eds., Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. III, MSC, Oslo, 2006, 161–176.
Karashima, S., “Two More Folios of the Pr ātimokṣa-Vibhaṅga of the Mah āsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins,” in: J. Braarvig et al., eds., Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. II, MSC 3, Oslo, 2002, 215–228.
Karashima, S., “A Fragment of the Prātimokṣa-Vibhaṅga of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins,” in: J. Braarvig et al., eds., Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. I, MSC 1, Oslo, 2000a, 233–241.
Karashima, S., “Identification of Some Buddhist Sanskrit Fragments From Central Asia,” ARIRIAB 3, 2000b, 213–214.
Kieffer-Pülz, P., “What the Vinayas Can Tell Us about Law,” in: R.R. French & M.A. Nathan, eds., Buddhism and Law:
An Introduction, New York, 2014, 46–62.
Kishino Ryōji, “A Study of the Nidāna: An Underrated Canonical Text of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya,” diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 2013.
Kishino Ryōji (岸野亮示), “Futatsu no ‘Uttaraguranta’: ‘Upāri mondō’ no kōsatsu” (2つの『ウッタラグランタ』–
「ウパーリ問答」の考察 ; The Two Uttaragranthas: An
Examination of the “Questions of Upāli”), diss., Kyoto University, 2006.
La Vallée Poussin, L. de, Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts from Tun-huang in the India Office Library, Oxford, 1962.
Lalou, M., Inventaire des Manuscrits tibétains de Touenhouang conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale (Fonds Pelliot tibétain), 3 vols., Paris, 1939–1961.
Lamotte, É., Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien, des origines à l’ère Śaka, PIOL 14, Louvain, 1958; ET: History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Śaka Era, PIOL 36, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988.
Lévi, S., “Note sur des manuscrits sanscrits provenant de Bamiyan (Afghanistan) et de Gilgit (Cachemire),” JA 220, 1932, 1–45.
Lokesh Chandra, The Collected Works of Bu-Ston, Part 21 (ZHA), ŚPS, IAL 61, New Delhi, 1971.
Maeda Takashi (前田崇), “Chibetto ni okeru kairitsu-kan (1)”
(チベットにおける戒律観 [1]; The View of Precepts and
Vinaya in Tibet), TeG 43, 2001, 1–8.
Masuda Shin’ya (増田臣也), Sansukuritto genten’yaku Bikuharadaimokusha-kyō (サンスクリット原典訳比丘波羅提木叉経; The Bhikṣuprātimokṣasūtra, Translated from the Original Sanskrit), Tokyo, 1969.
Matsumura, H., “The Kaṭhinavastu from the Vinayavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivādins,” in: G. Bongard-Levin et al., eds., Sanskrit-Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon. Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen III, SWTF Suppl. 6, Göttingen, 1996, 145–239.
Matsumura, H., “Encore à propos d’un fragment du Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya,” BEI 6, 1988, 343–350.
Namikawa Takayoshi (並川孝儀), Indo bukkyō kyōdan: Shōryō-bu no kenkyū (インド仏教教団・正量部の研究; A Study of the Sāṃmitīya School: An Indian Buddhist Order), Tokyo, 2011.
Nanjio, B., A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripitaka: The Sacred Canon of the Buddhists in China and Japan, Oxford, 1883, repr. San Francisco, 1975.
Nishimoto Ryūzan (西本龍山), Ritsu-bu (律部; Vinaya Section), vol. XIII, Kokuyaku issaikyō (國訳一切經; Translation into the [[[Japanese]]] National Language of the Entire [[[Buddhist]]] Canon), Tokyo, 1932.
Nishimoto Ryūzan (西本龍山), Tonkō shutsudo Jūju bikuniharadaimokusha kaihon kaisetsu (燉煌出土十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本解説; An Analysis of the Ten-Recitation Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣasūtra Discovered at Dunhuang), Kyoto, 1929.
Nishimoto Ryūzan (西本龍山), “ Rajū-yaku Jūju bikuniharadaimokusha kaihon no shutsugen narabi ni shobu sōni kaihon no taishō kenkyū” (羅什譯十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本の出現並諸部僧尼戒本の對照研究; On the Emergence of Kumārajīva’s Translation of the Ten-Recitation Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣasūtra and Contrastive Research on the Bhikṣuprātimokṣasūtra and Bhikṣuṇīprātimokṣasūtra of the Various Schools), OG 9/2, 1928, 27–60.
Nolot, É., Règles de discipline des nonnes bouddhistes: Le Bhikṣuṇīvinaya de l’école Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin, PICI 60, Paris, 1991.
Nolot, É., “Derechef à propos d’un fragment du?
Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya,” BEI 6, 1988, 351–358. Ogihara, H., “Tocharian Vinaya Texts in the Paris Collection,” TIES 14, 2013, 187–211.
Ogihara, H., “A Fragment of the Bhikṣu-Prātimokṣasūtra in Tocharian B,” TIES 13, 2012, 163–179.
Ogihara, H., “Notes on Some Tocharian Vinaya Fragments in the London and Paris Collections,” TIES 12, 2011, 111–144. Ogihara, H., “Researches about Vinaya-Texts in Tocharian A and B,” diss., Ecole pratique des hautes études, 2009.
Okimoto Katsumi (沖本克己), “Ritsu bunken” (律文献; Vinaya Literature), in: Yamaguchi Zuihō (山口瑞鳳), ed., Tonkō kogo bunken (敦煌胡語文献; Dunhuang Literature in the Languages of the Barbarians), KT 6, 1985, 395–418.
Ōtani daigaku toshokan-zō Chibetto daizōkyō kanjuru kandō mokuroku (大谷大學圖書館藏西藏大藏經甘殊爾勘同目錄; A Comparative Analytical Catalogue of the Kanjur Division of the Tibetan Tripiṭaka Kept in the Library of Otani University), publ. Ōtani Daigaku Toshokan (大谷大學圖書館; Otani Daigaku Library), Kyoto, 1930–1932.
Pachow, W., A Comparative Study of the Prātimokṣa: On the Basis of Its Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit and Pāli Versions, Santiniketan, 1955.
Pachow, W., & R. Mishra, The Prātimokṣa-Sūtra of the Mahāsāṃghikas: Critically Edited for the First Time from the Palm-Leaf Manuscripts Found in Tibet, Allahabad, 1956.
Pachow, W., & R. Mishra, “The Prātimokṣa Sūtra of the Mahāsāṅghikas,” Journal of the Gaṅgānāth Jhā Research Institute, 1952–1953, 1–48.
Palumbo, A., An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarikaāgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經, DDBCRS 7, Taipei, 2013.
Panglung, J.L., Die Erzählstoffe des Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya.
Analysiert auf Grund der tibetischen Übersetzung, StPhB.
MS 3, Tokyo, 1981.
Prebish, C.S., A Survey of Vinaya Literature, DLS 1, Taipei, 1994.
Prebish, C.S., Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Prātimokṣa Sūtras of the Mahāsāṃghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins, University Park PA, 1975, repr. Delhi, 1996.
Rockhill, W., “Le Traité d’émancipation ou Pratimoksha Sutra,” RHR 9/1, 1884a, 3–26.
Rockhill, W., “Le Traité d’émancipation ou Pratimoksha Sutra,” RHR 9/2, 1884b, 167–201.
Rosen, V., Der Vinayavibhaṅga zum Bhikṣuprātimokṣa der Sarvāstivādins. Sanskritfragmente nebst einer Analyse der chinesischen Übersetzung, DAWB.IO 27; SadT 2, Berlin, 1959.
Roth, G., Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya: Including Bhikṣuṇī-Prakīrṇaka and a Summary of the Bhikṣu-Prakīrṇaka of the ĀryaMahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin, TSWS 12, Patna, 1970, 22005.
Sakurabe Bunkyō (櫻部文鏡), “Chibetto ritten kenkyū yohō”
(西藏律典研究豫報; A Preliminary Report on Research into Tibetan Vinaya Texts), OG 9/4, 1928, 197–216. Samten, J., & J. Russell, “Notes on the Lithang Edition of the Tibetan Bka’-’gyur,” TibJ 12/3, 1987, 17–40. Sāṅkṛtyāyana, R., Vinayasūtra of Bhadanta Gunaprabha, SJŚŚ.SJS 74, Bombay, 1981.
Sasaki, S., & N. Yamagiwa, “A Vinaya Fragment on the Qualifications of a Vinayadhara,” in: J. Braarvig et al., eds., Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. III, MSC, Oslo, 2006, 189–193.
Satō Tatsugen (佐藤達玄), Shibun-ritsu biku kaihon: Shibunritsu bikuni kaihon (四分律比丘戒本・四分律比丘尼戒本; Four-Part Vinaya Bhikṣu Precept Book and Four-Part Vinaya Bhikṣuṇī Precept Book), vol. VII, Ritsu-bu (律部; Vinaya Section), Shinkokuyaku daizōkyō (新国訳大蔵経; New Translation into the [[[Japanese]]] National Language of the Great [[[Buddhist]]] Canon: Vinaya Section), Tokyo, 2008.
Satō Tatsugen (佐藤達玄), Chūgoku bukkyō ni okeru kairitsu no kenkyū (中国仏教における戒律の研究; A Study on
Precepts in Chinese Buddhism), Tokyo, 1986.
Scherrer-Schaub, C., “Copier, interpréter, transformer, représenter, ou Des modes de la diffusion des Écritures et de l’écrit dans le bouddhisme indien,” in: G. Colas & G. Gerschheimer, eds., Écrire et transmettre en Inde classique, ÉT 23, Paris, 2009, 151–172.
Schopen, G., “The Buddhist Nun as an Urban Landlord and a ‘Legal Person’ in Early India,” in: F. Voegeli et al., eds., Devadattīyam: Johannes Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume, WSIA 5, Bern, 2012, 595–609; repr. in: G. Schopen, Buddhist Nuns, Monks, and Other Worldly Matters: Recent Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu, 2014, 119–130.
Schopen, G., “On Sending the Monks Back to Their Books: Cult and Conservatism in Early Mahāyāna Buddhism,” in: G. Schopen, Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: More Collected Papers, Honolulu, 2005, 108–153.
Schopen, G., “Marking Time in Buddhist Monasteries: On Calendars, Clocks, and Some Liturgical Practices,” in: P. Harrison & G. Schopen, eds., Sūryacandrāya: Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, IeT 35, Swisttal-Odendorf, 1998, 157–179; repr. in: G. Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu, 2004, 260–284.
Schopen, G., “Ritual Rights and Bones of Contention: More on Monastic Funerals and Relics in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya,” JIP 22/1, 1994, 31–80; repr. in: G. Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu, 2004, 285–328.
Schopen, G., “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism: The Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit,” StII 10, 1985, 9–47; repr. in: G. Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India, Honolulu, 1997, 23–55.
Senart, É., Le Mahâvastu, 3 vols., SACOOSS, Paris, 1882–1897, repr. Tokyo, 1977.
Shōno Masanori (生野昌範), “ Shintai-yaku ‘Ritsu nijūni myōryō ron’ no tokuchō” (眞諦譯『律二十二明了論』の特徴; Peculiarities of Paramārtha’s Translation of the Lü ershier mingliao lun [Treatise on the Elucidation of 22 (Verses) on Vinaya]), in: Funayama Tōru (船山徹), ed., Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū (眞諦三藏研究論集; Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramārtha), Kyoto, 2012, 155–178.
Silk, J.A., Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism, Oxford, 2008. Simson, G. von, Prātimokṣasūtra der Sarvāstivādins. Teil I, II, AAWG 3/155, 238, Göttingen, 1986, 2000.
Singh, S., & K. Minowa, “A Critical Edition and Translation of Abhisamācārikā Nāma Bhikṣu-Prakīrṇakaḥ: Chapter One,” Buddhist Studies: The Journal of the Department of Buddhist Studies, University of Delhi 12, 1988, 81–146.
Skilling, P., Mahāsūtras: Great Discourses of the Buddha, vol. II/1–2, SBB 46, Oxford, 1997.
Strauch, I., “Looking into Water-Pots and over a Buddhist Scribe’s Shoulder: On the Deposition and the Use of Manuscripts in Early Buddhism,” AS 68/3, 2014, 797–830.
Takakusu Junjirō (高楠順次郎), ed., Nanden daizōkyō:
Ritsuzō (南傳大藏經・律藏; The Great [[[Buddhist]]] Canon of the Southern Transmission [A Japanese Translation of the Pāli Canon]: Vinayapiṭaka), 5 vols., Tokyo, 1936–1940, 21970.
Tatia, N., Prātimokṣasūtram of The Lokottaravādimahāsāṅghika School, TSWS 16, Patna, 1976.
Thiên Châu, T., The Literature of the Personalists of Early Buddhism, BTS 39, Delhi, 1999.
Tokuda Myōhon (徳田明本), Risshū bunken mokuroku (律宗文献目録; A Catalogue of Literature of the Vinaya School[s]), Kyoto, 1974.
Tokuda Myōhon (徳田明本), Risshū gairon (律宗概論; An
Outline of the Vinaya School[s]), Kyoto, 1969.
Tournier, V., La formation du Mahāvastu et la mise en place des conceptions relatives à la carrière du bodhisattva, Paris, forthcoming a.
Tournier, V., “Protective Verses for Travellers: A Fragment of the Diśāsauvastika-gāthās Related to the Scriptures of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins,” in: J. Braarvig et al., eds., Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. IV, MSC, Oslo, forthcoming b.
Tournier, V., “Scriptural Transmissions of the Mahāsāṃghika and Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins: Remarks on Three Fragments from Nepal and Afghanistan,” paper delivered at The South Asian Manuscript Book: Material, Textual and Historical Investigations conference, University of Cambridge, Sep 26, 2014.
Tournier, V., “The Mahāvastu and the Vinayapiṭaka of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin,” ARIRIAB 15, 2012, 87–104.
Tsedroen, J., A Brief Survey of the Vinaya: Its Origin, Transmission, and Arrangement from the Tibetan Point of View with Comparisons to the Theravāda and Dharmagupta Traditions, VF 1, Hamburg, 1992.
Tsomo, K.L., Sisters in Solitude: Two Traditions of Buddhist Monastic Ethics for Women: A Comparative Analysis of the Chinese Dharmagupta and the Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa Sūtras, Albany, 1996.
Tsuchihashi Shūkō (土橋秀高), Kairitsu no kenkyū (戒律の研究; A Study of Precepts and Vinaya), Kyoto, 1980.
Ueda Tenzui (上田天瑞), Kairitsu no shisō to rekishi (戒律の思想と歴史; The Philosophy and History of Precepts and Vinaya), Koyasan, 1976.
Vinayasūtra’s Pravrajyāvastu Study Group (“Ritsukyō” ‘Shukkeji’ kenkyūkai; 『律経』｢出家事｣ 研究会), “ ‘Ritsukyō’
‘Shukkeji’ no kenkyū (4)” (『律経』｢出家事｣の研究 [4];
A Study of the Pravrajyāvastu [Section] of the Vinayasūtra [Edition and Japanese Translation]),” TDSBKN 29, 2007, 26–65.
Vogel, C., “Bu-Ston on the Schism of the Buddhist Church and on the Doctrinal Tendencies of Buddhist Scripture,” in: H. Bechert, ed., Zur Schulzugehörigkeit von Werken der Hīnayāna-Literatur, Teil 1, AAWG 3/149, Göttingen, 1985, 104–110.
Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M.I., “A Sanskrit Manuscript on Birch-Bark From Bairam-Ali: I. The Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins (Part 4),” MO 6/1, 2000a, 15–18.
Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M.I., “A Sanskrit Manuscript on Birch-Bark From Bairam-Ali: I: The Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins (Part 5),” MO 6/2, 2000b, 10–16.
Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M.I., “A Sanskrit Manuscript on Birch-Bark From Bairam-Ali: I: The Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins,” MO 5/2, 1999a, 27–36.
Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M.I., “A Sanskrit Manuscript on Birch-Bark From Bairam-Ali: I: The Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins (Part 2),” MO 5/3, 1999b, 27–35.
Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M.I., “A Sanskrit Manuscript on Birch-Bark From Bairam-Ali: I: The Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins (Part 3),” MO 5/4, 1999c, 7–19.
Waldschmidt, E., Bruchstücke des Bhikṣuṇī-Prātimokṣa der Sarvāstivādins, KPTEKST 3, Wiesbaden, 1926, repr. MIAKPh 2, Wiesbaden, 1979.
Wang, B., “Buddhist Nikāyas through Ancient Chinese Eyes,” in: F. Bandurski et al., eds., Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur, SWTF Suppl. 5, Göttingen, 1994, 165–203.
Wang Yao (王尧), Facang Dunhuang zangwen wenxian jieti mulu (法藏敦煌藏文文献解题目录; A Catalogue of Tibetan-Language Dunhuang Manuscripts Stored in France), Beijing, 1999.
Wieger, L., Bouddhisme chinois: Extraits du Tripitaka, des commentaires, tracts, etc., 2 vols., Hejian-fu, 1910–1913.
Wille, K., “Survey of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Turfan Collection (Berlin),” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014a, 187–211.
Wille, K., “Survey of the Identified Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Hoernle, Stein, and Skrine Collections of the British Library (London),” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field,
Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014b, 223–246.
Wille, K., Die handschriftliche Überlieferung des Vinayavastu der Mūlasarvāstivādin, VOHD Suppl. 30, Stuttgart, 1990.
Yamagiwa, N., “Vinaya Manuscripts: State of the Field,” in: K. Klaus & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., Indica et Tibetica. Festschrift für Michael Hahn. Zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden und Schülern überreicht, WSTB 66, Vienna, 2007, 607–616.
Yamaguchi Zuihō (山口瑞鳳) et al., eds., Sutain shūshū chibettogo bunken kaidai mokuroku (スタイン蒐集チベット語文献解題目録; A Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts
Collected by Sir Aurel Stein), 12 vols., Tokyo, 1977–1988.
Yao, F., “A Preliminary Report on the Newly Found Sanskrit Manuscript Fragments of the Bhaiṣajyavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya,” Indo ronrigaku kenkyū (インド論理学研究; Indian Logic), forthcoming.
Yonezawa, Y., & J. Nagashima, “The Sanskrit Manuscript Research Project at Taisho University,” in: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann, eds., From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research (Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009), ÖAW Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 460; BKGA 80, Vienna, 2014, 323–332.
Yuyama, A., “The Bhikṣu-Prakīrṇaka of the Mahāsāṃghika- Lokottaravādins Quoted by Śāntideva in His
Śikṣāsamuccaya,” ARIRIAB 6, 2003, 3–17.
Yuyama, A., The Mahāvastu-Avadāna: In Old Palm-Leaf and Paper Manuscripts, vol. I: Palm-Leaf Manuscripts, BCA 15, Tokyo, 2001.
Yuyama, A., Systematische Übersicht über die buddhistische Sanskrit-Literatur, vol. I: Vinaya-Texte, Wiesbaden, 1979.
Shayne Clarke
